Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/2007CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 17, 2007 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, Thomas Helgeson, David Schindler, Tim Burke, and Jeannine Churchill Members Absent: Frank Blundetto Staff Present: Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer, Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes, and Assistant City Engineer Dave Bennett 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the Agenda. Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace stated that he would like to add an agenda item under OTHER BUSINESS, Item 7C, Introduction of the New Community Development Director. Chair Melander called for approval of the amended Agenda. MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the amended Agenda. The motion carved 6-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 2007 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 recommend approval of the minutes of the January 3, 2007, meeting. The motion carried 6-0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 2007-2011 Capital Improvements Program -Consider Adoption of 5-Year Capital Improvements Program as an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan This public hearing remained opened from the meeting of January 3, 2007. Assistant City Administrator Charles Grawe presented the 2007-2011 Capital Improvements Program. Grawe reported that as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, a 5-year Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is prepared to establish an anticipated timeframe for physical improvement projects and major equipment acquisitions relative to the need for them and the fiscal capacity to pay for them. The CII' is a planned document intended to assist policy makers and staff to plan for major capital improvements, renewal, and replacement expenditures. The CIP does not bind the City to the anticipated expenditures in the projected years. Grawe reported that the CIP is not a budget, nor is it an authorization to expend funds. The authorization of the expenditures occurs through City Council action and in adoption of the annual budget. Grawe reported that the CIP facilitates two distinct planning purposes. First, the CIP is a tool with which to implement the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan and secondly, the CIP is a financial planning document. The CII' document generally line itemizes outlays which exceed $50,000, but there are a few major exceptions. The CIP is not intended to be all inclusive of every item categorized as capital outlay in the annual budget, nor is it intended to anticipate the sporadic purchases of very small tools or equipment. Commissioner Churchill requested that Grawe highlight some of the major outlays in the CII' at the next Planning Commission meeting. Grawe responded that he can discuss some of the major areas now and proceeded to do so. Some of the items discussed were the construction of a proposed athletic complex, a senior center, a lazy river to be added to the Aquatic Center, a centralized Police and Fire Dispatch system, a new telephone system for City staff, stormwater management plans, a new water reservoir, and expansion to the City's water treatment plant. Chair Melander asked if anyone from the public would like to speak, they may do so at this time. No public comments were received. Chair Melander reminded the television viewing audience that if they have any questions regarding the CIP, they should feel free to contact City staff. Chair Melander closed the public hearing. The consensus of the Planning Commission was to continue to review the CIP and take action at the next meeting. B. Cobblestone Lake South Shore 2"d Addition -Consider Rezoning and Subdivision of Approximately 10.5 Acres for a Proposed Single Family Development Chair Melander opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace presented the request from South Shore Development, Inc., for rezoning from "Planned Development 703/Zone 8" to "Planned Development 703/Zone 2". The applicant also wishes to subdivide a 9-acre outlot into 44 single family lots and four (4) outlots, six (6) existing single family lots, one (1) outlot into eight (8) new single family lots, and one (1) new outlot. Lovelace reported that the property is currently zoned PD-703/Zone 8, which allows for sand and gravel extraction. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property to "PD703/zone 2", which is an existing subzone within the planned development, which would allow single family and two-family dwelling unit, and townhouse dwelling units provided that no single structure has in excess of six dwelling units. The applicant is proposing a development that would consist of only single family dwelling units on lots varying in size from 4,395 sq. ft. to 11,045 sq. ft. Minimum lot areas within zone 2 are 4,800 sq. ft. for interior lots and 7,500 sq. ft. for comer lots. Lovelace reported that all of the comer lots fail to meet the minimum 7,500 sq. ft. lot area. Revisions to the land areas. of the corner lots should be made to bring them into conformance with the planned development zoning ordinance. Lovelace reported that Outlots B, C, and D will be used for private open space purposes and Outlot E will be the location of the streets within the development. Oirtlot D has a total area of 715 sq. ft. Because of its size, staff is recommending that this outlot be incorporated into Lot 1, Block 7 ofthe proposed plat. The streets within the preliminary plat indicate aright-of--way width of 48 feet. The minimum right-of--way for a local street in the development is 52 feet. The applicant will need to revise the