Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/19/2006CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 19, 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, and Frank Blundetto Members Absent: Tim Burke and David Schindler Staff Present: Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer, Associate City Planner Mazgazet 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 6E, LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS, River Valley Wireless Tower, was tabled at the request of the petitioner. Chair Melander called for approval of the amended Agenda. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Helgeson, to approve the amended Agenda. The motion carried 5-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 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 June 21, 2006, meeting. The motion carried 5-0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Wal-Mart CUP Amendments -Consider Amendments to the Existing Temporary Trailer Storage, Outdoor Garden Display and Sales, and Propane Tank Display and Sales Area Conditional Use Permits Chair Melander opened the public hearing with the standard comments. Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace presented the request from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The applicant is requesting the following amendments to their existing conditional use permits (CUP): • Allow for the relocation of the temporary trailer storage area from the northwest comer to the northeast corner of the property. • Allow for the expansion and modification of the outdoor garden center display and sales area. • Amend site plan as part of the propane tank display and sales area. Lovelace reported that the temporary storage trailer conditional use permit allowed for the placement of six non-stacked storage trailers from September 15 to December 31 annually. The amendment request is to allow for the relocation of the storage trailer azea from its current location at the northwest corner of the property to the property's northeast corner. This 7,000 sq. ft. area is also the proposed relocation area for the 15' x 70' cardboard bale and shipping pallet storage area. The second request is for an amendment to the existing outdoor garden center display and sales area CUP to allow for a slight modification to the area of the east side of the gazden center and changes to the walls of the outdoor garden enter. The revised plans indicate the removal of approximately 120 sq. ft. of area in the southeast corner of the garden area and removal of the north 120 feet of the east wall, which is currently 10 feet high and constructed of a combination of rock masonry block with black ornamental picket fencing on top of the masonry wall. The applicant is proposing to replace the east wall with a 16-17 feet high wall that will be constructed of 100% picket fencing. The third request is that site plan for the propane tank display and sales area be amended to reflect the proposed revisions to the garden center. Lovelace stated that these amendments are part of the applicant's building addition request currently under review by the City. Chair Melander asked Lovelace if the fencing material and type is the same fence that was denied in a previous request in 2003 from Wal-Mart. Lovelace replied that yes, it is the same type offence that was denied in 2003, which in turn, made the applicant submit different fencing materials. Chair Melander stated that he would like to know the relationship of the noise to neaz by residents with the proposed relocation of the dock area. Commissioner Churchill stated that since the June 6"' Planning Commission meeting, she has made several trips to Wal-Mart. During those trips, she has noted and taken pictures of several code violations. The violations include the display ofnon-garden center products located in the outdoor garden center, gazden center products set up along the sidewalk, cars parking in the fire lane, numerous carts blocking traffic, broken concrete and no attempt to warn customers of the obstruction, tractor trailers being stored in the loading area for days at a time, etc. These are all violations of the current conditional use permits that the City authorized. Churchill stated that Wal- Mart does not care about City ordinances, nor do they care about the safety of their customers. She stated that the City should not have to invest time policing them. Churchill added that she also visited the store before tonight's meeting and she found it interesting that the above violations had been cleaned up. Commissioner Helgeson stated that he has also visited the store several times and concurs with the same violations that Commissioner Churchill noted. Commissioner Blundetto commented that when Wal-Mart originally requested the approval to build the store, trailer storage in the back of the building was a significant issue for nearby residents. Commissioner Churchill stated that the agreement was to have temporary storage of the tractor trailers and that a wall be built to screen them. Commissioner Helgeson requested a report on the number of times Code Enforcement has cited the store for violations. Commissioner Blundetto stated that the City's Code Enforcement team is the very best and that they are in the business of trying to work with business owners rather than ticket them. Chair Melander is concerned that with the request to expand the store, more products will be coming in to the store and that will only compound the current problems. He stated that if the proposed addition is approved, the store would be increasing in size by