Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/2007CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 21, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to Order by Chair Jeannine Churchill at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Jeannine Churchill, Tim Burke, Tom Melander, Thomas Helgeson, David Schindler, and Keith Diekmann Members Absent: Frank Blundetto Staff Present: Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, City Attorney Mike Dougherty, Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer, Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes, City Engineer Colin Manson, and Community Development Specialist Ann Cunningham 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Churchill asked if there were any changes to the Agenda. Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist added an item to OTHER BUSINESS item 7B, in regards to Planning Commission member attendance at informal work sessions. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved to place LAND USE/ACTION item 6B Petter Variances, to CONSENT Item 4A. Commissioner Melander seconded the motion. Chair Churchill called for approval of the amended Agenda. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the amended Agenda: The motion carried 6-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 7, 2007 Chair Churchill asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, she called for approval of the minutes. MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Burke, to recommend approval of the minutes of the March 7, 2007, meeting. The motion carried 6-0. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2007 agenda & minutes\032107m (3).doc 4. CONSENT ITEMS A. Petter Variances -Consideration of Variances to Reduce the Minimum Lot Area; to Allow for the Construction of aSingle-Family Residence; and to address an Existing Accessory Building. MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Burke, to recommend approval of the consent agenda. The motion carried 6-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Uponor/MEER Plat -Consider Subdivision that will split approximately 1.5 acres of the 7.54-acre American Student Transportation property and add it to the 15-acre Uponor-Wirsbo property. Chair Jeannine Churchill opened the public hearing with the standard comments. Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the request from Uponor-Wirsbo and MEER, Inc. The applicants are requesting a subdivision by preliminary plat to split the existing American Transportation property to create a 1.5-acre parcel. The properties are located at 5925-149th Street (Uponor) and 14800 Everest Avenue (MEER). Bodmer reported that the 1.5-acre parcel would be sold by American Student Transportation to Uponor Wirsbo. Wirsbo wishes to add the additional property onto -their existing parcel. No further development of the property is contemplated at this time. Bodmer reported that the properties are both located in the "I-1" (Limited Industrial) zoning district. The proposed subdivision meets the area and lot width requirements of the district, so there are no outstanding zoning issues. Bodmer stated that the petitioners will need to request a vacation of the drainage and utility easements located along the existing property lines. A vacation is a separate process that does not need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Chair Churchill 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 Churchill asked if the Petitioner was in the audience. The Petitioner stated that Bodmer covered the issue well, but that they would be happy to answer any questions. There were no questions for the Petitioner. Chair Churchill closed the public hearing with the standard comments and called for a motion. She said that it is the policy of the Planning Commission to not take action on an item on the night of its public hearing. However, because no public comments were received and there are no significant issues, Staff is recommending approval of the proposed preliminary plat. MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Burke, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Wirsbo Third Addition with the condition that the property owners execute a deferment agreement with the City to be considered for approval in conjunction with the final plat. The motion carried 6-0. B. Residential Parking Ordinance Amendments -Consider Amendments to the City Code regarding the parking and storage of Motor Vehicles and Trailers on Residential Lots Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes presented a PowerPoint summary of the history of the work on the Residential Parking Ordinance Amendments. Dykes reported that in May of 2005, the City Council directed the Urban Affairs Advisory Committee (UAC) to review the City's parking ordinance. The UAC met for eleven months. A Web-based survey was conducted by the UAC to gauge residents'4hinkng about the City's current ordinances and determine if there was any opinion about potential changes to the ordinance. It was not intended to be a statistically relevant survey. The City Council did not allocate a budget for the UAC fo conduct a survey. A press release was sent to the Media. There was information in the Fa112005 City Newsletter, and an article on the City's Website. 