Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/07/2006CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES J[JNE 7, 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, David Schindler, and Tim Burke Members Absent: Frank Blundetto Staff Present: Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace, City Attorney Shazon Hills, Associate City Planner Mazgaret Dykes, and 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: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Schindler, to approve the Agenda. The motion carried 6-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 17, 2006 Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, he called for approval of the Minutes. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the minutes of the May 17, 2006, meeting. The motion carried 6-0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. River Valley Wireless Tower - Consider a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for Construction of a 90-foot Communications Tower Chair Melander opened the public hearing with the standard comments. Associate City Planner Mazgazet Dykes presented the request from River Valley Church and T-Mobile, for a conditional use permit (CUP) fora 90-foot tall monopole communications tower and antenna to be located next to the River Valley Church building. Dykes reported that the proposed tower and antennas are subject to conditions listed in Section 155.385 of the City Code. If the request meets the objective standards in the ordinance, the permit must be approved. If the request does not meet the standards, the permit must be denied. Dykes stated that the request does not meet several of the conditions listed in the ordinance. City code requires that towers be located at least two times the fall zone from a structure and at least one and one-half times the fall zone from a property line. A fall zone is that area on the ground surrounding a tower structure, as certified by the manufacturer or an independent structural engineer, in which the structure or other debris (such as ice) would fall in the event of collapse or other structural failure. In addition, any tower located closer to a property line a distance equal to the height of the tower must be constructed to meet structural standards at least 1.25 times the normal requirements. The tower must also be enclosed by a minimum 6-foot high fence with a locked gate. Dykes reported that the applicant is proposing to construct the 90-foot monopole approximately 4 feet from the church building, 56 feet from the northwest property line, 107 feet from the north property line, and 214 feet from the east property line. Although the applicant has not submitted the engineering plans for the tower, the manufacturer states that the monopole will be designed with a weak point about 54 feet up from the base so that if the structure fails, the top 36 feet would fall and collapse. The 36-foot measure would be considered the tower's fall zone. Per the City's ordinance, the tower must be located at least 72 feet from any structure, and 54 feet from any property line. The City's Fire Marshal has expressed concern about the proximity of the tower to the Church building. He is especially concerned that the tower could collapse during a tornado, and the possibility that people maybe taking shelter inside of the Church during such a stone. hi addition, the City Engineer's Office stated that complete structural calculations are needed to review the plan. The City Engineer is also concerned about the possibility of the tower collapsing during severe weather. Because of the proximity to the Church building, the location of the tower does not comply with the standazds in Section 155.385. It is staff's opinion that the tower structure must be relocated so that it complies with the setbacks listed in the ordinance. The applicant must also submit complete structural calculations for review by the City Engineer and Building Inspections Department. Dykes reported that the plan shows that the tower will be sunounded by a 6-foot high fence topped with barbed wire. The City allows bazbed wire fencing to be installed only in those areas zoned for Agricultural uses. The applicant has verbally stated that barbed wire could easily be replaced with another type of unclimable fencing product. Dykes reported that all communication towers require the issuance of a building permit and the City Council must authorize the issuance of the building permit. The 2 applicant has not submitted an application for the building permit authorization. The building permit submittal must comply with the standards of Section 155.385, which include a submission of written statements from the FAA, the FCC, and any appropriate State review authority stating that the proposed tower complies with regulations administered by that agency or that the tower is exempt from those regulations. A report from a qualified and licensed engineer is also needed. The applicant must also submit a letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower, as long as there is no negative structural impact upon the tower, and there is no disruption to the service