about 70% and the storage area by only 50%. Dave Selegren, representing the applicant, stated that during Commissioner Churchill's visit, construction was going on due to a draining problem in the Outdoor Garden Center. He also added that in his opinion, the construction of a wall in the trailer storage area will be an improvement over the existing area. Selegren stated that there is also the possibility of eliminating the trailer storage azea or reducing the size by half. Commissioner Diekmann asked if the propane tank storage area would still be located in an open area. Commissioner Churchill commented that Wal-Mart always makes promises while appearing before the Commission to ask for additional requests but never keeps their word once the request is granted. Selegren responded that things won't be perfect but will rather be an improvement over the existing operations. Selegren suggested the store can change its operations in response to the Commission's coanments. He pointed out that other communities have worked out operation procedures with the store in order to keep the store in check. Churchill stated that she would be interested in hearing what those procedures are. Lovelace pointed out that the City has already set up procedures to ensure that the store is following the conditions in the CUP and the store has not done so. Commissioner Blundetto feels that it is absurd that Wal-Mart hasn't taken a leadership role and obeyed City code. He does not feel that City staff needs to so establish more procedures in order to make Wal-Mart obey City code. Steve Woodly, in charge of Wal-Mart operations for the Twin Cities, stated that he took charge of the store in February of this year. He suggested that perhaps the City and Wal-Mart could work together to ensure that the store is obeying City Code. Commissioner Blundetto stated that he is angry that Woodly is proposing such an idea and that he will not listen to him suggesting that the City take the leadership role and responsibility that Wal-Mart should have. Chair Melander asked if anyone from the public would like to address the Commission and if so, they may do so now. Dr. Pat Wellick, of Blomquist Eye Clinic, stated that his office is across the street from the trailer storage area. He stated that there are always trucks parked in the loading dock area. He stated that when he recently built his clinic, the City made sure that he obeyed every City code. He feels that Wal-Mart should also comply with City code. Martha Gunkle stated that she is supportive of the proposed store addition. She would like to see groceries added to the store. She feels that Wal-Mart's prices are better priced for people with limited incomes. 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. 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. The subject property is located at 5949 126a' Street West. Bodmer reported that the Planning Commission first considered this request at their June 21, 2006, meeting. Based on the information that was provided, the motion to recommend approval of the request for the two variances failed unanimously (essentially recommending denial) on a vote of 0-6. The Commission stated that the reason for the denial of the variance was that it did not meet the requirements of the zoning code and hardship test. The applicant was not present at the meeting and later stated that he did not know that he needed to attend the meeting. Bodmer reported that after reviewing the request at its July 13, 2006, meeting, the City Council sent this request back to the Planning Commission. When the Commission reviewed the variance request, staff stated incorrectly that the coverage requirement in the Planned Development 315 zoning district was 20% for all impervious surfaces on the property. Bodmer reported that after further review, staff found that the 20% coverage requirement is, in fact, for all buildings on the property. Given this new information, the Council asked that the Planning Commission review the request again. Bodmer reported that the subject property is located in PD-315 Zone 1. The house side setback in PD-315 is 10'. The applicant requested a 5' variance to construct the sumoom 5' from the side property line. A rendering of the sumoom area shows that the sunroom will have an exterior of glass panels and will be constructed on posts which will help to reduce the bulk of the appearance of the addition. Bodmer reported that PD-315 allows a minimum lot area of 8.400 sq. ft. with a maximum building area of 20%. The subject lot is 8,908 sq. ft. which would allow a maximum building area of 1,782 sq. ft. The existing building area on the lot is 2,394 sq. ft. or 27%. An 8' x 22' sunroom would bring the total building area up to 2,570 sq. ft. or 29% on the lot. Bodmer reported that the building area of the lot including the house and garage is currently 7% over the 20% maximum allowed. PD zoning districts typically have building coverage requirements to ensure that overly large houses are not constructed on smaller single family lots. The building coverage requirement is also intended to ensure that the total amount of impervious surface area created by the home, driveway, accessory buildings and other impervious surfaces does not exceed 35%. The total impervious surface area on the Hoffarth lot is currently 38% and could increase to 40% with the requested addition. A deck is not classified as an impervious structure. Bodmer reported that although the proposed sunroom would be constructed on posts, the City Engineer states that no drainage would take place under the structure, therefore, it should