Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/21/2006CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 21, 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, Tim Burke, and Frank Blundetto Members Absent: None 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Director Tom Lovelace stated that Agenda Item 7A, OTHER BUSINESS, Cobblestone Lake South Shore Townhouses, was withdrawn by the applicant. Chair Melander called for approval of the Agenda as amended. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the Agenda. The motion tamed 7-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 7, 2006 Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, he called for approval of the Minutes. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Helgeson, to approve the minutes of the May 17, 2006, meeting. * The motion carried 6-0. *Comrissioner Churchill was not present during the vote. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Residential Parking Ordinance Amendments -Consider Amendments to the City Code Regarding the Parking and Storage of Motor Vehicles, Recreational Vehicles, and Trailers on Residential Lots Chair Melander opened the public hearing with the standard comments. Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes presented the proposed residential parking amendments. Dykes reported that on May 26, 2005, the City Council gave the Urban Affairs Advisory Committee (UAC) the task of reviewing the provisions of the existing City ordinances dealing with the number of motor vehicles that could be parked on asingle-family residential lot and the parking of commercial vehicles and trailers on residential lots. At its July 13, 2005, meeting, the UAC voted unanimously to review any an all provisions in the City's existing ordinances regarding the parking and storage of any type of vehicle on single-family residential properties. The UAC then decided that resident input was needed, so it directed staff to prepare a survey that would be conducted on the City's website. The survey was launched on August 9, 2005, and completed on September 15, 2005. A total of 378 responses were received. The overall finding for those who decided to complete the survey was that Apple Valley residents are concerned about parking issues in the City and favor a more restrictive approach to managing ordinance issues. A copy of the staff report analyzing the survey results was included in the staff report. Based on the results of the resident survey, the UAC determined that there was enough resident support to justify amendments to the City Code regarding parking in residential districts. The UAC agreed to address four areas of concern: • Clarify definitions of passenger vehicles, recreational vehicles, non- residential vehicles, and trailers. • Establish setbacks, appropriate locations, paving requirements and time limitations for vehicles. • Establish a limitation of the number of vehicles that could be stored or parked on a residential lot. • Establish a limitation on the size of vehicles that could be stored or parked on a residentiafl lot. The UAC met monthly from October 2005 to Apri12006 to craft ordinance language to address the concerns raised in the resident survey. The Committee also exarnined the ordinances of 13 neighboring cities to assist with the update to the City's Code. The Committee also addressed the concerns voiced by residents who attended the UAC's meetings. At its Apri126, 2006, meeting, the UAC voted to unanimously recommend draft language for the update to the relevant sections of the City Code. Chair Melander was concerned about the low number of responses to the survey and wanted to know where the survey was published. Commissioner Churchill also stated that she was concerned about how residents were notified about the survey and that it appears that based on the low response, many residents were not aware of the survey. Churchill suggested polling residents by mail. Commissioner Churchill asked if the City still has properties that have unpaved driveways. City Attorney Sharon Hills responded that current code requires paved driveways. Commissioner Churchill stated that she is concerned about vehicles blocking the sidewalks and screening issues, in particular on comer lots with no setbacks, and vehicles parked on a side lot that would block on-coming traffic. Dykes stated that the Committee did review that issue extensively before making a recommendation. Commissioner Burke complimented the UAC on their efforts to come up with the proposed amendments. He stated that the Commission should keep in mind that the study was, in his opinion, qualitative and not quantitative. Commissioner Schindler stated that the survey needs to be more comprehensive and should be done by mail to each resident. In regards to the recommendations, he feels that six cars outside of the garage are too many cars at a single family resident. He asked if the paved surfaces include patio surfaces. Dykes responded that a paved surface does not include patio areas. Chair Melander asked if there are lots that will not comply as a result of the recommended changes. Dykes stated that there would be instances where the lot would not meet code and in that case, a resident could request a variance. Melander asked if there would be penalties to the resident. Dykes stated that it would be treated the same as any code enforcement issue. Commissioner Helgeson stated that he, too, is concerned about the low sample rate of the survey and feels that it is statistically insignificant. He did, however, feel there were good comments from the residents who did respond to the survey. He suggested perhaps a flyer should be included in the water bills. Helgeson stated that in regards to the proposed amendments to the City code, he has a problem with 6 vehicles on parking on the driveway and feels that 4 would be more acceptable. Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer stated that other neighboring cities allow as many vehicles as you can park on a driveway and that only Minnetonka is as restrictive as Apple Valley. Helgeson stated that the 13' setback and screening could get a little tricky as it relates to enforcement. Commissioner Diekmann asked if visitors can park on the street overnight currently. Bodmer responded that yes, the current code allows visitors to park on the street overnight if the driveway is full. Commissioner Churchill asked why the code regarding blocking the sidewalk is not included in the ordinance. Bodmer responded that Planning staff enforces only the zoning part of the code and that it is included in the police part of the code. Commissioner Churchill suggested that it be cross-referenced the code. Chair Melander asked if anyone from the public would like to address this Agenda item, and if so, they may do so at this time. Donald Hufnagle„ 137 Garden View Drive, stated that his home is in a cul-de-sac and cannot meet the 13 ft. setback . Hufnagle asked if there would be any exceptions for residents who cannot meet the setback. Carol Houseman, 13057 Herald Court, a resident of Apple Valley for 18 years, stated that she saw the survey in the newspaper and on the web site. She felt that the survey was well advertised. Houseman would like to know how the Committee defined commercial trailer, i.e., a business name on the trailer versus no name on the trailer. Houseman would like to not see commercial trailers parked in residential neighborhoods. Aubrey Gray, 984 Cortland Drive, stated that he has lived in Apple Valley for 11 yeazs. Gray does not understand why the City needs more covenants and ordinances, especially since they all seem to be cosmetic. He feels that the changes will require residents to incur unnecessary expenses. Gray suggested that perhaps the City dedicate a site that would be available for residents to park their recreational vehicles. He is concemed that the City is becoming RV unfriendly. Gray later added that some employees aze allowed to bring home a company van and he is concemed that this will be in violation of the ordinance. Carson Kimble, 7941 Hallmark Way, stated that he moved to Apple Valley in 1989 with a trailer. He feels that the 13 ft. setback penalizes residents who have short driveways. Kimble asked if there would be a provision to park a trailer on the side of the garage during the winter months. He states that the way the code is proposed to be amended, it would make him a criminal or he would have to get rid of the trailer. Dan Wallenta, 13050 Flagstaff Avenue, stated that he is surprised by the low response of the survey. He is concerned about the proposed changes as they relate to the storage of recreational vehicles. Bill Fliehn, 5642 133rd Street Court, stated that the residents on his block were not aware of the survey. He would like residents to have the opporhxnity to respond to the survey. The recommended setbacks for recreational vehicles are an issue for him. Cathy Guseth, 14360 Exley Lane, stated that her driveway can only fit one car. She is afraid she will get a ticket for parking on the street which in turn will cause a financial hardship for her. She also stated that recreational vehicles need to be on a level surface in order to operate correctly. Winter storage of recreational vehicles is also an issue for her. Guseth suggested the survey be distributed to residents through their water bill. 4 Ruth Gray, 984 Cortland Drive, stated that she has a lot of friends who own RVs that come to visit. She is afraid they will not be able to park their RV on the street while they are visiting. Gray stated that they have not received any complaints from neighbors about the RV parked on the street. Bob Aubin, 7995 134th Street, asked how long can an RV be and is it considered a Class 1 or Class 2 vehicle. Bodmer responded that as long as the RV meets the setbacks, length does not matter. Judy Shirk, 160 Hayes Road, stated that she lives in an older Orin Thompson home with a single garage and there is no room to expand. Shirk is concerned that the proposed changes will make parking more restrictive and will make her home less attractive when she is ready to sell it. Shirk would like staff to review homes with . single family garages more in depth as it relates to the proposed changes. Chair Melander closed the public hearing with the standard comments. It is the policy of the Planning Commission not to act on an item the same night as its public hearing. Staff will continue working on the issues brought forth tonight. B. Legacy North Townhomes -Consideration of Proposed Amendments to "PD- 739" (Planned Development), Preliminary Plat, and Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization to Allow for the Construction of Seven (7) Townhouse Buildings with a Total of 134 Dwelling Units Chair Melander opened the public hearing with the standard comments. Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the request from Legacy Holdings/Hartford Group. The applicant is requesting the following: A zoning amendment to revise Planned Development 739 to adjust boundaries of the sub- districts; revise permitted use of Lot 1, Block 3 and Lot 1, Block 4 from town office to multiple family use; reduce setbacks on the short sides of buildings from 15' down to 5' along public streets; and revise acceptable exterior building materials. The applicant is also requesting preliminary plat of Legacy Townhomes Apple Valley North to adjust the lines of Lot 1, Block 3 and Lot 1, Block 4 to create wider lots along Foliage Avenue. A vacation of 10' of Fontana Trail would be necessary to accommodate the new lot lines. Lastly, the applicant is requesting site plan review/building permit authorization to constmct 7 condominium buildings with a total of 134 units. Bodmer reported that the master plan for the subject area, approved May 27, 2004, showed five condominium buildings with a total of 96 units and two town office buildings with a total of 53,200 sq. ft. of commercial space on these lots. The applicant is now requesting construction of seven condominium buildings with a total of 134 residential units. Bodmer reported that in relation to the request for an amendment to PD-739, the adjustment of the sub-zones is a housekeeping item with no issues. Changing the use of Lot 1, Block 3 and Lot 1, Block 4, is requested because the applicant states that the town office market is saturated at this time and is no longer a viable use. The exterior building materials amendment is requested to allow concrete products that look like masonry brick and stone in place of true masonry. Bodmer stated that any amendments to PD-739 will impact the development of the property on the west side of Galaxie Avenue. Bodmer reported that applicant is seeking to revise the approved plat to widen the buildable areas of the two lots adjacent to Foliage Avenue. The vacation of 10' of Fontana Trail would result in a significant loss of surface parking. The City Engineer and Public Works Director are not in favor of vacating and reconstmcting the brand new roadway. The Central Village Plan calls for two different housing types in this area. The applicant's plan shows a single building type. Bodmer stated that staff is concerned that the styling of the building is still very similar even though one has an exterior with primarily brick-veneer and the other has an exterior of primarily stone-veneer. The applicant needs to provide colored renderings and material samples for the Commission and staff to review. The grading plan was reviewed by the City Engineer. He states that the lowest opening of the garages must be a minimum of 3' above the 100 year high water level or 943.3 feet. Kelly Park is shown between Buildings 5 and 6. This park has been dedicated to meet the recreation needs of the residents in this development. The plans show private sidewalks crossing over the park property and connecting up to the City trail. The City would need to authorize private use of the public land. Commissioner Schindler commented that the building elevations are very similar to the Wensmann's Midtown Village town homes a few blocks away. He is concerned that the City might be saturated with this type of product. Schindler stated that he understood that the Central Village was to be a unique product with the building types all being different. The product presented tonight is all the same. Schindler would like to know what happened to "different." Frank Janes, representing the applicant, showed the building elevations. He stated that they have the five buildings that were originally reviewed but now would like to add more units to the plan. Regarding the statement earlier about the loss of parking, Janes does not feel losing a few parking spaces will negatively impact the plan. Commissioner Helgeson stated that he is concerned about the 10 ft. vacation and would like the applicant to reduce the number of units rather than vacate 10 ft. Joe Collins, the landscape architect for the site, stated that the building can not be reduced. Commissioner Diekmann is concerned about the distance between the sidewalks on the southern end of Buildings 6 and 7 as they relate to the underground parking. Diekmann is also concerned about the connection between the neighborhood to the east connecting to the development and Kelley Park. Janes stated that the streets are already in place. Bodmer stated that she will have the Public Works Director review the connection. Commissioner Churchill stated that there is a significant setback issue on Building 4. She stated that she would have a hard time granting a variance. She would also like to know where Building 5 guests would park. Collins, Hartford's Landscape Architect, stated that they are trying to create a walkable development. Chair Melander pointed out that there is not much space between the streets and driveways and he is concerned about safety. Churchill stated that if the applicant is pushing buildings closer to the street to get more units, she is not in favor of that approach. Commissioner Helgeson requested the applicant provide a sample of the cementious