Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/01/2006CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 1, 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, and *David Schindler *Commissioner Schindler arrived at 7:02 p.m. Members Absent: Tim Burke and Thomas Helgeson Staff Present: Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer, and Assistant City Engineer Colin Manson 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the Agenda. There being none, he called for approval of the Agenda. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Blundetto, to approve the Agenda. The motion carried 4-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2006 Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, he called for approval. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Diekmann, to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2006, meeting. The motion carried 4-0. 4. ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace stated that the Planning Commission's By-laws state that an annual business meeting is to be held following the City Council meeting at which new appointments to the Commission are made. At the City Council meeting of February 23, 2006, existing members Helgeson and Melander were reappointed for a three year term. In addition, the purpose of the meeting is to elect officers for the year and to consider readoption or amendments to the Commission's mission statement and/or bylaws as appropriate. Chair Melander asked if any members of the Commission had any amendments to the by- laws or the mission statement. The Commission had none. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Diekmann, to readopt the mission statement and by-laws. The motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Churchill recommended that the current officers remain in office. They are Tom Melander as Chair, Jeannine Churchill asVice-Chair, and David Schindler as Secretary. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Blundetto, that the current officers remain in office. The motion carried 5-0. 5. CONSENT ITEMS None. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. The Legacy of Apple Valley North Townhomes -Consider Zoning Amendments and Replatting of Condominium Lots, and Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization to Allow for Construction of 114 Townhouse Dwellings Within the Legacy of Apple Valley North Development Withdrawn by the petitioner. 7. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. DeVos Accessory Structure Variance - Consider a Variance from the Maximum Area of 750 sq. ft. for an Accessory Building to Allow for Construction of a 1,040 sq. ft. Detached Garage on a .98 Acre Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace presented a variance request from Jason DeVos. The applicant is requesting a variance from the 750 sq. ft. maximum building area for an accessory structure to allow for construction of a 1,040 sq. ft. detached structure on a .98 acre parcel. The site is located at 135 South Surrey Trail. Lovelace reported that City code allows accessory structures with a maximum height of 16 feet and a maximum building area of 750 sq. ft. and as a permitted accessory use within the single family residential zoning districts. City code allows one accessory storage building in addition to any garage(s), except that it shall not exceed 144 sq. ft. in area if a detached garage exists on the same lot. The applicant currently has a screened porch greater than 144 sq. ft. on his property. The applicant has indicated that the structure would be removed if the variance is granted. Lovelace reported that the proposed detached structure will increase the impervious surface from 9.3% to 11.8%, an increase of 2.5%. The City Engineer reviewed the plan and concluded that with proper grading and temporary and permanent erosion control measures, the buildings' impact on stormwater runoff in the area would be minimal. The applicant is proposing to build the structure on property that has been platted as an outlot. The outlot would have to be consolidated with the existing lot into one lot of record before the project could proceed. City code requires that garages and other accessory buildings shall have a design and appearance that will not detract from the main building or adjacent buildings. The original building elevation and wall section plans indicated lap siding and a steel roof. The revised plans indicate masonite siding and a shingled roof, which is more in keeping with the buildings on and adjacent to the property in question. At the Planning Commission meeting held February 15, 2006, the Commission raised concerns about the number of exits and whether the building met the City's fire code. The applicant has added a service door, an overhead garage door, and two windows. hi addition, after reviewing the wall construction with the applicant's building contractor, the City's Fire Marshal has no issues. The Commission had other concerns regarding the proposed structure, in particular, the proposed and future use of the building. The applicant addressed these concerns in a letter to the Commission that was included in the Commission's packet. Lovelace stated that in order to grant a variance, state statutes and City code requires that a demonstrated physical hardship must be present and that no other logical alternatives are available to the applicant. Staff review finds that although granting of this variance may not have a significant impact on neighboring properties, there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship demonstrated in order to recommend approval of the variance as requested. Lovelace reported that although there is no physical hardship related to the land to justify a hardship, staff does find that the granting of the increase in square footage of the accessory building will not have a significant impact on adjacent properties and the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and is therefore, recommending approval with the conditions listed in staff's report. Jason Devos, 135 Surrey Trail South, stated that the purpose of the structure is to allow his son to be able to practice with another wrestler. Commissioner Diekmann asked if the applicant has considered parking since the area does not allow for much parking. Devos stated that he does not anticipate an increase in parking demand since the facility will be used for his son and one other wrestling partner. Commissioner Diekmann asked Devos if there is presently a gravel path leading to the proposed structure. DeVos replied that area leading to the structure is partially grass and that he intends to totally grass the area. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Schindler, to recommend approval of a variance from the 750 sq. ft. maximum building area for an accessory structure to allow for construction of a 1,040 sq. ft. accessory building on property located at 135 Surrey Trail South, subject to the following conditions: • The consolidation, via replat, of Lot 17, and the Northerly %2 of Lot 16, Block 3, Lebanon Hills First Addition, and Outlot 2, Palomino Hills, shall be completed prior to issuance of a building permit for the accessory structure. • An existing detached screened gazebo shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit for the accessory structure. • Construction shall occur in conformance with the building permit survey dated December 30, 2005. • Construction shall occur in conformance with the elevation plans dated February 21; 2006. 