378 responses were received. In June of 2006, a public hearing was held at the Planning Commission. Additional input was sought from residents. Since that public hearing, a total of forty three additional comments have been received by the City. The survey showed support for restricting the size of vehicles, restricting the number of vehicles, and requiring setbacks for recreational vehicles. The proposed amendments to residential parking requirements include new definitions for a passenger vehicle, anon-passenger vehicle, a recreational vehicle, a trailer, a driveway; and a paved surface. In addition, the following amendments are proposed: • Allow up to 6 passenger vehicles (current limit is 4 vehicles), with provision that City Council can issue permit for additional vehicles. • Passenger vehicles and Class I vehicles parked or stored in rear yard must be screened from neighboring properties with minimum 6' tall fence, hedge, vegetation or other screen. • Class II vehicles parked or stored in rear yard must be screened with 8'tall screen. o If vehicle is over 8' tall, the maximum screening height is 8' for fence, but other materials (vegetation) may exceed 8'. • All motorized vehicles and all Class II trailers must be parked on a paved surface. • Class I trailers without any motorized vehicles may be parked or stored on grass or any other surface in side or rear yard. • Lots less than 1 acre, residents may park: o One Class I RV or trailer and one Class II RV or trailer OR o Two Class I RVs or trailers • Lots 1 acre or larger, residents may park up to 4 RVs or trailers, of any class provided 2 are screened from neighboring properties • Passenger vehicles - no setbacks apply, but still can't block sidewalk. • Class I recreational vehicles or trailers - no setbacks apply. • Class II recreational vehicles or trailers - 13' setback from edge of road or curb, 10' from rear property line. • Non-passenger vehicles cannot be parked on a residential lot except when rendering a service. • Non-passenger vehicles cannot be stored on a residential lot. • Passenger vehicles may park on City streets overnight (3.am. to 6a.m.) only when driveway is full of other passenger vehicles. • RVs and trailers can park in driveway but cannot force passenger vehicles onto streets. • RVs and trailers cannot be parked on City streets overnight. Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the public hearing comments from June 21, 2006 along with staff responses. The comments covered the following topics: survey methodology, setbacks, number of vehicles, screening/fencing, impacts from proposed ordinance, commercial vehicles, and miscellaneous. A. Survey Methodology Bodmer reported that the following questions and concerns were received regarding the survey methodology: How was the survey created? Concern about survey methodology and validity of results. How were residents notified of the survey? How else is the City letting people know the City is reviewing the ordinance? Need more information out to the public letting people know the City is reviewing the ordinance. Bodmer responded that the Urban Affairs Committee wanted resident input into residential parking issues. The Committee felt that a survey was a good method for obtaining feedback because the results could be tabulated and quantified. They did not have funds available to hire an outside research firm, so they felt aweb-based survey would give interested residents a chance to voice their opinions. The survey was publicized through press releases that were picked up in the Pioneer Press, Apple Valley ThisWeek, and the Apple Valley Sun Current; the Fall 2005 City Newsletter; and the City's Website. Bodmer said that all the publicity stated that a paper copy of the survey was available by calling the city and requesting one. Since the completion of the survey, further information about the ordinance has been publicized through an article on City's website, additional press releases and a note in the comment portion of water bill. Bodmer noted that the Survey was not intended to be a statistically valid instrument to evaluate resident opinions. The general impression of the 378 responses was that they were in favor of restricting the size and number of vehicles that could be parked on residential property. B. Setbacks Bodmer reported that the following questions and concerns were received. dealing with setbacks: • Vehicle(s) parked on a side yard could block the view of neighboring properties. Side yard to year yard. situation • No provision to park trailer beside a house. A 32' long trailer with a 13' setback would place it 6' into the garage. If someone can't fit a vehicle within the required setbacks, what can they do? • If someone can't fit a vehicle within the required setbacks, what can they do? Is 13' setback requirement discriminatory? • Resident parks RV in