be classified as an impervious surface and part of the building coverage calculation. Bodmer reported that two similar building coverage variances were reviewed and granted recently. In 2004, a resident in the Apple Ponds neighborhood was granted a variance from a 20% maximum coverage requirement to allow 22% building coverage for addition, and in 2005, a similar request was granted for a resident in the Hyland Pointe Shores neighborhood for a variance from a 20% maximum coverage to allow 23% coverage for an addition. Bodmer reported that the owner states that he would be willing to construct a rain garden in order to accommodate the additional run-off that would be created by the 9% building coverage. A fence is currently located from 4' to 7' onto the neighbor's property to the east side of the rear yard. This led to confusion over the location of the side property 5 line. Bodmer stated that the City Council expressed concern about the fence and would like to see it relocated. Bodmer reported that 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. The Hoffarth home is 7% over the allowable building coverage permitted by City code. A variance to allow 9% coverage on the lot is a significant amount over the requirement. The granting of a variance to allow the addition. may lead to similar requests that result in the construction of large homes on smaller single family lots. Commissioner Blundetto asked if there is anything different about the request other than the impervious surface building coverage. Bodmer replied that other than the building coverage figures, the request is the same. Commissioner Churchill asked if the maximum coverage variances granted in 2004 and 2005 were under 20% prior to the variance request. Staff responded that the homes were under the 20% maximum building coverage. Churchill wanted to know how the building coverage goes unchecked during the development process. Bodmer responded that they were overlooked during the building permit process while under construction. Commissioner Helgeson asked if there were any plans to relocate the west fence, in addition to the east side. Helgeson also wanted to know if the fence was constructed by the applicant and if there have been any additions by the applicant. Mathias Hoffarth, the applicant, stated that there have been no additions since he has lived there and that the home is exactly the way he bought it. In response to moving the east side of the fence, Bodmer stated that it would probably be not worthwhile as it is only a few inches off of the property line. Hoffarth explained that he and his wife requested the addition in order to expand their dining room to accommodate their extended family. Hoffarth also stated that he is working with an attorney to deal with the fence issue which will increase the size of his lot. If the lot size is increased, a variance might not be needed. Commissioner Churchill commented that it seems like the variance request could be resolved once the property line is determined. Hoffarth withdrew his request. He will review his options once the property line is determined. B. 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 P1anBuilding Permit Authorization to Allow for the Construction of 72,786 sq. ft. Addition to an Existing 129, 958 sq. ft. Retail Store Tabled at the request of the petitioner. C. Legacy North Townhomes -Consideration of Proposed Amendments to "PD- 739" (Planned Development), Preliminary Plat, and Site P1anBuilding Permit Authorization to Allow for the Construction of Seven (7) Townhouse Buildings with a Total of 134 Dwelling Units Tabled at the request of the petitioner. D. 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 Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer reported that at the June 21, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, a public hearing was held on proposed ordinance amendments developed by the Urban Affairs Advisory Committee (UAC) pertaining to the parking of vehicles on lots zoned for low-density residential uses. During the public hearing, numerous comments were received from the public and the Planning Commission. One of the main concerns expressed by the Commission was that the resident response rate for the survey that was conducted by the UAC was low. The survey included information about the City's current ordinance and potential ordinance amendments. Staff explained that the survey was not intended to be a statistically representative survey and that the UAC felt that the number of responses received (378) was adequate. Bodmer reported that because of the concerns raised during the public hearing, staff is recommending that the proposed ordinance amendments be subject to further comments by residents. City staff will place the ordinance amendments on the City's website, along with an article, and submit a press release to various print media to attempt to generate additional comments. Staff would like to have the amendments on the website through the end of summer so that residents who own boats, RVs or other recreational vehicles will be available to participate. Staff will then bring the responses and comments back to the Planning Comxission in early Fall for review. Commissioner Churchill was concerned that staff is using the same method to advertise the survey that was previously used. Commissioner Helgeson stated that he polled about ahalf--dozen of his neighbors and none of them knew about the previous survey. He feels that the same thing will happen if the same method of advertisement is used. Commissioner Churchill stated that she would like to see a flyer put in each resident's water bill. Churchill stated that if cost is an issue, perhaps an additional sheet inserted in the water bill would not increase the cost of postage. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Helgeson, to direct staff to place the proposed residential parking ordinance amendments on the City's website distribute press releases, and prepare and distribute an insert in City water bills, to solicit further comments. The motion carried 5-0. E. Westerberg Variance -Consideration of an Eleven Foot (11') Front Yard Building Setback Variance to Construct a House Addition Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes presented the request from Craig Westerberg for a variance to reduce the front yard setback from the required 30 feet to 19 feet for a house addition. Dykes reported that the Westerberg property is located at 141 South Surrey Trail and is zoned "R-2" (single family residentiaUminimum lot size of 18,000 sq. ft.). The lot requires a front setback of 30'. The existing house is approximately 28' from the front property line. Dykes reported that a fire occurred at the subject house on April 14, 2006. Because of the house fire, the applicant wishes to rebuild and expand the house. The applicant is requesting a front Yazd setback variance fora 625 sq. ft. addition. Approximately 220 sq, ft. of the addition would encroach 11 feet into the front setback. The footprint of the existing house is 2,661 sq. ft. including the garage. The addition would be approximately 3,285 sq. ft. Dykes reported that the lot faces unimproved right-of--way (ROW) for South Surrey Trail. The unimproved ROW provides access to asingle-family lot located at 153 South Surrey Trail. Utilities are also located in the ROW, therefore, the City cannot vacate the ROW. Dykes stated that the driveway accessing 153 South Surrey Trail does not meet City standazds because it is constructed in the unimproved ROW. The City does not anticipate improving the ROW adjacent to the Westerberg property, though it always remains a possibility. Dykes reported that the property was platted in 1955 and the house was constructed in 1963. Staff was unable to find any record of why the house straddles two lots, but the City Code states that not more than one principal building can be placed on a lot, and the building must meet all required setbacks. Dykes stated that in order to expand the existing use, the house and the lot must be brought into conformance with City Standards, which means the property owner should replat the lots. The property owner is concerned that the replatting process will delay construction of the addition. He also states that he and his family aze unable to live in the home because of the house fire. He would prefer that the City not require him to replat the property. Dykes reported that 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. Dykes stated that staff fmds that the variance request is justifiable because the house is angled on the lot in such a way that it limits the placement of an addition. Also, because the variance will be located near unimproved ROW, the variance request will not have a significant impact on neighboring properties. Staff is recommending approval of the variance with the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Churchill stated that she is familiaz with the property and feels that staff has made a good compromise in recommending the variance with the condition 8 that the lot be replatted into one lot of record. In response to the applicant's concern over the time it takes to replat the property, Commissioner Helgeson wanted to know how long the replatting process takes. Dykes stated that it varies but generally replatting can take around eight weeks. Craig Westerberg, the applicant, stated that he had not seen staffs' recommendations and was concerned about the $5,000 cash escrow to be held by the City to guarantee the performance of the conditions of the variance, in particulaz, the replatting process. Westerberg wanted to know how the $5,000 was arrived at. Dykes stated that the $5,000 would cover legal staff time in case the owner did not follow the condition of replatting the lot into one lot of record and the City had to complete the process. City Attorney Sharon Hills further clarified that the money is not for legal staff time but would be used to cover costs in case the City had to go to court to enforce the replatting of the lot. Commissioner Blundetto stated that he is not in favor of having the applicant deposit $5,000. He feels that the applicant is aheady facing a hazdship due to fire in his home. Blundetto suggested that the applicant, in good faith, go ahead and begin the replatting process. Commissioners Churchill and Diekmann asked what would be the recourse if the applicant does not begin the replatting process but proceeds with the improvements on his home. Blundetto stated that the Commission could make a condition that the applicant has to apply for the replatting in order for the variance to be valid. City Attorney Hills stated that the City has no leverage if the applicant gets a building permit before replatting the property. Commissioner Churchill asked if an option would be to hold the Certificate of Occupancy until the replatting process in completed rather than have the applicant pay the $5,000 escrow. Hills stated that she is not in favor of holding the Certificate of Occupancy because it will be hard for the City to determine whether the home is lived in or not. Hills would instead like to see the City collect the $5,000 escrow. Commissioner Helgeson stated that he is not in favor of the $5,000 escrow, nor is he in Favor of not issuing the Certificate of Occupancy until the new plat is recorded. Commissioner Blundetto stated that the applicant would be doing himself a disservice to show up at the City Council meeting without initiating the platting process. He would like to trust the applicant to do the right thing. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, to recommend approval of a variance at 141 South Surrey Trail to reduce the front yard setback from the required 30 feet to 19 feet for a house addition as shown on the submitted plan received on July 10, 2006, subject to adhering to applicable City codes and the following conditions: a. The property owner shall replat the three subject lots into one lot and no building permit shall be granted until the applicant has shown proof to the City that the replatting process has been started. b. No persons shall occupy the residential structure on the subject property until (1) the restoration of the residence is completed in accordance with all proper building permits, (2) a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the existing residence and the proposed addition, and (3) the new plat is approved by the City and recorded with the Dakota County Recorder's Office. c. The applicant shall plant one tree for each tree removed as part of the house expansion, and shall maintain all existing improved drainage swales on the property. Chair Melander asked for a second. The motion failed for a lack of a second. Commissioners Blundetto and Helgeson stated that they were not in favor of section b.3. of the motion that states "no person shall occupy the residential structure on the subject property until the new plat is approved by the City and recorded with the Dakota County Recorder's Office." MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Helgeson, to recommend approval of a variance at 141 South Surrey Trail to reduce the front yard setback from the required 30 feet to 19 feet for a house addition as shown on the submitted plan received on July 10, 2006, subject to adhering to applicable City codes and the following conditions: a. The property owner shall replat the three subject lots into one lot and no building permit shall be granted until the applicant has shown proof to the City that the replatting process has been started. b. No persons shall occupy the residential structure on the subject property until the restoration of the residence is completed in accordance with all proper building permits c. The applicant shall plant one tree for each tree removed as part of the house expansion, and shall maintain all existing improved drainage swales on the property. The motion passed with a vote of 3-2. F. River Valley Wireless Tower - Consider a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for Construction of a 90-foot Communications Tower Tabled at the request of the petitioner. 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Cedar Brook Market -Sketch Plan Review of a Proposed Comp Plan Amendment from "C" (Commercial) to "LD" (Low Density 0-6 units/acre), Rezoning from "RB" (Retail Business) to "M-4" (Multiple Family ResidentiaU6- 8 units/acre), and Subdivision to Allow for Construction of a Two-unit Townhome on a Portion of a .71-acre Parcel Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer presented a sketch plan from Bruce and Gigi Hehnbolt for a proposed split of the Cedar Brook Market property to allow for the construction of a 2-unit townhome. The applicant would need to request the following: 10 • Comprehensive Plan Amendment from "C" (Commercial) to "LD" (Low Density Residential at 0-6 units/acre). • Rezoning from "RB" (Retail Business) to "IvI-4C" (Multiple Family, 6-8 units/acre). • Preliminary plat subdividing the two properties to create two lots with areas of approximately 11,300 sq. ft. and 19,500 sq. ft. • Site plan building permit authorization to allow for construction of a 2-unit townhome on the property. Bodmer reported that the property is currently guided and zoned for commercial uses. The Cedar Brook Market, located on Germane Avenue, is a 2,400 sq. ft. convenience store that provides gas and convenience items to the immediate neighborhood. The applicants state that the property is not viable for additional retail uses, so they have no plans to expand the building. Instead, the owners wash to subdivide the property to construct a 2-unit townhome. Bodmer reported that the plans show the new property line 5 feet from the southern edge of the existing Cedar Brook parking lot, creating an 8.5' x 140' or 11,270 sq. ft. new lot. The remaining parcel would be 19,530 sq. ft. Shared access to the site would be from Germane Avenue. The building would face the store with the backyard looking out over the open area of the Glenbrook Townhouse development. Bodmer stated that the request appears to meet the minimum requirements of the zoning districts in terms of lot areas and setbacks for atwo-family home in an M-4 zoning district and the remaining RB lot. However, the City still needs to determine whether the request is consistent with the overall goals of the comprehensive plan and is compatible neighboring land uses. The overall consensus of the Commission was that the project looks great and that after initial review of the sketch plan, it appears they would be willing to support it. The Commission recommended that the applicant continue to work with staff to resolve any issues. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Blundetto moved, seconded by Helgeson, to adjourn the meeting at 9:31 p.m. 11