Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/05/2007CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 5, 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, Tom Melander, Thomas Helgeson, David Schindler, Tim Burke and Keith Diekmann Members Absent: Frank Blundetto Staff Present: Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes, Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer, City Attorney Bob Bauer, Assistant City Engineer David Bennett and Department Assistant Barbara Wolff 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Churchill asked if there were any changes to the agenda. There being none, she called for approval of the agenda. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Commissioner Burke, to approve the changes to the agenda. The motion carried 6-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 15, 2007 Chair Churchill asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, she called for approval of the minutes. MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Commissioner Melander, to recommend approval of the minutes of the August 15, 2007, meeting. The motion carried 6- 0. 4. 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE/ACTIONS Rusty Fifield of Hoisington Koegler Group, Ino, thanked the Planning Commission for setting aside time at every meeting to update the community on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Fifield has begun meeting monthly with the Planning Commission to start laying the groundwork for updating the Comprehensive Plan. The most important thing that's going to happen over the next 4-6 week, is to begin involving the public. There will be a series of opportunities available, starting with an online public form that will be available on the City's website on September 17~'. Residents may fill out this form online or download, print, fill it out and mail it in. S:\planning\P~,ANCOMM\2007 agenda & minutes\090507m.doc Also, Hoisington Koegler is creating conversation kits that will be sent out to groups and made available for those that would like to have their own mini community meetings. These kits will allow the public to voice their opinion on their vision for Apple Valley in the future and which issues are most important. Within the next week there will be a page devoted solely to the Comprehensive Plan on the City's website that will give people background information as it is developed. All new information will be made available to the public through the website or be available at City Hall in a paper format. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Regent Senior Building -consideration of amendments to the zoning ordinance "PD-716" to allow for an increase in the height of senior-only apartment building from 55 ft. to 65 ft., decrease the required parking from 1.1 parking spaces/unit to 1.0 parking spaces/unit; and increase in density from 54 to 55 units/acrei and site plan building permit authorization for 134 unit building. Chair Churchill opened the public meeting with the standard comments Associate Planner Margaret Dykes stated that the Hartford Group, Inc. is requesting the following actions: 1. Amend "PD-716, zone 2" for the following: a. Increase the height of senior-only apartment building from 55 feet to 65 feet; b. Increase in density from 54 to 55 units per acre; c. Decrease the parking requirements for senior-only apartments. 2. Site plan review and building permit authorization fora 134-unit senior only rental apartment building. The property is located southwest of Founders Lane and 153`d Street West on a vacant 2.45 acre site. This proposed site lies in the Central Village Plan which was approved by the City in 2002. The Master Plan for the Legacy development was approved in 2003. The Master Plan and the Central Village Plan showed the subject site as the location fora 132-unit senior only apartment building. The site plan shows an "E" shaped building, 4-story, 134 units. The care suites that were shown on an earlier plan have been eliminated so that the senior only building contains only independent and assisted living units. Only the tower is 65 ft. high; the remainder of the building is 55 ft. high. There are two driveway cuts accessing the site along Founders Lane and one access along 153`d Street West. A structured parking garage sits partially underground. There are 44 surface parking spaces and Sproof-of-parking spaces, and 85 garage spaces for a total of 134 parking spaces. The zoning ordinance requires 1.1 spaces per unit. The petitioner is showing 1.0 space per unit. This building consists of mostly independent living units, which should have 1.1 parking spaces per unit, and also assisted living units, which should have 0.8 spaces per unit. S:\planning\PT,ANCOMM\2007 agenda & minntes\090507m.doc Staff researched other communities within the Twin Cities and based on that research believes that the parking is sufficient fora 134-unit senior only building. The site plan shows access to existing City sidewalks and trails. One path will need to be reconfigured so that it is entirely on City property. However, there is good pedestrian access from the building to City park trails as well as sidewalks. The Central Village Plan requires a screening wall be constructed to screen surface parking. The plans shows a mix of a screening wall and vegetation along the east side of Founders Lane to screen the parking from the surrounding uses. The grading plan was reviewed by the City Engineer and there are no major issues. However, there are retaining walls that need to be shifted 20 ft. south in order