driveway, but has less than 13 feet from back of curb, though the RV doesn't block the driveway. Is there any way to have an exception? • Moved to Apple Valley with one trailer; but has since bought three more. The 13' setback provision would create a problem on short driveways. • If not blocking a sidewalk, the 13' setback is not needed. • Resident has asingle-car garage that can't be expanded due to house location on smaller lot. The resident can park in RV on the lot (along with boat), but concerned that making the existing ordinance more restrictive would make the house less marketable because any future owner would not be able to use the property as she does currently. Bodmer responded that the Urban Affairs Committee felt that setbacks were appropriate for the larger vehicles and trailers. They felt that setbacks would help to off-set impacts on adjacent properties. Currently, a property owner who has a sidewalk must park a minimum of 13' from the edge of the street in order to not block a sidewalk. Bodmer said that the Committee felt a setback helps to improve visibility around the large vehicles and provides a uniform requirement throughout the City. She said the Committee discussed the idea of a sideyard setback at a few meetings, but in the end decided not to require one. C. Number of Vehicles (from 4 to 6) Bodmer reported that the following questions and concerns were received regarding the number of vehicles that could be parked on a residential driveway: Concern about raising the number of vehicles. Don't like the idea of 6 vehicles -maybe allow only 4 with an easier exception policy. Bodmer responded that the Urban Affairs Committee debated this issue at length. In the end, it decided that increasing the number from 4 to 6 was a compromise that would help households with more drivers and longer driveways. Bodmer noted that Burnsville and Savage restrict parking on a driveway to the number that can fit on it. Bloomington and Woodbury restrict parking on a driveway to the number of licensed drivers in the household. D. Screening/Fencing Bodmer reported that the following questions and concerns were received regarding screening and fencing: The screening requirements will be tricky to enforce. A neighbor would be more upset seeing 8' high fence than a motor home. Bodmer responded that the City Code currently specifically exempts motor vehicles from screening requirements. She said the Urban Affairs Committee felt that if vehicles are stored in the rear yard, they should be screened. Screening may consist of vegetation, but must adequately screen the vehicle. E. Impacts from Proposed Ordinance Bodmer reported that the following questions and concerns were received regarding impacts from the proposed ordinance: • Concern about adding additional restrictions to existing city ordinances. • Concern that ordinances would deal with aesthetics and not substantive issues. • New ordinance would make some residents `criminals'. Residents would have to either fight the City ordinance or move. • Ordinance will result in extra expense for homeowners. What happens if a person can't store the RV on their property? Need to consider costs of off- site storage. • Making changes to the driveway to accommodate new ordinance will be a financial hardship. RV owners don't necessarily have extra money for off- site mortgage. • City is labeling trailer as `junk' and prohibiting storage. Bodmer responded that the UAC tried to strike a balance between residential neighborhoods and owners of recreational vehicles. Many residents in Apple Valley enjoy outdoor activities and own recreational vehicles, motor homes, boats, etc. She said that the Committee believed that the majority of residents already comply with the proposed requirements. Residents who don't comply would need to make arrangements or request a variance from the city. F. Commercial Vehicles Bodmer reported that the following questions and concerns were received regazding commercial vehicles: If a resident couldn't park their commercial vehicle at home, then it would be an additional expense. Even people with dump trucks and cargo vans should be able to park vehicles at home. Commercial trailers should be included in defmitions and should be prohibited from parking on residential properties. Bodmer responded that commercial vehicles aze currently not permitted to be parked on a residential property. The new regulations are based upon size of vehicles rather than on use. An enclosed trailer with printing on the side would now be permitted. The Committee didn't support idea of allowing commercial vehicles to be parked or stored on residential properties. G. Miscellaneous comments Bodmer reported that the following miscellaneous. questions and concerns were received: Concern that the proposed ordinance doesn't address blocking sidewallcs. There should be a maximum length for RVs. RVs need level parking in order for the refrigerators to operate. On-Street parking of RVs should be permitted. Bodmer stated that the draft ordinance was modified to address concerns about blocking sidewalks