plans. The proposed subdivision is located adjacent to a ,,.,unty road a:.d is subject tc re..ew by tl:e Dakcta Ca,r:.ty Plat Cor:unission. The applicant indicated that plans have been already submitted to the County for its review. Lovelace reported that staff has concerns about having the rear of the proposed dwellings on Lots 1-5, Block 5 facing Ehn Creek Lane. Staff recommends that those dwellings front Elm Creek Lane. With these units facing Ehn Creek Lane, as well as the dwellings in Blocks 3 and 4 facing Cobblestone Lake Parkway, this would allow for rear-loaded garages that could be accessed from a private drive with a reduced width that could be les than the proposed 48 feet. Staff is proposing that Block 8 be reconfigured shifting the lots to the east and locating the Outlot C on the west side of the block. Staff is also recommending that the proposed southern leg of Street A (future 159th Street West) and Streets B and C be dedicated as public streets, allowing the applicant to gain additional square footage that would bring the lots into conformance and the required right-of--way for the public streets. Lovelace reported that if the streets are configured as proposed, the City will need to gain easements to allow for encroachment onto portions of the private drive at the west end of Street A and the north end of Street C. The applicant is proposing a network of internal sidewalks with connections to sidewalks and pathways adjacent to public streets that appear to be incomplete. Sidewalks should also be installed on both sides of all proposed public streets. C. Chair Melander asked if the Fire Department has had a chance to review the plan. There appears to be azeas that look difficult for emergency vehicles to maneuver. Lovelace stated that he will forward the plan to the City's Fire Department for review. Commissioner Diekmann asked about the density. Lovelace responded that the density is 5 units per acre.. Commissioner Burke recommended eliminating the back alley ways. Commissioner Diekmann stated that he would not be in favor of eliminating them. Brian Sullivan, representing the applicant, responded that they will discuss the orientation of the homes firrther with staff. Sullivan displayed elevations of the proposed homes. Chair Melander asked if the elevations would be mixed so that the homes do not appear to be the same. Sullivan responded that they will use a variety of colors and textures. Sullivan added that the homes would range from 1,800 sq. ft. to 3,200 sq. ft. Chair Melander asked if anyone from the public would like to address the Commission, and if so, they may do so at this time. Richard Gluck, 14724 Hallmark Drive, asked the price range of the homes. Chair Melander replied that the applicant could contact the developer regarding price range as the Commission does not address that subject. 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. Founders Circle 2°d Addition -Consider Subdivision of a 5.71 Acre Site Into 2 Lots and 2 Outlots Withdrawn by the petitioner. 6. LAND USE/ACTIONITEMS A. Raising Cane's Sign Variance -Consideration of a Variance to Allow for Permanent Banners Located on a Building Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes presented the request from Raising Cane's and Wilkus Architects for a variance to exceed the maximum signage area, a variance for the location of a permanent building sign, and a variance for a permanent use of a temporary signage permit. The first request is a variance to exceed the allowable signage, and a variance to place a sign on the building outside of the designated sign band. The 3,500 sq. ft. Raising Cane's restaurant is allowed a maximum of 140 sq. ft. of signage, which must be split between building signage and ground signage. The building elevations show a sign and a "wall mural graphic" to be located on the south side of the building. The applicant would like to paint the wall graphic sign directly on the exterior of the wall, but understands that this is strictly prohibited by City Code. In lieu of this, the applicant would like to fabricate a metal sign and attach it to the wall. This sign, which states "One Love", is in addition to the "Raising Cane's" sign to be located within the sign band. The total azea of building signage would be 376 sq. ft. The Code states that the area of signage is measured by drawing a box azound all advertising, symbols, figures, messages, etc., attached to any part of a building and calculating the square footage of the copy. The signage azea is 236 sq. ft. greater than permitted by Code. Regarding the second request for location of permanent. building signage, the City Code states that all building signs shall be affixed to a building wall, within the designated sign band azea, and shall not exceed the allowable dimensions of this code. The third and final request is a variance for permanent use of a temporary sign permit. The applicant would like to place several 2'x3' flags along the roofline of the building. The applicant says they will fly the U.S. flag, the Minnesota state flag, the City of Apple Valley flag, flags for the two local high schools, the flags of various community organizations, and the various flags of various sports teams (Vikings, Gophers, etc.). According to the City Attorney, other than the U.S. flag, a business is prohibited from displaying any other flag on a permanent basis. However, per the City code, a business may display temporary signs such as pennants, banners, etc.., if granted a temporary sign permit. A temporary sign permit may be displayed for not more than 30 days per calendar year. The City Attorney states that the City could grant a variance for the permanent use of temporary signs provided the