provided. Due to an error at the Apple Valley This Week newspaper, the public hearing notice for this item was not printed in time to give proper notification. Staff recommended that the Plamung Commission open the public hearing, receive the comments, and keep the public hearing open until the June 21st meeting, so that all interested parties have the opportunity to comment on the request. Commissioner Churchill asked if the Commission could make an excepfion to the code since the request does not meet the criteria in the code. Dykes responded that exceptions can not be made to the code, but the Commission could amend the code. City Attorney Sharon Hills stated that the Commission is authorized to deny the request based on it not meeting the specific criteria in the code, but could recommend a variance. Commissioner Churchill asked if there is any other location on the site that would meet City code. Dykes responded that staff could review alternative locarions. Commissioner Burke asked if the City has authorized any other communications towers in the last two years. Dykes responded that a tower was authorized in Hagemeister Park. Steve Carlson, a consultant for T-Mobile, explained that the existing communications coverage where the tower is proposed to be located is currently weak. The applicant looked at other sites to locate the tower such as water towers and office buildings but was unable to find a suitable site. River Valley Church was interested and open to having the tower located on their property and they have entered into an agreement to locate the structure on the Church's site. Carlson stated that the closest structure to the tower is 121 feet away. Carlson showed examples of towers in other neighboring cities that are close to existing buildings and other structures. Commissioner Helgeson asked about the failure scenario in severe weather. Carlson stated that out of 10,000 towers within the past 10 years, there has been no fall failure. Commissioner Helgeson asked Carlson what happens to the lease agreement between the Church and T-Mobile if the request is denied. Carlson stated that the lease agreement is contingent upon approval by the City, otherwise, the agreement will be null and void. 3 Commissioner Churchill stated that the City's code might be a little stringent and that the Commission might want to consider modifying it so that it would allow the applicant to take on the liability if the tower does not meet the fall zone criteria. Chair Melander asked the applicant to summarize surrounding cities code in regards to communications towers. Dykes stated that staff would also review other cities code in relation to the potential for amending the code. Commissioners Schindler and Churchill stated that they would be interested in seeing the fall zone as it relates to other buildings on the site. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Schindler, to keep the public hearing open until the June 21, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed 6-0. B. Grand Slam -Consider Planned Development Zoning Amendments, Minor Subdivision, Conditional Use Permit, and Site P1anBuilding Permit Authorization to Allow for Construction of a 31,860 sq. ft. Commercial Recreation Building on a 2.44-Acre Lot Withdrawn by the petitioner. C. Wal-Mart -Consider Amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit to Allow for the Relocation of the Cardboard Bale and Pallet Storage Area, and Site PlanBuilding Permit Authorization to Allow for the Construction of a 72,786 sq. ft. Addition to an Existing 129,958 sq. ft. Retail Store Chair Melander opened the public hearing with the standard comments. Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace presented the request from HTPO and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for an amendment to their existing conditional use permit to allow for the relocation of the existing outdoor cardboard bale and shipping pallet storage area. They are also requesting site plan building permit authorization to allow for the construction of a 72,786 sq. ft. building addition. The 19.5-acre site is located at 7835 150` Street West and is the location of an existing 128,958 sq. ft. retail building and a 639-space surface parking lot. Lovelace reported that the applicant would like to relocate the outdoor cardboard bale and shipping pallet storage area from the current northwest corner of the property to the property's northeast corner. In addition, they are requesting to increase the size from its current 1,050 sq. ft. to 3,900 sq. ft. This would require the removal of 14 parking spaces, of which 6 spaces will be reconfigured directly to the east of the proposed storage area. A 13 ft. high masonry wall would be constructed along the west, north, and east side of the storage area. An existing masonry walfl would screen the proposed site from the south. The proposed site plan indicates a 72,786 sq. ft. addition to an existing 129,958 sq. ft. retail building and an addition of 280 surface parking spaces. The site plan indicates the placement of a trash compactor and condenser units along the west side of the addition. The applicant