and the maximum length of RVs. Bodmer then introduced Capt. Mike Marben of the Apple Valley Police Department, so that he could address the 3- 6a.m. Overnight Parking Ordinance. Marben stated that the easiest thing to point out is that in Minnesota we have several seasons and when it snows it's a major issue to get vehicles off the street. All yeaz round there are safety and crime factors that make it beneficial to have vehicles off the street. Criminals park in the street. Police officers check the vehicle registration database to find out who the owners are. If the vehicle checks to Minneapolis, Columbia Heights, Bloomington, or another city, the officer knows to look into it a little bit more. The 3-6.a.m. Ordinance is enforced on a routine basis. Last year, over 2,000 citations were issued for 3-6a.m. parking violations. The police get a lot of complaints from residents in regards to on-street parking more than 48 hours. The ordinance limiting pazking to 48 hours gives the police the ability to eliminate these types of complaints. Commissioner Melander asked about the 2,000 citations. He is surprised by that number and wanted to know how many were bad guys. Mazben stated that he didn't know. Those citations include snowbirds, those people who get accidentally snowplowed in. He said that in 2006 police responded to over 2,000 theft complaints and 1,097 of those complaints involved vehicles. Commissioner Melarider asked if someone had to move a car out to the street to let another car out for a family member to go to work and got ticketed, would you be forgiven or would you have to pay the fine. Mazben replied that the district court levies the $25 fine which was set by a district court judge. The only time a citation has been dismissed that he knows of, is when a police officer didn't notice that a driveway was under construction or being seal coated when it was issued. Commissioner Diekmann inquired of Marben if parking RVs in driveways would enable police to do their jobs. Marben replied that the 3-6a.m. parking ordinance considers an RV a vehicle, and they are generally not issued a citation, despite the fact that they have seen water and electrical hookups. Code Enforcement generally handles those situations. Commissioner Melander asked whether or not there was any grandfathering of these issues. Mike Dougherty, City Attorney, responded that there is no grandfathering provision for a vehicle, whether an RV or a vehicle. Commissioner Burke stated that the code currently does not allow any vehicle to block a driveway. The attempt is to make it uniform so that whether or not you have a sidewalk everybody has a 13 ft. setback. Commission Schindler asked if the setback is a safety issue if a house doesn't have a sidewalk, only an RV has to be setback. Dykes replied that the concern is the safety issue of backing out of the driveway. If you're backing out with an 8' tall or 12' tall vehicle you'll have trouble backing out. Regardless of the size of the vehicle, there is a concern when the vehicles are hanging out over the curb into the street. Commissioner Melander stated that he has two concerns. One is the length of the commercial vehicle being 22'. He thought that the new pickup trucks were longer than that. He questioned how the 22' was decided. Dykes replied that the Staff researched a number of vehicles, including Hummers, and none of them were over 22'. Commissioner Melander's second concern was the wording of the 8' and 22' definition and any vehicles or trailers not for home use. What about the Centerpoint energy van which has seating up front and then cargo area. Bodmer asked if they are using it as a transport vehicle. Dykes responded they were included if they are using it for day to day activity. Commissioner Melander stated not to leave out the vehicles of people whose work requires them to bring the vehicle home. He asked if that language can be cleared up. Dykes replied that yes it could. Commissioner Burke asked if the 13' setback could be overruled through the 48 hr ordinance and can you block a sidewalk. Dykes responded that there is no blocking of the sidewalk allowed at any time. Commissioner Burke asked about the level parking requirement. Dykes answered that certain refrigerators need to be on a level surface. Commissioner Melander asked about pavers and pavement and whether or not it would need to be just under the wheels or does it have to be the entire envelope of the vehicle? Dykes said. that yes, the whole area under the vehicle needs to have pavers or be paved and that the wording can be cleaned up. Chair Churchill asked Bodmer to introduce the Urban Affairs Committee (UAC) member in attendance, Sharon Schwartz. Bodmer introduced Sharon Schwartz. Sharon Schwartz stated that she has been on the UAC for over 25 years, and has experience looking at this ordinance. She stated that she had written a memo to the Planning Commission dated June 21, 2006 and that she would read it aloud. The memo was included in the presentation packet. Afterwards, she stated that she regretted voting for allowing six