product they are proposing to use. He would like to see a building locally where the product was used. Commissioner Diekmann is also not overly anxious to use a substitute product. He feels that just because it is available does not mean that we need to change our policy. Commissioner Blundetto asked about access for fire trucks to Building 5. He stated there is no truck access. Commissioner Diekmann stated that he was hoping to see something more unique from the applicant. He feels that the proposed building type is akeady over built in the City. He has issues with the height of the building and the slope of the road. The applicant has not delineated it very well in the report. He would like the applicant to provide more on grades, flooding, etc. Colin Manson, City Engineer, stated that the floor elevation of the garages is not because of the water table level, it is actually the high water mark that the pond drains into. Manson stated that he is concerned that the garages are below the 100-year high water mark which could result in flooding issues. Chair Melander asked if anyone from the public would like to address this Agenda item, and if so, they may do so at this time. No comments wee received from the public. Chair Melander closed the public hearing with the standard comments. C. River Valley Wireless Tower - Consider a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for Construction of a 90-foot Communications Tower Chair Melander reported that this Agenda item remained open from the June 7, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes presented the request from River Valley Church and T-Mobile for a conditional use pernut for a wireless communication tower to be located at River Valley Church. Dykes reported that the proposed tower and antennas are subject to conditions listed in Section 155.385 of the City code. The City code defines a conditional use as one that is permitted in a zoning district provided certain criteria are met. In general, if the request meets the objective standards delineated by applicable ordinances, the permit must be approved. If the request does not meet the standards, the permit must be denied. Dykes stated that this proposal does not meet several of the conditions listed in the ordinance. Dykes reported that the 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, Dykes stated that 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, and the tower must 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, and 107 feet from the north property line, and 214 feet from the east property line. Although no engineering plans were submitted by the applicant, the manufacturer states that the monopole will be deigned 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 on itself. Therefore, the 36-foot measurement would be considered the fall zone. The City's ordinance would require that the tower 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 storm. In addition, the City Engineer's office has reviewed the proposal and stated that complete structural calculations are needed to review the plan. He is also concerned about the possibility of tower collapse during severe weather. Dykes stated that because of the proximity to the church building, the location of the tower does not comply with the standards in Section 155.385. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the tower structure must be relocated so that it complies with the setbacks listed in the ordinance. In addition, the applicant must supply complete structural calculations for review by the City Engineer and the Building Inspections Department. 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 applicant has not submitted an application for the building permit. The permit submittal must comply with the standards of Section 155.385 (attached). Dykes reported that the proposed wireless tower be denied based on the following: • The proposed tower is not located a minimum of 2 times the fall zone from any structure, as required by City code. • The applicant has not submitted engineering specifications to show the "weak point" of the tower structure. • The applicant has not submitted engineering specifications that the tower will be constructed to exceed 1.25 times normal requirements. • The applicant has not submitted written statements from the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, 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; and a report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer. Dykes stated that another option available would be for the Commission to direct staff to amend the ordinance so that the setback requirements in commercial, industrial, and institutional zones are removed from the ordinance. In this case, the applicant would need to withdraw the current petition and resubmit when the ordinance amendment is completed, if the City Council determined such an amendment necessary. Commissioner Helgeson asked why the City's code is more stringent than other cities. Dykes responded that one of the City's attorneys working on the code previously worked in the cell tower industry for many years and felt that the technology has not been around long enough to prove itself. Helgeson asked if we were revising the code as it relates to poles. Dykes responded only the portion of the code that involves commercial districts and that residential setbacks