Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/06/2006CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 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, Frank Blundetto, Tim Burke, and Thomas Helgeson Members Absent: David Schindler Staff Present: Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer, and City Engineer Colin Manson, Planning Intern Nick Meyers 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 Helgeson, to approve the Agenda. The motion carried 6-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 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 Burke, to approve the minutes of the August 16, 2006, meeting. The motion carried 5-0, with Commissioner Helgeson abstaining. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Pilot Flex Center -Consider Replat of 22 Lots and a Portion of One Lot Into Two Lots and Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization to Allow for the Construction of Two 35,038 sq. ft. Office/Warehouse Buildings Chair Melander opened the public hearing with the standard comments. Commissioner Blundetto recused himself from this Agenda item. Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace presented the request from Fendler Patterson and Manley Commercial, Inc., for preliminary plat to combine all or a portion of 23 existing lots into two lots for the purpose of constructing two 35,038 squaze foot office/warehouse buildings. The site is located along the west side of Energy Way, south of Upper 147th Street West. Lovelace reported that the applicant is proposing to replat Lots 1-22 and the north 719 feet of Lot 39 of the existing Knob Ridge Addition. Staff suggested that all of Lot 39 be replatted. Lovelace reported that staff also has a concern that the applicant may be platting property that they may not exclusively own. Dakota County records indicate that Lot 39 is under multiple ownership. The applicant will need to provide proof that they own all of Lot 39 or it will be necessary to get the consent of all the property owners to replat it prior to any further action by the City. The applicant's parking calculation indicates the need for 88 parking spaces, which is based upon the buildings used primarily as warehouses. The floor plan indicates that the buildings will be approximately 50% warehouse and 50% office. Based upon these uses, staff is calculating that the proposed project would need 208 parking spaces. Parking will also need to be reevaluated based on the parking needs for the existing buildings to ensure that the parking is adequate and meets the parking requirements set in the zoning code. Lovelace reported that storm sewer, water main, and sanitary sewer were installed to serve the individual town office units. Any approval of this project will require removal of any existing unused services. Because the project is part of a previously approved development that included the construction of a ponding area to handle runoff from the site, it is not necessary to provide an infiltration azea on site. The landscape plan is incomplete. The applicant will need to provide a more detailed and complete landscape plan before staff can make any recommendations. The elevations include the use of brick, rockface block and single score concrete block as the primary exterior finish materials for the front and side elevations. The rear of the building, which will function as the loading and unloading area, will have an exterior finish consisting of rockface and single score concrete block visible from the street and pazking azeas. The proposed elevations aze consistent with the existing buildings in the business park and aze incompliance with City code. The building's mechanical systems are not indicated on the plans. All systems will need to be properly screened in accordance with City code. The applicant has not provided any information regarding the exterior finish of the two on-site trash enclosures. All trash enclosures shall be constructed of the same materials as the proposed buildings. Chair Melander and Commissioner Churchill commented on the parking. They indicated they aze concerned about a shortfall of parking. Lovelace stated that the applicant would be bound by the parking as to the uses that could locate in the building. Lovelace will discuss this further with the applicant. John Patterson, one of the applicants, addressed the Commission and stated that they are in the process of revising the plans and will address the parking issues. Chair Melander informed the applicant that he would like to see the project go through as it has potential to generate head of household jobs in the City. 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. Chair Melander closed the public hearing with the standard comments. It is the policy of the Plamring 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. Raising Cane's Restaurant - Consider a Conditional Use Permit and Site P1anBuilding Permit Authorization for a Proposed 3,500 sq. ft. Class II Restaurant o the Existing Burger I{ing Site Planning Intern Nick Meyers presented the request from Raising Canes for a conditional use permit amendment and site plan building permit authorization to allow construction of a 3,500 sq. ft. restaurant with adrive-up window on a .90 acre lot. The proposed restaurant would replace the former Burger King building. The applicant will demolish the existing structure in order to construct the proposed restaurant. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) for a Class II restaurant. The purpose of the CUP is to assure that the use is compatible with the surrounding uses. Meyers reported that access to the site will be via two driveway connections, one from the north frontage road of County Road 42 and the other from Glenda Drive. Two drive-up windows will be located along the west side of the building. The site plan indicates drive-up stacking for up to six motor vehicles, which meets the City's minunum stacking requirements. The applicant is proposing to construct 40 parking spaces. City Code requires that Class II restaurants provide one parking space per every 3 seats. The proposed seating for the restaurant is 93 seats, which would require a minimum of 31 parking spaces. Meyers reported that the new building would be shifted further west from the existing restaurant, which would reduce the amount of pazking on the west side of the building and allow for parking along the east side of the building. Meyers reported that a sidewalk connection, a minimum of six feet wide, from the building to the south property line should be installed to allow pedestrian access to the County Road 42 pathway. The site is generally flat and is the current location of the former Burger King restaurant. The City Engineer reviewed the grading plan and did not identify any significant grading issues. The City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the site plan and provided some recommendations. His comments were included in the staff report. The landscape plan does not meet the City's 2-1/2 % requirement of construction costs. The City's Natural Resources Coordinator made some suggestions to meet the requirement. Meyers stated that the proposed building would be one-story constructed with a combination of brick and stucco finish. Galvanized steel awnings above the windows and entry doors, as well as stainless steel cover panels along the drive-thru windows will be incorporated into the exterior. The elevations appeaz to meet the City Code requirement that all exterior vertical faces be treated as a front and have an equally attractive appearance. The site plan did not contain any details for the materials and finish of the trash enclosure located on the northwest corner of the property. It also appears that the corral at the rear of the building does not meet the City's requirement that all screening materials be comprised of the same materials as the building. Approval of signage is not included with this plan and must be submitted under a separate application. This must be done prior to the installation of any signage. The proposed signage indicated on the elevations does not meet the City's sign regulations. During the public hearing held on August 16, 2006, the Commission discussed the proposed mural and flags located on the building. Commissioner Churchill thinks that it is odd that flags are included as signage. City Attorney Sharon Hills stated that other than the U.S. flag, all other flags aze regulated by City ordinance. Commissioner Blundetto stated that he doesn't see anything wrong with the flags on the building and would be willing to grant a variance. Chair Melander and Commissioner Churchill concurred. Commissioner Helgeson asked what the difference is between the proposed mural for this plan and the recently approved mural for L.A. Fitness. Lovelace reported that the L.A. Fitness artwork is material that is encased in a glass enclosure with no advertising. This proposal is a painted mural and City code does not allow materials to be painted. It is also clear that the mural is advertisement which again, does not meet City code. Mile Wilkes and Kerry Kramp, representing the applicant, stated that they would work with staff to address the issues brought forth. Commissioner Churchill asked staff if the signage issues would be a separate item that would come back before the Planning Conmrission or does the Commission need to deal with it now. Lovelace responded that the applicant would need to request a variance for the proposed signage. Meyers reported that staff is recommending approval of the request with the conditions listed in the staff report. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Blundetto, to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Perrnit for the construction of a Class II restaurant with adrive-up window. The motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Blundetto, to recommend approval of site plan building permit authorization to allow for the construction of a 3,500 sq. ft. restaurant and 40 space surface parking lot on the property Lot 1, Block 1, Dyer Addition, subject to adhering to applicable City ordinances and the following conditions: • Construction shall occur in conformance with meeting the City Engineer's comments from the memo dated July 26, 2006, for the plans received July 24, 2006, subject to relocating the storm sewer outside of the neighboring lot. • Construction shall occur in conformance with the Natural Resources Coordinator's memo dated August 11, 2006, for the plans received July 24, 2006, subject to the submission of a nursery bid list that confirms that the landscape materials meet or exceed 2.5% of the value of the construction of the building based on Means Construction Data. Construction shall occur in conformance with the site plan dated July 24, 2006, subject to installation of a sidewalk connection from the site to the pathway along the north frontage road of County Road 42. Constmction shall occur in conformance to the elevations dated July 24, 2006, subject to removal of the murals and flags and conformance to the City requirement that all screening materials be comprised of the same materials as the building. A signage plan in conformance with the sign regulations must be submitted for review and approval prior to installation of any signs. The motion carried 6-0. B. "PD-341" Amendment -Consider an Amendment to the Maximum Building height in Zone 4A of the Planned Development 341 Tabled at the request of the petitioner. C. 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 Tabled at the request of the petitioner. D. 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. 