cars, especially after reading public feedback. Sharon said she has two children of her own and four cars. Chair Churchill said that Sharon put a lot of effort into the proposed residential parking ordinance changes. Sharon Schwartz stated that the whole committee put a lot of effort into it, that they wanted to cover the concerns of those in the community owning many cars and RV's. Chair Churchill asked if anyone from the public would like to address the Commission, and if so, they may do so at this time. Marian Brown, 7754-142°a Street W., stated that she read about the survey in the newspaper, and went on the intemet but to her disappointment, could not fmd it. She has 2 questions for Marben that she couldn't hear during his presentation. Chair Churchill stated that questions would be answered at the next meeting. Brown asked for a definition of a non passenger vehicle and for the definition of a commercial vehicle. She also had a question about the proposed number of vehicles allowed. If six cars are allowed in the driveway, is that any time of the day or night? Marian Brown then commented that Apple Valley is a very diverse community and that other diverse communities have different rules for different neighborhoods. Aubrey Gray, 984 Cortland Drive S., stated that he has had a motor home for over 20 years and wondered how many on the committee have a trailer or RV. He feels that the 13' setback is ambiguous and a penalty if you have an RV. Gray also stated that parking in a driveway as opposed to a street is not safer, he's had 2 vehicles broken into on the driveway. He wants the commissioners to remember they represent the people of Apple Valley and to consider the monetary impact of the proposed changes and all the people that would be affected. MikeBrdmann, 5936-144`h Street W., commented that in regards to vehicles that have specifications outside the 8' and 22', there could have been alterations made after manufacturing. He stated that he is in full support of the 13' setback. Erdmann complemented city staff on the information provided and their presentation. He commended Capt. Marben for attending the meeting and stated that the police do a fine job. Erdmann moved here about four years ago and choose Apple Valley over Eagan, Savage and Albertville, as those communities didn't have any vehicle limitations. Cathy Greseth, 14360 Exley Lane, asked if Apple Valley was considering providing offsite parking for those several hundred people that can't park their RVs at home if these proposed ordinances are adopted. She feels that people who own motor homes are being targeted as there's already an ordinance to cover the RVs parking over the sidewalk. Greseth doesn't have a sidewalk and was told that there wasn't enough traffic. She feels she's being punished twice as her kids already have to play in the street because there is no sidewalk and now she won't be able to park all the way to the street. 10 Bill Fliehr, 5642-133`a Street Ct., stated that when he moved here he ruled out two other communities due to their special ordinances, such as no unsightly clotheslines, which he thinks of as redneck laws. He and his wife feel strongly that if you own a property it is yours and if these changes to the ordinance are passed they will be moving. Fliehr stated that if the 13' setback was to ensure safety, the ordinance should prohibit not only vehicles but shrubs and trees that encroach on the 13' setback, to attack all aspects of the safety issue problem. Tom Grazzini, 8020-134`h Street W., stated that he owns a motor home and has worked with the Code Enforcement people to expand his driveway at great expense. His motor home is classified as a 40' yet if you measure it, the Figure is actually 40' 6". He is concerned that it would not meet the proposed ordinances changes allowing up to 40' motor homes. In regards to the proposed 13' setback, Grazzini stated that if you are going to enforce this you have to consider the trees as well. And he had a question about whether or not, when a vehicle needs to be on a concrete pad, part of it can be hanging over the grass. Bonita Szymanski, 13575 Gossamer Way, stated that side parking should be spelled out in the ordinance so that there isn't a question down the road. She has a camper in her side yard on the grass and feels that if the proposed ordinance change goes into effect, the monitoring of worn away grass is going too far. Jim Palo, 13453 Findlay Avenue, commented that in his opinion, the survey was not communicated well, he didn't see it mentioned in the paper or in the water bill. Palo did not see-his comments from the June 21; 2006 Public Hearing addressed in the presentation this evening. He owns a business and his work vehicle would not meet the 8' classification, yet he uses it to transport his four children. Keeping the four car limit could negatively impact him as with four children he could have six cars. Palo owns a rental properly with six bedrooms and a four car limit could be an issue and make the property less valuable. He stated that if it's his property and you're saying he