Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/2006CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 L CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to Order by Vice Chair Jeannine Churchill at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Jeannine Churchill, Keith Diekmann, David Schindler, Frank Blundetto, Tim Burke, and Thomas Helgeson Members Absent: Tom Melander Staff Present: Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes, and City Engineer Colin Manson, Planning Intern Nick Meyers 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Churchill asked if there were any changes to the Agenda. There being none, she called for approval of the Agenda. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Diekmann, to approve the Agenda. The motion carried 6-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 Vice Chair Churchill asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, she called for approval of the Minutes. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Diekmann, to approve the minutes of the September 6, 2006, meeting. The motion carried 6-0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. River Valley Wireless Tower -Consideration of a Proposed Amendment to the Section of the Zoning Code that Pertains to Wireless Towers, and a Conditional Use Permit Request to Allow for the Construction of a 90-foot Communications Tower Vice Chair Churchill opened the public hearing with the standard comments. Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes presented the request from River Valley Church and T-Mobile for an amendment to Section 155.385 of the City Code pertaining to communications towers and antennas, and a conditional use permit for a wireless communication tower at River Valley Church located at 14898 Energy Way. Dykes reported that Section 155.385 of the City Code that deals with setbacks from structures states that wireless towers must be set back a minimum of 2 times the fall zone from any structure including all structures on the subject property, or at least 1 1/z times the fall zone from a property line. The Code does not differentiate between structures located on a property where the tower is to be located to and adjacent properties. The applicant also indicated that the current Code requirements essentially prohibit the installation of wireless towers in business and industrial zoning districts because it is difficult to place such structures on sites where existing buildings are located and meet the required setbacks. Dykes reported that the applicant is requesting an amendment to the Code that would require wireless towers to be placed a minimum of 2 times the fall zone from neighboring structures in commercial and industrial zoning because it is difficult to place such structures on sites where existing buildings are located and meet the required setbacks. The applicant is not requesting to change any other portion of the zoning code. Dykes stated that City staff examined the codes for other metro-area cities and found that none of these codes have setback requirements from structures as stringent as Apple Valley's in that almost all of the codes do not have setback requirements from commercial, industrial, or institutional structures. Dykes stated that the applicant made a presentation at the informal City Council session on August 10, 2006. The Council considered the applicant's information and stated that they would be amenable to amending the City Code so that setback requirements between tower structures and buildings would apply only to buildings on neighboring properties. The Council stated that it preferred wireless towers be located in Industrial, General Business, and Business Park zoning districts, and would rather not see towers in residential districts. The Council also stated that it did not have any issues with amending the Code if the amendments would make it easier for towers to be located in commercial and industrial districts. Dykes stated that this item was also discussed at a previous Planning Commission meeting and some members thought that the City Code could be amended so that the setback requirements would apply to neighboring properties provided the owner submitted proof of insurance for the building. Dykes reported that the applicant is also requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a 90-foot monopole communications tower and antenna to be located on the River Valley Church site. The plan is the same one that was presented by the applicant in June of 2006. Dykes stated that the proposed tower and antennas are subject to conditions listed in Section 155.385 of the City Code, unless the code is amended so that the structure setback requirement is measured from buildings on neighboring 2 properties. If the Code is amended per the applicant's request, the subject wireless tower would comply with City Code. The applicant would like to construct the 90-foot monopole 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. The manufacturers state 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 on itself. The 36-foot measurement would be considered the tower's fall zone. This would not meet the current ordinance. The tower would have to be located at least 72 feet away from any structure and 54 feet from any property line. Dykes stated that the City Engineer's office and the Fire Marshall reviewed the plan and are concerned about the tower collapsing during a major storm and the possibility that people may be taking shelter inside of the church during such a storm. The applicant indicated that the. tower is designed to withstand wind speeds up to 100 miles per hour. The City Engineer's office will review the structural calculations further. The plan indicated that the tower will be surrounded by a 6-foot high fence topped by barbed wire. The City does not allow barbed wired fencing in this zoning district. The applicant stated that they could easily replace the fencing with another type of unclimbable fencing product. Dykes reported that if the request is approved, the City Council must authorize the issuance of the building permit. The applicant has not applied for site plan building permit application because soil boring tests must be performed prior to application. Several items will be needed from the applicant in order for the City to proceed with the request. Commissioner Helgeson stated that the proposed ordinance amendment puts Apple Valley more in line with neighboring communities. He agrees with the City Council in that the towers should be located in industrial, general business, and business park zoning districts. Dykes stated that Apple Valley's communications tower regulations are newer and more restrictive and were written more from a safety perspective. Commissioner Diekmann asked if the City is more concerned with the aesthetics of the tower or the safety of the tower. Dykes responded that the City is concerned with both. Vice Chair Churchill stated that in the event of a major storm, there would probably be more damage from other debris rather than the communications tower. Steve Carlson, representing the applicant, stated that the site plan has not changed from the plan that was presented previously to the Commission. Carlson proceeded to give an overview of the presentation he made at the informal City Council meeting. Vice Chair Churchill asked if anyone from the public would like to address the Commission, and if so, they may do so at this time. No comments were received from the public. It is the policy of the Planning Commission not to act on an item the same night as its public hearing. Since there were no outstanding issues or concerns, the consensus of the Commission was to take action. MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Burke, to recommend approval of an amendment to Section 155.385 of the City Code section that deals with setbacks from structures. The motion carried 6-0. The Commission will act on the Conditional Use Permit request at its next regularly scheduled meeting. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Pilot Flex Center -Consider Replat off 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 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 32,212 square foot office/warehouse buildings. The site is located along the west side of Energy Way, south of Upper 147' Street West. Lovelace reported that the original plat proposed the replatting of Lots 1-22 and the north 719 feet of Lot 39 of the existing KNOB RIDGE ADDITION. As suggested by staff, the applicant has revised their plat to also include all of Lot 39. Staff is also recommending that the plat be revised to show a drainage and utility easement ten feet wide and centered on the south property line and the common north south lot line for the proposed lots. Lovelace stated that staff was previously concerned that the applicant maybe platting property that they may not exclusively own. Dakota County records indicated that Lot 39 was under multiple ownership. Lovelace informed the applicant that the consent of all of the property owners is required in order to replat Lot 39 prior to any further action by the City. The City received a legal document from the applicant titled "Severance Agreement" which appears to give consent to the replatting of Lot 39 by the common interest owners on the Knob Ridge Office Park. Because of the late receipt of this document, staff was unable to submit the document to the City Attorney for review. No approval should be granted until the City Attorney has had a chance to review and comment on the Agreement. Lovelace reported that since the mailing of the Commission's packet, the applicant submitted revised plans regarding the proof-of-parking. Lovelace gave a summary of the revised parking plans. In addition to the revised plan, staff has identified alternative locations for proof-of-parking. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to ensure that the pazking is adequate and meets the requirements set forth 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 area on site. The applicant submitted a revised landscape plan. The plan was reviewed by the City's Natural Resources Coordinator. The applicant should incorporate his comments into the plan. 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 reaz 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 parking azeas. The proposed elevations are consistent with the existing buildings in the business park and are in compliance 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. A public hearing was held for this project on September 6, 2006. No comments were received from the public. Vice Chair Churchill asked what would trigger the need to generate more parking. Lovelace stated that if problems occur such as increased traffic generated or a use that generates high pazking demand, the City could mandate an increase in the parking. Lovelace added that that staff is considering having the applicant provide a financial guarantee to ensure that parking and landscaping are installed in the future if necessazy. Another option would be to include language in the Resolution or Development Agreement that would ensure these items are addressed. Commissioner Helgeson commented that perhaps another option for the City would be to not require a financial guarantee but to assess the property owner's taxes if work had to be done by the City in the future. City Attorney Sharon Hills stated that the City would need to follow statutory requirements in regards to requiring the Severance Agreement and Cross Access Agreement. The problem with the proof-of-parking is that these Agreements do not identify the number ofproof-of-parking spaces and who will be responsible to install them. Hill suggested that any agreements be approved by the City Attorney's Office. John Patterson, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that they are in favor of providing a suitable agreement rather than a financial guarantee as suggested by staff MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Burke, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for the PILOT FLEX CENTER ADDITION subject to the dedication on the final plat of a five foot (5') wide drainage and utility easement along all common lot lines. The motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Burke, to recommend approval of the site plan/building permit authorization to allow for construction of a 32,212 square building on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, PII,OT FLEX CENTER ADDITION, subject to adhering to applicable City codes and to the following conditions: • No building permit shall be issued until the final plat for the PILOT FLEX CENTER ADDITION has been recorded. with Dakota County • Across access parking agreement, and Severance Agreement approved by City staff and the City Attomey's Office shall be executed between property owners of the PILOT FLEX CENTER and KNOB RIDGE ADDITIONS prior to issuance of a building permit. • All items listed in the City Engineer's September 15, 2006, memo shall be strictly adhered to prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. • Revisions shall be made to the landscape plan as per the Natural Resources Coordinator's comments as indicated in his September 15, 2006, memo. • Approval of the 31 proof-of-parking spaces for the KNOB RIDGE ADDITION, subject to the submission of a suitable guarantee by Manley Commercial, Inc., acceptable to City staff and the City Attorney's Office, to ensure any future construction of the proof-of- parking spaces and replacement of any existing landscaping removed for the pazking spaces. The motion carried 5-0. 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 Plan/Building Permit Authorization to Allow for the Construction of 72,786 sq. ft. Addifion to an Existing 129, 958 sq. ft. Retail Store Tabled at the request of the petitioner. 7. OTHER BUSYNESS None. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Schindler, to adjourn the meeting at 7:46 p.m.