needs to provide the City with more detail on the type of screening material for the condenser units to ensure that the units will be properly screened in accordance with City Code. The applicant is not proposing to add landscaped islands at the north end of the pazking aisles. Lovelace stated that staff believes the applicant should install these islands as recommended by the City's traffic consultant. In addition, the islands will help fulfill the landscaping requirement. The applicant is proposing changes to the garden center entrance and the screening material for the outdoor display area located along the south wall of the building. The garden center and outdoor display aze approved conditional uses and any modifications will require an amendment to the conditional use permit. The plan indicates the location of a proposed off-sale liquor operation in the southwest corner of the new addition. The City of Apple Valley operates a municipal off-sale operation and state statute does not give the authority to grant off- sale liquor licenses to cities that operate municipal off-sale liquor stores. The off- sale liquor sales operation of this request must be removed from consideration. Lovelace reported that the applicant is proposing to paint the EFIS material indicated on the plan. No exterior painting is allowed, per the City Code. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct an existing sidewalk that extends north south through the existing parking lot, which would be 8 feet wide. The proposal indicates replacing approximately two-thirds of the sidewalk and ties the new sidewalk with the exiting 6-foot wide sidewalk. Lovelace recommended that the entire existing sidewalk be replaced with an 8-foot sidewalk. Commissioner Diekmann stated that he would like to see the sidewalk connected to the main entrance and that the entire sidewalk be 8-feet wide. Signage is not included with this request. A sepazate application and signage plan must be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to the erection of any signs. The applicant presently has a conditional use permit for the sale of propane tanks. Commissioner Churchill questioned how the proposed changes would affect the sales location of the propane tanks. Lovelace stated that the applicant would still have to allow for the tanks to be stored and picked up by customers outside. Commissioner Churchill stated that she visited the store in response to this request and found that there were pallets of garden material outside on the sidewalk. In addition, a truck was parked and blocking traffic in front of the store. She stated that the entrance by the garden center is horrible in relation to traffic and that there should be no parking allowed along the pedestrian sidewalk in front of the garden center. Lovelace stated that the store is in violation of their CUP if gazden material is stored or sold outside on the sidewalk. The store is also in violation if vehicles aze parked along the fire lane in front of the store. Commissioner Churchill would like to see the street level view of the proposed changes relative to the berm and how it affects residences close to the building. Commissioner Diekmann asked if the existing 13 ft. loading dock wall would be extended in order to accommodate large trucks. Lovelace stated that the wall would be extended and that the applicant would need to calculate how far a truck would extend into the dock area. Commissioner Diekmann also asked whether the dock doors would need to be screened from existing residents. Lovelace stated that staff would require screening along 147`" and Pennock Avenue. Chair Melander visited the store today and found about 100 bikes for sale parked outside of the store. Lovelace stated that this is in violation of the existing conditional use permit. Commissioner Helgeson stated that he is concerned about the additional increase of the dock area and the idling of trucks to nearby residents. Brian McCool, representing the applicant, stated that the truck engines do not idle while loading and unloading. McCool also stated that the dock will have only one additional bay than what presently exists. In response to comments made earlier by the Commission and staff, McCool stated that landscaping has been added in place of the liquor area, the condenser units and compressor will be screened, and the EFIS will not be painted as stated in the staff report. Commissioner Helgeson asked if the store was trying to create three separate entrances. Debra NcNulty, the current store manager, stated that the store would have two main entrances plus the gazden center. Commissioner Helgeson asked if there was a store in the azea that the Commission might look at that is similar to the proposal. Charlie Howley, an architect representing Wal-Mart, stated that there aze similar stores in Maple Grove and Shakopee. Commissioner Churchill stated that she would like to see pictures of the existing structure compared to the proposed structure. She is concerned about changes in the dock area, the distance and height of the masonry walls, etc. It should be noted that during the presentation, the applicant