can't park on it he may decide to move somewhere else. Palo also stated that he's had cars broken into in his driveway; they are not safer there than if they were parked in the street. Dan Wallenta, 13050 Flagstaff Avenue, stated that he liked lots of the ideas presented but that the concern he has is that if you can buy up to a 42' RV in MN why should you be limited to 40'. He feels there should be a 48 hr policy for getting ready for and unpacking from a trip, and you should be able to park the RV in the street. Don Hufnagle, 137 Gardenview Drive, stated that he has a unique situation and without an exemption he would not be able to park his RV in his driveway. Brent Schulz, 453 Reflection Road, stated that in regazds to the six car limit versus the four car limit, he has children and has never had to park six or even four cazs in his driveway. He says that in his experience as a realtor, a lot of vehicles parked in the driveway is a sign of a neighborhood that is going downhill. 11 RuthAnn Hufnagle, 137 Gardenview Drive, stated that she would like grandfathering to be applied to this situation. She added that if you park in the back yard and need vegetation over the 8' fencing to screen the motor home, it would take a long time for it to grow tall enough. Debra Galligan, 7967 Upper 146"' Street W., stated that she is personally against the proposed six car limit, it doesn't look good and it's not good for property values. She is concerned about side yards and believes we need an ordinance for that. Galligan also had some questions: what does the half of any lot mean; where are the descriptions of the Class I and Class H vehicles in the proposed draft; and if the point is to keep oil off the grass why is driving on the grass allowed? Commissioner Helgeson said he was unclear about the comment about driving on the grass. Galligan replied that you have to drive on the grass to get to the side pad or rear yard pad. Michele Peterson, 13361 Greenleaf Ct., stated that her biggest concern is screening, as she has a Class H camper and a snowmobile trailer that she stores in her back yard. She feels that as long as the area is kept clean people shouldn't be restricted from having things on their lot. Paul Coufal, 886 Redwood Drive, stated that his biggest concern is the number of cars in the driveway. He doesn't want to see freedoms restricted but there is no doubt that they detract from the community. Paul B. Coufal, 910 Redwood Circle, commented that he's not hearing people take responsibility for their purchases or considering whether or not they have room for it and how it would look. He doesn't want to see the cars and trailers parked on the sides of houses and he also doesn't want to see the minority make changes to the ordinances that affect the majority. Ruth Gray, 984 Cortland Drive S., stated that she wondered where it would stop. If you. started regulating motor homes, were you going to take care of lawns worn in spots or not mowed? Diane Wallenta, 13050 Flagstaff Avenue, stated that when she bought her motor home five years ago, it met the ordinance requirements. She also said that she has four children who moved back home and they have six cars in the driveway. Marian Brown, 7754-142na Street W., stated that she lives in an association and she wondered if the same regulations would apply. She also would like to know if it is illegal for a person who is on ca1124 hours a day to park their work vehicle on the driveway. Brown commented that Apple Valley is a family oriented community. Chair Churchill asked Dykes and Bodmer whether or not they would like to make clarifications. 12 Bodmer said that in regards to the pop up camper trailer mentioned earlier that was less than 22', it would not need to be parked on a paved surface. Chair Churchill requested final comments from the commissioners. Commissioner Melander stated that he has strong feelings in regards to property owners' rights. He feels it's a fine line when he can do what he wants with his property but can't interfere with your enjoyment of the property. Melander stated that staff is spending a lot of time on these proposed changes. Chair Churchill stated that this is a difficult decision that will be weighed carefully. She noted that there were comments about shrubs and trees in the 13' setback area this evening. Those issues are actually covered by other parts of the code. Call Code Enforcement if you have any questions or need further information. Chair Churchill noted that the commission is going to consider all the written comments and questions submitted as well as all the comments and questions from this meeting. Any questions raised will be answered at the next meeting on this topic. Chair Churchill asked Dykes whether or not the public hearing should be continued. Dykes replied that the public hearing could be continued at another meeting. Chair Churchill asked the Commissioners whether or not the public hearing should be continued. Commissioner Melander stated that there was a good turn out at this meeting, he didn't see a need to keep the public hearing