will be retained. Helgeson recommend that the City examine the code from other the property owner's risk and allow them to accept the risk. Commissioner Diekmann stated that he is in favor of a more stringent policy. Diekmann added that staff has indicated that there are four other sites on the property that the pole can be located. Therefore, other options are available to the applicant and he is not in favor of amending the code. Steve Carlson, representing T-Mobile, stated that he would like to see the code amended. Carlson stated that all of the sites available for the pole are in front of the building and he feels that aesthetically, they would not be a viable option for the Church. Carlson stated that he would need to have more discussions with the Church regarding alternative sites. Commissioner Burke agreed that from an aesthetics point, the pole should not be in front of the building. Commissioner Blundetto feels there are a lot of other site options available to the applicant and would like to have the applicant explore them with the Church. Commissioner Schindler feels that the location of the pole is a safety issue and sees no reason to change the ordinance. Commissioner Helgeson disagrees. Helgeson stated that the poles are engineered to hold up and the there has not been any failure to date. He feels that the owner is responsible for failure if it should occur. Commissioner Blundetto stated that the issue for him is not an engineering issue but rather a code issue. Commissioner Diekmann concurred and stated that he is not amenable to amending the code. Chair Melander closed the public hearing with the standard remarks. Carlson agreed to discuss other options with the Church since the majority of the Commission does not seem to want to change the code. Dykes reported that due to timing issues with the application, the applicant will need to request a 60-day extension in writing. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Hoffarth Sunroom Variance -Consideration of a Five Foot (5') Side Yard Building Setback Variance and a Variance from the Impervious Lot Area Coverage Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer presented a request from Mathias and Amelia Hoffarth for a variance from the impervious lot coverage and side yard setback requirement to construct an 8' x 22' sunroom. Bodmer reported that the subject property is located at 5949 126a' Street West. The property lies within Planned Development 315 (PD-315), Zone 1, in the Pinecrest development. Zone 1 of the PD allows a minimum lot area of 8,400 sq. ft. with a maximum impervious surface area of 20%. The subject lot is 8,908 sq. ft. which would allow a maximum impervious surface area of 1,781.6 sq. ft. The existing impervious surface area on the lot is 3,379.2 sq. ft. or 37.9%. An 8' x 22' sunroom would bring the impervious surface area up to 3,555.2 sq. ft., or 39.9%. Bodmer reported that while the sunroom is constructed on posts, stormwater drainage will sheet off the sunroom out onto the lot and not take place under the sumoom area. The City Engineer states that he would classify the sunroom as an impervious surface area for his calculations and that he does not have a concern with the requested variance for the additional impervious surface coverage. He stated that the size of the addition (176 sq. ft.) and the amount of additional coverage would be miniscule and have little effect on the storm water drainage system. Bodmer reported that the maximum impervious surface area allowed in a typical "R- 3" (single family, 11,000 sq. ft.) zoning district is 35% and that staff would not support a variance to allow greater than 35% impervious coverage on a residential lot. While one property may not negatively impact the stonnwater system, the City has to keep in mind that granting such a request may set precedent for similar requests. 10 Bodmer reported that the side yard setback for the house side of the lot in PD-315 is 10 feet. The applicant is requesting a 5 foot variance to construct the sunroom 5 feet from the side property line. In order to grant a variance, the City must determine that a physical hardship be present in order to grant it and that logical alternatives are not available to the applicant. Bodmer reported that staff is recommending that the variance be denied because it does not meet the strict interpretation of the zoning code and hardship test. Commissioner Blundetto asked if the applicant was present to comment on this request. The applicant was not present. MOTION: Commissioner Blundetto moved, seconded by Diekmann, to recommend approval of the variance request from the impervious lot area coverage and side yard setback requirement to construct an 8' x 22' sunroom. The motion failed 0-6. B. Wal-Mart -Consider Amendment to an Exisfing Conditional Use Permit to Allow for the Relocation of the Cardboard Bale and Pallet Storage Area, and Site P1anBuilding Permit Authorization to Allow for the Construcfion of 72,786 sq. ft. Addition to an Existing 129, 958 sq. ft. Retail Store Tabled at the request of the petitioner. OTHER BUSINESS A. Cobblestone Lake South Shore Townhouses -Sketch Plan Review of a P Proposed 106-unit Town Home Project Withdrawn at the request of the petitioner. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Diekmann, to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. 11