to accommodate some necessary easements that the City needs to obtain. To cover City infrastructure, the City will need 20 ft. wide easements over existing City sanitary and storm lines as well as additional 5 and 10 foot wide easements along property boundaries: The landscape plan was reviewed by the Natural Resources coordinator and there are no major issues. The petitioner is showing a diverse mix of deciduous, coniferous, shade and also some annuals and perennials. Staff is asking to see additional plantings along the back side of the building. Some of that will go into City land. The applicant will need to provide proof that the landscaping meets or exceeds 2.5% of the cost of the building materials based on means Construction Data. Landscaping materials may include live plant materials, decorative paving, benches, irrigation systems and similar materials. Sod is not considered a landscaping material. The garage plan contains a car wash area and a couple of other areas that the petitioner could remove if more proof-of-parking spaces were needed. Staff is comfortable with this layout. The building elevations show the use of stucco, brick veneer, stone veneer and rockface block. Almost every unit has a balcony for private space, which helps to justify the increase in density. Commissioner Helgeson said he is happy with the way the facility turned out and the way it looks. It will be a nice addition to that area. But, he is concerned about the existing six handicapped spaces and whether that maybe enough or not. He would like to know if there is a formula for assisted living facilities. This would only compound the parking problem if more handicapped spaces were needed. Dykes stated that that is information she would need to bring back. Commissioner Diekrnann asked what was changed on the underground parking from the earlier plan. Dykes stated that the drive aisles were widened as well as some of the spaces. Chair Churchill stated that one of her major concerns was surface parking areas. Churchill could not recall how many surface spaces were on the original plan. S:Apla°ning~PLANCOMM~2007 agenda & mirmtesV090507m.doc Dykes stated that she was unsure if it was 36 or 38 spaces. Dykes will need to double-check that information. Petitioner Frank Janes of the Hartford Group stepped forwazd. He highlighted a few points, such as the very high quality materials and design going into this senior apartment project. The budget for the interior of the project for furniture and things like that is approximately $600,000. A lot of effort, time and detail are going into this project to make it a welcome addition to the City and the community. Janes stated that the requested parking change from 1.1 to 1.0 parking spaces will provide more than sufficient parking for this type of facility. Independent residents will be availing themselves of the services provided such as nutrition, house cleaning, medication, some health care services and daily activities. The assisted residents will be availing themselves in a more significant nature of these services. Because of the nature of this facility, it requires less parking. The industry standazd is 0.5 to upwards of 0.7 spaces per unit for this type of facility. Hartford Group is proposing 1.0 spaces per unit, which they believe is more than adequate. Management will be encouraging staff to park underground as there will be plenty ofunder-utilized spaces underground. The project that they developed in Burnsville has been in service for 3 yeazs and has a 136- unit facility. The maximum amount of underground spaces ever utilized by any resident is 40 out of 92 available spaces. The Apple Valley project has 85 underground spaces and Hartford Group believes there will be a similaz demand. Janes answered Chair Churchill's earlier question of how many spaces the original plan had and that was 33 spaces and that has now been increased to 44 spaces: Janes said the Hartford Group will continue to work with staff and have no doubt that they will be able to easily resolve any issues that should arise. Chair Churchill asked how this facility compares with the facility the Commission had toured in Burnsville. James stated that the Apple Valley facility is similaz in size to Burnsville, although the Apple Valley facility will have a much higher quality of materials so that it is easily incorporated into the Central Village plan. James brought forward a sample board of the brick, stone, stucco and roof materials that will be used on the construction of the facility. Chair Churchill asked how the surface parking compared to the facility in Burnsville. James stated that he thought the Burnsville facility had 48 surface parking spaces. Very few of the employees at the Burnsville facility park underground, although there are plenty of spaces to do so. With the new Apple Valley facility, management could request that employees park underground, freeing up surface parking. Also, the Burnsville facility requires more staff as they have care suites, which the Apple Valley facility will not. Commissioner Melander commented that he liked the turret on the building and the focal point it creates. S:Aplanning\PLANCOMM\2007 agenda & minutesV090507m.doc Chair Chuchill asked if anyone from the public would like to be heard. Ed Nelson, of 15465 Frost Path and representing Legacy Square Homeowner Association, of which he is President, stepped forward. Upon receiving the initial notice of the public hearing, he was very concerned about the. height of the building. Hearing tonight that the height increase is just for the turret, he is