presented different renderings than what had been given to the Planning Commission for review. This made it difficult to review the project. Chair Melander asked if anyone from the public would like to address the Commission and if so, they may do so at this time. Cheryl Clark, 7929 147x' Street West, asked the following: Will the entrance to the loading dock change? What are the hours that the trash compactor/compressor will be in operation? Will employee parking be changed to a different location? Does the store manager have a plan to keep trash out of nearby resident's yards (a problem that presently exists)? Lovelace stated that staff will address these concerns with the applicant. Albert Aitkin, 13739 Fairlawn Avenue, stated that he supports the expansion and that it would be a great addition to the City. He is, however, concerned about traffic flow as you enter the store off of Pennock Avenue. He stated that the proposed sidewalk connecting to the store's entrance is a good idea. Aitkin suggested that perhaps charging for shopping carts would make shoppers more responsible to return carts to the cart corral. Joy White, 7754 Glenda Court, stated that the she is excited to see the expansion of the current store. She stated that a lot of seniors live in the area and the store allows them to be able to walk and shop. She feels that the traffic is manageable and is not a hazard. White feels the existing shopping cart area is adequate and would not like to see it increased. McNulty, the store's manager, stated that that she is excited about the proposed expansion. She lives in the community and is active with the Apple Valley Chamber of Commerce and the Apple Valley Foundation. As store manager, McNulty stated that she is interested in hearing from the public and responding to concerns voiced about the store. Chair Melander closed the public hearing with the standard comments. Lovelace stated that staff will continue to work with the applicant to address the comments and issues brought forth tonight. B. Grand Slam -Consider Planned Development Zoning Amendments, Minor Subdivision, Conditional Use Permit, and Site PlanBuilding Permit Authorizafion to Allow for Construction ofa 31,860 sq. ft. Commercial Recreation Building on a 2.44-Acre Lot Withdrawn by the petitioner. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. L.A. Fitness -Consider Proposed Rezoning, Replat, and Site PlanBuilding Permit Authorizafion to Allow for Construction ofa 45,000 sq. ft. Health and Fitness Facility on a 5.1 Acre Lot Assistant Community Development Director Tom Lovelace presented the request from Continental Properties and L.A. Fitness for a rezoning from "PD-541/zone 1" (Planned Development) to "PD-244/zone 2", preliminary plat to combine two existing lots into one lot of record, and site plan building permit authorization to allow for construction ofa 45,050 sq. ft. health and fitness club with a 310-space surface parking lot. A public hearing for this item was held on May 21, 2006. Lovelace reported that the site is currently zoned "PD-541/zone 1", which is a zoning district that provides for a mix of motor vehicle service, repair, and sales uses. Health or athletic facilities are not a pemutted use within "PD-541" so a rezoning would be required. The applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned to "PD-244/zone 2" which is the zoning district for the property further to the west at Cedar Avenue and County Road 42. "PD-244" provides for a mix of shopping center, freestanding retail, and limited business uses, including health or athletic clubs and facilities. Lovelace reported that the site is currently platted as two separate lots. Drainage and utility easements are along the perimeter of each of the existing lots. The proposed project would require the petitioner to combine the lots into one 5.1 acre lot of record. Consolidation of the two lots will not remove the existing drainage and utility easements. It will be necessary to vacate the easements within the two lots and reestablish easements along the inside perimeter of the lot lines, as indicated on the preliminary plat. The site plan shows the construction of a 45,050 sq. ft. health club located in the far southeast corner of the site. The first floor has an area of 42,050 sq. ft. and the second floor has an azea of 3,000 sq. ft. The applicant indicates that the facility will have an indoor pool, spa, basketball court, racquetball courts, free-weight area, locker rooms, and an exercise machine area. The site plan shows an existing full access to the north from 151St Street West, a proposed full access to the south from 152"a Street West, and aright-in, right-out access from Galaxie Avenue. The plan indicates 310 parking spaces, which meets the requirement for the building and use. The parking area will be screened to the north, south, and east by landscape berms and trees. Although not indicated on the plan, the applicant has stated that they will be willing to install bike racks on the site. Lovelace stated that the site is relatively flat and was recently used as a car sales lot; therefore, minimal grading will be required to prepaze the site