open. Tom Grazzini; 8020-134`}' Street W., stated that the public hearing should be continued as he found it difficult to get information about this meeting and that there are a lot of people who own trailers and RVs. A member of the audience stated that he seconded what Grazzini said. Commissioner Melander said that the Commission should consider holding the public hearing open. Commissioner Helgeson stated that he didn't feel that the message had gotten out, and that perhaps we could advertise better. He is not opposed to holding the meeting open although he feels we will get more of the same comments. Helgeson understands their concerns. Commissioner Schindler stated that he is not opposed to holding the meeting open either, but wanted to know if we would be doing anything to advertise. Dykes asked the commission if there are any ideas as to how to advertise better. 13 Commissioner Schindler stated that he sat on a homeowners association, and even with advertising, if they could get ten to fifteen of the eighty homeowners to attend the annual meeting, it was a miracle. City Attorney Mike Dougherty stated that the meeting can be held open until any date you choose. Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist stated that the City can notify the press of the meeting and that he would request the comrission designate a time to continue the hearing. Bonita Szymanski, 13575 Gossamer Way, stated that a flyer should be put on everyone's door in Apple Valley. Chair Churchill stated that it just isn't the people who own motor homes or vehicles who will be impacted, it's all residents. Tom Grazzini, 8020-134"' Street W., stated that after the ordinance is passed, there will be more people with strong opinions on the matter. He doesn't have the answer and doesn't envy the commission their decision. MOTION: Chair Churchill moved, seconded by Commissioner Melander, to recommend that the hearing be held open. The motion carried 6-0. Nordquist said that the next two meetings were the 4`h and 18`h of April. Chair Churchill stated that on April 18th, 2007, this public meeting will be continued 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. CVS Pharmacy Prairie Crossing -Consider Amendments to "PD-629" (Planned Development to Allow Two Drive-thrus in Conjunction with Retail Uses and Amendments to the Approved Site Plan Subdivision; and Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization to Allow fora 12,900 sq. ft. CVS Pharmacy and a 13,600 sq. ft. Future Multi-tenant Building Tabled at the request of the petitioner. 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Site Planning Follow-up to the Office/Industrial Land Use Planning Discussion Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist reported that the Planning Commission held an informal workshop on March 14, 2007. Following a discussion 14 of study progress, site limitations and reports from affected property owners in attendance, the Planning Commission discussed its next steps. It was suggested that site related master planning north of County Road 42, the sites immediately ready to develop, would help. The Commissioners felt strongly enough about the importance of master planning to want to request that the City Council hire a consultant as a phase 2 of the market study. However, given that time is of the essence and cost is a consideration, the alternative is to have the owners pursue sketch plan options. Nordquist stated that staff is recommending that the Commission request that staff work with property owners affected by the Office/Industrial Market Potential Study, north of County Road 42, between tonight and April 9th, to put together sketch plan ideas or other responses and that also on April 18th they could be discussed by the Planning Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Helgeson, to have Staff work with property owners affected by the Office/Industrial Market Potential Study, north of County Road 42, to assemble sketch plan options for their respective sites. The motion carried 6-0. B. Announcement of Quorum Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist stated that the attendance of members of the Planning Commission to an informal work session had been reviewed with legal counsel. Although no city business will be conducted, the majority of the Planning Commission will be in attendance, constituting a quorum, which needs to be announced. The City Clerk explained to him that if the quorum was announced this evening, no other mailings would be necessary, as it becomes the notification. A posting will be available by the end of the week. Chair Churchill made the announcement that the Planning Commission is attending an informal work session program titled, "Creating the Vision: The Future of UMore Park" on March 28, 2007. Since there will be a quorum, the Planning Commission is giving the public proper notice of the event. No city business will be conducted. The program will be held at the McNamara Alumni Center at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Helgeson, to adjourn the meeting at 9:46 p.m. 15