less opposed. However, he still is highly concerned about the parking issue. If the parking fills up at the senior facility, he is concerned residents or guests will overflow to the Legacy Square lot. The peak times are the holidays and space for the homeowners in Legacy Square is already at a premium. Also, he stated that as only atwo-story building, he doesn't want to see four-story buildings surrounding them. Robert McKenna, of 15469 Frost Path, stepped forward to state that he also lives in the Legacy Square Townhomes. He was under the false impression that the entire building was rising by 10 ft., although he has no problem with the 10 ft: tower proposed. He also does not wanYthe parking to be decreased for the proposed Regent Senior Building. Chair Churchill, hearing no further public comments, closed the public hearing with the standard comments. B. Oakwood Hills Addition -consider proposed subdivision of three existing single-family lots totaling 5.7 acres into 16 single-family lots. Associate Planner Margaret Dykes presented the request from Premier Development of the Twin Cities for a subdivision of 3 existing parcels into 16 single family lots. The property is a 5.71 acre parcel located at the southeast intersection of 132ad Street and Georgia Drive. The property is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for low density development and is consistently zoned R-3, which is single family residential, lot minimum 11,000 square feet. The plan shows a 60 ft. wide, 450 ft. cul-de-sac that aligns with Galleria Place to the north. All lots front a public road as is required by City Code. The plan shows that the lots range in size from 11,040 sq: ft. to 19,242 sq. ft. The average lot size is 13,447 sq. ft. The lot area are similar to those in surrounding developments to the north, south and west. The plan shows sidewalks along Georgia Drive and on 132°d Street West as is required by City policy. The.development is expected to generate approximately 160 vehicle trips per day. Staff believes the proposal will not significantly add to surrounding traffic nor will it significantly change existing traffic patterns. The development will be required to dedicate park land or provide cash-in-lieu of land, which will be calculated at the time of final plat. A stormwater pond and a rain garden are shown on the site to provide infiltration for the first ''/z" of any rainfall event. The. plan shows potential building pads, which meet the required setbacks. It should be noted that these are potential building sites, and that the houses constructed will not necessarily be the exact dimensions as the building pads shown. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2007 agenda & minutes\090507m.doc The grading plan has been reviewed by the City Engineer and he has some concerns with the location of the stonnwater, rain garden and some of the utilities. Some things need to be reconfigured and the applicant is aware of those changes. The applicant estimates approximately 20,000 cubic yards of fill material will be necessary. Because of the significant grading that will occur a number of significant trees will be lost: The Natural Resources Coordinator has reviewed the tree removal plan. The plan shows that the site contains 329 (4,616 caliper inches) significant trees (trees over 8" in diameter). The tree removal plan shows that 185 (2,776 caliper inches) of the significant trees will be removed during the mass grading of the site; this is a loss of approximately 56%. The Natural Resources Coordinator stated that many of the existing trees aze box elder, red pine and aspen which have short lives and shallow root systems. These trees do not work well near residential homes. The developer will need to plant 278 caliper inches or 111 trees 2.5" in diameter. It is staffls opinion that due to the existing conditions, such as the steep slopes on the site and the proposed location of the cul-de-sac, it would be difficult for the applicant to save more than the 44% of the significant trees shown on the plan. Commissioner Diekmann stated that there is a road off of 132"d to the east of this property and asked what this is used for. Dykes responded that this is a private drive that serves an existing home on the lot. As part of this project, the easement will be vacated. It disappears as part of the plat. Chair Churchill referred to the shaded finger of land that lies along the property on the east and what will happen to this. Dykes responded that this will be retained by the school Petitioner Nathan Jones of Premier Development of the Twin Cities came forward. Premier Development conducted a neighborhood meeting approximately one month ago witt'~ 20-25 residents at the Community Center. The significant concerns of the residents are the tree loss and screening. The majority of the trees that Premier Development is able to retain are along the border to provide screening from neighbors. Overall, it seemed that the neighborhood is supportive of the developer's plans. Jones has spoken with the school on several occasions and the driveway running along the property is primarily used to access the home on the property. The development would not require this road so it would be restored to green space. The rainwater gardens are worked around the existing grade to preserve as many trees as possible. There is a substantial amount of fill needed that is dictated by the property and the grades that are there. The developer has maximum grades for the cul-de-sac of 8%. This is the best that can be done with the street even with brining in so much fill. The