applicant meets the requirements of the Code. Iu order to grant a variance, the City must determine the following: • Special conditions exist which aze peculiar to the land, structure, building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; • The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; • A literal interpretation of the provisions of these regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district and the terms of these sign regulations; • That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any privilege for a use not common to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and • The proposed use of the property shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent properties and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. ®R • Any proposed signage beyond the maximum square footage permitted would have the primary function of providing a public service. The applicant must meet all of the first 5 requirements or the last requirement. Dykes reported that staff determined that the applicant does not meet either the hardship test with regard to wall signage or the use of temporary signs. Raising Cane's does not have any special conditions that differentiate it from other retail buildings that would necessitate the placement of the "wall graphic" or the size of the building signage, and the "One Love" wall graphic does not provide a public service. Staff would also have to apply the same 30-day rule to all other Apple Valley businesses, and is unawaze that the City has granted a variance in the past for additional temporary signage. Staff is recommending denial of the variance requests. Commissioner Helgeson stated that he does. not like the way the City calculates signage and that the City should consider calculating signage separate rather than one big rectangle. If this were the case, the applicant would not need a variance. Chair Melander responded that this is a standard that has been used by the City for many years. Dykes responded that the same formula is used for all retailers. Dykes stated that buildings are allowed one primary sign. Helgeson stated that he does not see the signage as being one rectangular sign. Commissioner Churchill asked why Target has two signs. Dykes reported that it was due to the mass of the building. In addition, Tazget has sepazate entities in the building and separate entrances to the building. Churchill asked how the proposed wall mural compazes to the art panels that were recently approved for LA Fitness. Dykes reported that the LA Fitness art panels are back lit, part of the interior, and have no writing (words). City Attorney Hills commented that the LA Fitness feature is a framed, illuminated architectural feature and is not consider a sign, but rather an architectural feature. The applicant's proposed feature had words, "one love". Commissioner Helgeson asked about the lit arches on the McDonald's structure. Dykes reported that the arches on the structure are an azchitecturaUstructural feature. It is not a sign because they are part of the building itself. Commissioner Churchill stated that the sign code must be interpreted the same for all business. She commented that perhaps the applicant could use more creativity and meet the guidelines of the sign code. Commissioner Diekmann asked if the wall mural were placed in a false window, would it be considered a window sign. Dykes replied yes. Diekmann said he was concerned that this might cause problems. Commissioner Burke disagrees with Commissioners Helgeson and Diekmann and feels that the applicant does not meet the guidelines set forth in the sign code. Diekmann asked how does staff monitor businesses with writing on the windows. Dykes stated that the City follows the regulations set forth in the code regarding sign violations. Commissioner Schindler stated that the City has always followed the regulations set forth in the sign code and does not see any reason to deviate for the applicant. The variance requests do not meet the hardship set forth in the code. Schindler recommended that perhaps at some point, the sign code should be reviewed for what the City deems a sign. Regarding the temporary signage, Commissioner Churchill stated that we cannot create a situation that allows a business to advertise products. Commissioner Helgeson asked if a flag is considered a sign. Hills responded that other than the U.S. flag, other flags do not have the same protection and therefore require a permit. However, she does not know if City code requires it. After a lengthy discussion on the above issues, the applicant decided that they would like to continue to work with staff to come up with something acceptable to staff and the Commission. They asked to table the request until the next meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Burke, to recommend tabling this Agenda item until the next meeting. The motion carried 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS A. Residential Parking Ordinance Amendments -Update on Proposed Amendments to the City Code Regarding the Parking and Storage of Motor Vehicles and Trailers on Residential Lots Associate City Planners Margaret Dykes and Kathy Bodmer reported that the City has been reviewing its ordinances over the past 18 months regarding the parking of vehicles on lots zoned for low-density residential uses. The Urban Affairs Advisory Committee (UAC) worked from July 2005 to Apri12006 to draft the proposed ordinance amendments. In June 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed ordinance amendments to various sections of the City's Code pertaining to the parking of vehicles on lots zoned for low-density residential uses. At that meeting, a number of comments