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. Venstar Sketch Plan -Proposed Rezoning from "I-1" to Allow Construction of Apartments and Townhomes on an 18.7 Acre Parcel Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer presented a sketch plan review of a proposed rezoning and site plan review of an aparkment development on the northeast comer of 147' Street West and Johnny Cake Ridge Road. The applicant presented two plans for the Commission's review and comments. In Option A, four apartment buildings are shown with a total of 350 units. In addition, 30 townhomes are proposed on the east side of the site. The two aparkment building son the north side of the site would be 3-story buildings with 75 units each. The two buildings south of the easement would be four stories tall and contain 84 and 166 units. At 18.7 acres, 380 total units would result in a density of 20.3 units/acre. The aparment buildings are shown parallel to the pipeline easement that bisects the property. The parking lot on the north side of the site is adjacent to residential property to the north. The townhomes on the east side of the site would be adjacent to an existing townhome development to the east. In Option B, four apartment buildings with a total of 350 units plus 24 townhouse units are shown. Two 3-story buildings are shown on the north side of the easement while two 4-story buildings are shown on the south side of the easement. The buildings are located on the north side of the development and the parking lot is located to the south. The buildings are shown to be 100' from the northern property line. The buildings provide a distinct edge to the development and screen the parking area to the south. However, the buildings are then in closer proximity to the residential properties to the north. At 18.7 acres, 374 total units would result in a density of 20 units/acre. Bodmer reported the applicant has indicated that she would prefer to request a straight zoning classification such as "M-8" (12-24 units/acre) or an "M-7" (12-20 units/acre) for the property. This issue was discussed when the Wirsbo expansion property was reviewed in 2005. At that time, the Planning Commission indicated that it was uncomfortable with an "M-8" rezoning classification. The Commission stated that it would be more comfortable with a "Planned Development: designation so that protective measures such as screening, landscaping, and greater setbacks would be included in the development to help minimize impacts to the adjacent residential properties. No conditions may be placed on a rezoning to a straight "M- 7" or "M-8" zoning request. Chair Melander commended the applicant for the previous sell of a portion of the site to Wirsbo, which allowed corporate jobs to stay in the community. Melander requested staff do an analysis on how much industrial property is available in Apple Valley. Melander is concerned that the City if running out of industrial property. Brenda Quaye, the applicant, and John Gould, the architect for the project, addressed the Commission. Quaye stated that she is trying to build Class A aparhnents. She had a study done and it determined that there is a need for this type of housing in Apple Valley. Quaye pointed out that the gas line bisecting the property makes it a challenging piece to develop. Quaye stated that Option A uses the gas line easement as green space and creates a greater setback for the residential homes to the north. Commissioner Blundetto stated that Option A seems more palatable and more appealing if the site were to be rezoned. Blundetto asked Quaye if she has considered clients who could develop the area as it is currently zoned, which is industrial. Quaye stated that she had not looked into it. Blundetto asked if there has been any attempt to market the property as industrial. Quaye stated no. Quaye stated that she had previously looked into it and there was not any interest in industrial development. Blundetto asked her how long ago that was done. Quaye stated that the information is old. Blundetto suggested that Quaye spend time with staff to get more direction as to the City's future plans for development. Blundetto stated that the City is looking for more head of household jobs in Apple Valley. Commissioner Diekmann stated that he feels the same as Commissioner Blundetto. Diekmann likes the northem portion of Option A but does not like the lower portion. He feels the lower portion has atunnel-like feeling. Diekmann would like to see something different done on the lower portion. Diekmann also pointed out that the trees shown on the gas line would not be possible. Commissioner Churchill stated that she is in agreement with Diekmann and prefers the northern portion of Option A. Churchill asked the applicant if she would consider commercial on the southern part of Option A, i.e., a business park, professional buildings, etc. Churchill commented that to put all residential on the site might not be in the best interest of the City. Commissioner Schindler stated that he too is concerned about the amount of property the City has left for industrial. Schindler asked the applicant if she considered townhomes on the north side of the property and apartments on the south side. Quaye responded no because she is interested in Class A apartments and needs to have a certain mass. Chair Melander reminded the applicant that the Commission does not take into consideration economics, marketing, etc., and that the City is only concerned with what's in the best interest of the City. Melander stated that the Commission does not take rezoning lightly. In addition, Apple Valley does not have a lot of industrial property available. Melander does not want to see Apple Valley turn into a bedroom/retail community. He suggested that there might be a need for industrial since the applicant last looked into it. Quaye asked the Commission what the plans are for the Hanson/Magellan property once it is up for redevelopment. Melander stated that as he recalls, the Commission is looking toward more industrial uses. Quaye asked if 147a' Street West is planned to be the separation of residential. Commissioner Blundetto reiterated to Quaye again that at this point, the City is very interested in head of household jobs. Bodmer stated that there is no formal action required tonight and that the applicant is merely seeking feedback from the Commission regarding the proposed layouts. B. Cancel and Reschedule March 8, 2006, Planning Commission Work Session Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace informed the Commission that the March 8, 2006, work session with Tradition Development. to discuss the commercial phase of the Cobblestone Lake Development was cancelled. Staff is recommending that the meeting be rescheduled for March 29, 2006. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Blundetto, to approve the cancellation of the March 8, 2006, Planning Commission work session. The motion carved 5-0. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Blundetto, to approve the March 29, 2006, Planning Commission work session. The motion carried 5-0. 9. ADJOI)d2NMENT MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Blundetto to adjourn the meeting at 7:47 p.m.