7. ®THER BUSINESS A. Cedar Brook Market Townhomes -Sketch Plan Review of a Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment from "C" (Commercial) to "LD" (Low Density Residential), Rezoning from "RB" (Retail Business) to "M-4" (Multiple Family ResidentiaU6-8 units per acre), Subdivision of a .71-Acre Parcel Into Two Parcels, and Site PlanBuilding Permit Authorization to Allow for Construction of a Two-unit Townhome Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer presented a sketch plan review from Bruce and Gigi Hehnbolt for a proposed lot split of the Cedar Brook Market property, located at 12503 Germane, to allow the construction of a 2-unit townhome. To accomplish this, the applicant would need to request the following land use actions: • Comprehensive Plan Amendment from "C" (Commercial" to "LD" (Low Density Residential, 0-6 units/acre). • Rezoning from "RB" (Retail Business to "M-4C" (Multiple Family Residential, 6-8 units/acre). • Preliminary plat subdividing the two properties to create two lots with areas of approximately 11,100 sq. ft. (townhouse lot), and 19,700 sq. ft. (convenience store lot). • Site plan review/buildingperrnit authorization to allow construction of a 2-unit townhome on the property. • 15' setback variance from the convenience store parking lotto the new property line (new item). Bodmer reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this sketch plan at its July 19, 2006, meeting. When the site plan was reviewed in more detail, it was determined that a setback variance from the commercial parking lot to the new property line would be required. The "RB" (Retail Business) zoning district requires a minimum 20' setback from a parking azea to a "residential" property line. The applicant would be requesting a 15' variance from the 20' requirement in order to place the new property line 5' from the existing pazking azea. The setback for a pazking lot to a side property line in the "RB" zone is typically 5'. Bodmer reported that the applicant revised the plan to address issues that were raised at the July 19, 2006, meeting. However, with the addition of the setback variance, several issues still remain to be addressed. The City must determine whether it would be appropriate to grant the variance, given the fact that it is a situation being created by the applicant. The applicant explored several layout options and had indicated that the only feasible option would be to obtain a setback variance. Staff agreed that there are not a lot of other opportunities to develop the lot. The consensus of the Commission was that they would be supportive of the setback variance due to the limited options available to develop the lot. B. Cobblestone Lake South Shore Townhomes -Sketch Plan Review of a Proposed 106-unit Townhome Project Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace presented a sketch plan from Tradition Development for a proposed 106-unit townhome development to be located on approximately 9 acres in the Cobblestone Lake South Shore development. Lovelace reported that the site is currently zoned "PD-703/zone 8" (Planned Development), which is an interim zone that allows for sand and gravel mining in accordance with the existing permits, approved plans and Sections 155.285-155.293 of the City's zoning code. It is intended that zone 8 will continue to be used for the purpose of sand and gravel mining and processing and will be rezoned to accommodate proposed residential and commercial development consistent with the Cobblestone Lake Concept Land Use Plan. The Plan identified this area for medium density townhomes with a density of 8-10 units per acre. The proposed project would have a density of approximately 12 units/acre, 2 more than what was indicated on the Cobblestone Lake Concept Plan. Lovelace reported that the site is currently platted as an outlot and would need to be replatted into lots and blocks before any development can occur. Vehicular access to the site will be via private streets varying in width from 20 feet to 25 feet. The 25-foot wide streets are proposed to have on-street parking along one site. Lovelace reported that staff would like to see the most southerly east/west street that is aligned with 159a' Street West and the north south street that is aligned with Eastbend Way dedicated as public streets. Lovelace reported that each unit will have a private driveway that will accommodate the parking of two vehicles. Twelve off-street guest parking spaces are indicated on the plan. The applicant is proposing that the remaining guest parking be satisfied with on-street parking on the proposed private streets within the development. Additional on-street parking on the abutting public street will also be available. Building elevations indicate the use of Hardi-Plank as the exterior's primary material. All exterior finishes shall adhere to the design standards set forth in Planned Development No. 703. City water service to the Cobblestone Lake development is currently at capacity. Al] future projects within this development will require the extension of secondary trunk water line. The City is currently working on the design for a second trunk line and expects to begin construction in the fall of 2006. No permits will be issued for any new projects within the Cobblestone Lake development until the trunk line is connected and in service. This could have an impact on the timeline for this proposed project. Commissioner Churchill is concerned that there is not adequate parking. Churchill also would like to see more attractive elevations. Commissioner Diekmann commented that some of the townhomes are facing a berm. He also wanted to know if the green spaces would be a park or private green spaces. Lovelace responded that they will be private green spaces. Brian Sullivan and Molly Breunig, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. In response to Commissioner Diekmann's comment earlier about the townhomes facing a berm, Sullivan stated that the berm area will be nicely landscaped. Sullivan also showed colored elevations of the project. Commissioner Churchill stated that she would like to see more attractive elevations and a variety of colors. C. Set Meeting for Planning Commission Work Session Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer reported that the Hartford Crroup has requested an informal work session with the Planning Commission to discuss proposed changes to the master plan in the Legacy of Apple Valley North. The consensus of the Commission was to meet one hour prior to the next Planning Commission meeting, which will be September 20th, at 6:00 p.m., in the Regent Conference Room. Commissioner Churchill requested that staff send a reminder notice of the meeting. Bodmer stated that materials will be prepared by the applicant and distributed to the Commission prior to the meeting. Commissioner Blundetto stated that if materials are not available prior to the meeting, the meeting should be cancelled. 8. ADJOi1RNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Blundetto moved, seconded by Churchill, to adjourn the meeting at 8:13 p.m.