for the proposed health club and parking lot. The revised. grading and utilities plans have been reviewed by the City Engineer. It appears that the majority of his concerns have been adequately addressed. The elevations indicate that the building will be comprised of brick masonry, plaster/stucco and glass. The north elevation is composed mostly of brick with a perforated metal rotunda over the main entrance. The east, south and west elevations are comprised of a mix of building materials, and have brick arcade features on each end of the building containing sports art graphic panels. The south and east elevations also have a brick arcade in the center containing spandrel glass. During the public hearing, staff expressed some concern with the sports art graphic panels shown on the elevation drawings and the lack of equally attractive west elevation. The applicant has reviewed their elevations to include an arcade element along the west elevation. The Natural Resources Coordinator reviewed the landscape plan and made several recommendations. The applicant submitted a revised landscape plan and it appears that the revisions have adequately addressed his concerns. City code requires that the value of the landscaping materials be 2.5% of the estimated building construction cost based on Means construction data. The applicant must submit a detailed planting price list to verify that this requirement is met. The City's Fire Marshal reviewed the proposed plans and recommended that the existing onsite fire hydrant be relocated to the front of the building. In addition, two fire hydrants should be added along the south side of the building. The applicant submitted revised plans based on the Fire Marshal's recommendations. The Fire Marshal has not reviewed the revised plans, therefore, final approval will be contingent upon his approval of the fire hydrant. Lovelace reported that there is a pedestrian connection from the main entrance to the sidewalk along Galaxie Avenue. There are also pedestrian connections from the main entrance through the parking lot to the sidewalks along the north and south of the site. Building signage and a pylon sign will require submission of a signage plan that conforms to the City's sign regulations and any zoning district regulations. At the public hearing, comments were received from the public regarding the amount of traffic generated from this proposed use and its impact on traffic flow along Galaxie Avenue, and the 151st and 152"a Streets. The City's Traffic Consultant has addressed these concerns. Staff also requested accident information from the Police Department. A copy of the Traffic Consultant's comments and Police Department report were provided to the Commission. Lovelace reported that staff is recommending approval of the request. Chair Melander asked members of the Commission if they were comfortable with the revised west elevation. Eric Toll, representing the applicant, stated that they feel that the revised west elevation is adequate. Toll also stated that in addition, they have added glass along the Galaxie Avenue side of the building to make it more appealing. Commissioner Helgeson asked the applicant why glass spandrel was not put in on the west elevation as requested by the Commission. Kim Graham, representing the applicant, stated that basically it came down costs. Commissioner Schindler and other members stated that they were comfortable with the revised west elevation. Commissioner Diekmann commented that the revised plans look great and he applauds the applicant for taking the Commission's comments and recommendations into consideration. 9 MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Churchill, to recommend approval of the rezoning of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Apple Valley Ford 2"d Addition, from Planned Development No. 541/zone 1 to Planned Development No. 244/zone 2. The motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Churchill, to recommend approval of the CONTINENTAL 145 FUND preliminary plat. The motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Churchill, to recommend approval of the site plan/building permit authorization request to allow for the construction of a 45,050 sq. ft. health and fitness club and a 310-space parking lot on the property described as Lot 1, Block 1, CONTINENTAL 145 FiJND, according to the preliminary plat, subject to adhering to applicable City ordinances and the following conditions: • Issuance of a building permit shall be subject to approval of the rezoning of the property to Planned Development No. 244/zone 2. • Issuance of a building permit for this development shall be subject to approval of the final plat. • Construction shall occur in conformance with the revised plans dated May 31, 2006, subject to the approval by the City Fire Marshal of the fire hydrant locations. • Construction shall occur in conformance with the revised elevation drawings dated May 30, 2006, subject to approval of "Option B" for the west elevation. The motion carried 6-0. 7. OTHER BUSINESS None. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Churchill to adjourn the meeting at 9:21 p.m. 10