were received from the public, and the Planning Commission expressed a number of its concerns. Dykes reported that the Commission's comments primarily concerned the resident survey that was completed by the UAC to gauge residents' thinking about the City's current ordinance and determining if there was any potential changes to the ordinance. Staff reported that the survey was not intended to be a statistically relevant survey. The UAC thought the number of responses received (378) was adequate based on information provided by Decision Resources, a Minnesota research and polling firm that had done by surveys for the City in the past. The City Council did not allocate a budget for the UAC to conduct a survey. The UAC was simply trying to get a broad, basic understanding of residents' opinions about vehicle parking in residential districts. The Planning Commission stated that there should be more outreach to residents to solicit comments about the potential amendments. Dykes reported that in July 2006, the Planning Commission directed staff to place the ordinance amendments on the City's website, along with an article, submit a presses release to various print media, and place information with the City water bills to attempt to generate additional comments. City staff completed that work. From June 2006 to January 2007, the City has received 35 comments from residents about the proposed amendments. These comments are attached. Bodmer reported that City staff did not include a flyer in the water bill because the estimated costs would total about $700 and would have to be authorized by the City Council. Dykes stated that at this time, staff is requesting direction from the Planning Commission. If the City wishes to include a flyer in City water bills, staff will forward this recommendation onto the City Council for its review. If the Commission is satisfied that the City has made a reasonable attempt to solicit comments from the public about the proposed changes, it should direct staff to .advertise an additional public hearing for the item. The next available meeting for a public hearing is February 21, 2007. Chair Melander stated that perhaps the Commission should direct staff to draft the proposed ordinance amendment and proceed with a public hearing. Commissioner Helgeson asked why staff did not include an insert in the City's utility bills. Bodmer reported that staff tried to get the information out without spending any additional funds. Commissioner Helgeson stated that he is satisfied with the survey and that staff should move forward with the public hearing. Commissioner Churchill asked that staff consider including a maximum length on recreational vehicles. MOTION: Commissioner Churchill moved, seconded by Helgeson, to direct staff to advertise a public hearing for the proposed changes to the residential parking ordinance. The motion carried 6-0. B. Update on Industrial Land Use Study Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace reported that at the City Council's informal meeting held December 14, 2006, the McComb Group, Ltd. and Bruce Maus presented their report of the Office/Industrial Land Use Potential in Apple Valley. The consultants were hired to perform a market analysis to determine future demand for office pazk uses that include office, office showroom, office warehouse/light manufacturing and medical office. The City Council received the information from the consultant but there wasn't sufficient time to strategize on a future course of action. At the City Council's informal meeting on January 11, 2007, staff was asked what direction they would like to see the Council proceed with based on the fmdings. Planning staff provided the City Council with the following options: • The City may wish to consider extending the study beyond January 31, 2007, to allow more time for Council consideration implementation ofthe study recommendations. • The Comprehensive Plan should be amended to implement the recommendations of the study. • The City may wish to create a new comprehensive plan designation that would more closely guide properties for business park uses. • The City Council may wish to have the Planning Commission take up the analysis of the City's Office and Industrial Land Use demand and offer recommendations to the City Council. Lovelace reported that the City Council considered the four options and approved an amendment to Section 157.01 extending the expiration date of the Interim Use: Study of Industrial Zoning Districts, until May 31, 2007, and referred the Industrial Land Use Study to the Planning Commission for further analysis on whether the Comprehensive Plan should be amended in view of the study findings and present recommendations to the City Council. Lovelace reported that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission set aside a minimum of two dates, one in February and one in March, for work session meetings to review the consultant's recommendations ,hear testimony from affected property owners and other interested parties, and discuss possible amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. It was decided that the Community Development Specialist would contact members of the Planning Commission to come up with two dates to discus the Industrial Land Use Study. C. Introduction of New Community Development Director Acting Community Development Director Tom Lovelace introduced Bruce Nordquist, the new Community Development Director. Nordquist stated that he is looking forward to working with the City and the Planning Commission. Nordquist will begin his new role January 29, 2007. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Churchill, to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m.