developer has received all staff reports and is working with staff to resolve the issues, which he believes aze relatively minor. S:Aplawing\PLANCOMM~2007 agenda&minutesV090S07m.doc (~ Commissioner Helgeson is concerned with the pond on Lots 7 & 8. The distance seems close to the building pad of each lot. He would like to see a safety zone created for children. Jones replied that one of the issues brought up by the City Engineer is the reconfiguring of the ponds, so it is a work in progress. Also, the pond will have retaining walls on both sides. Commissioner Melander stated that he likes the plan and the available space. for each lot. It also flows well. Chair Churchill asked if anyone from the public would like to be heard. Pam Lillehei of 13509 Glasgow Lane, asked what the proposed size and dollar value of the homes will be. Jones replied that they haven't marketed to a builder as of yet, although the proposed amount of the homes would be $550,000-$700,000. The project is expected to begin in the spring of 2008. Chair Churchill stated that the Planning Commission generally doesn't consider the price of the homes. The Commission is looking only for the suitability of the site and the best usage of the land. Kevin Tenpas of 13484 Georgia Court stated three concerns: L Grade - he doesn't want the grade to change if it introduces additional drainage into the adjacent lots. 2. Trees -there is an abundance of trees and wildlife in that area and he wants to retain as many trees as possible. 3. Length of development - he would like to see it developed quickly and not have the process extend for years. Chair Churchill, hearing no further public comments, closed the public hearing with the standard comments. C. Wal-Mart Garden Center C.U.P. Amendment -consider an amendment to the existing conditional use permit to allow for garden center delivery trucks to be unloaded in the garden center drive-thru lane. Planner Tom Lovelace stated that this is a request to amend the existing conditional use permit at the Wal-Mart Garden Center on a 19.5 acre site located at the northwest comer of County Road 42 and Pennock Avenue. The petitioner would like an amendment to condition no. 5 of the Wal-Mart Garden Center conditional use permit, which states "All garden center products and materials shall be unloaded at the receiving dock and transported internally within the building to the center". The petitioner, Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson, Inc. and Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, is requesting that condition no. 5 be eliminated and the site plan be revised to indicate an S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2007 agenda & minutes\090507m.doc access gate and driveway at the northwest corner of the building, which would allow access for delivery vehicles to the garden center's bagged goods pick-up aisle. Lovelace stated Wal-Mart had found that there is conflict with the garden center items such as expansion of the grocery area creating an unsafe mix of garden items such as fertilizer, manure, etc. and grocery items. The petitioner is proposing that the following three conditions be added to the existing C.U.P.: 1. Wal-Mart shall implement the delivery protocol • Supplier call Wal-Mart store day prior to inform of estimated truck delivery time, call logged with a manager. • Driver calls Wal-Mart store when on route to store and when arriving at site. • Gate at NW corner of store will be locked 24 hours a day, except to let Garden Center truck through (typically 1-2 trucks a day). All managers (Garden Center, Dock, Store and Asst.) will have key to gate. • Garden Center manager will unlock gate when truck arrives and will close and lock gate once truck passes through. • Trucks will enter drive-thm and will prepare for unloading by forldift. Forklift operations require two (2) spotters and both ends of drive-thru will be coned and/or roped off. • Once truck is unloaded, it will immediately leave the site. • In the event a 2aa Garden Center delivery truck arrives while there is already a truck being unloaded, it shall remain in the back of the store. 2. No deliveries other than garden center products and materials may occur in the garden center area. 3. Deliveries to the garden center may occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 4. No idling of garden center delivery trucks shall be allowed when parked in the garden center drive-thru lane. There would only be two trucks unloading per day. The area would be screened by a wall and a berm that is already constructed so that the area would not be visible by the homes to the northwest. Lovelace said the bagged goods pick-up aisles will be switched from a north bound one-way to a south bound one-way to accommodate the delivery trucks. The City's traffic consultant has reviewed the proposal and has not expressed any traffic concerns with delivery vehicles accessing the garden center in this manner as long as the gate is locked when not being used for deliveries. However, he does have a concern with the ability of customers to make the right turn into the pick up aisle. Further review by the petitioner and City staff will be necessary before staff can make a recommendation. Commissioner Helgeson is not opposed, although he would like to put a timeline on how long they have to unload the truck. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2007 agenda & minutes\090507m.doc Commissioner Diekmann asked if Lovelace had the old approved plan as he thinks there are more changes to the rear northwest corner of the building than what was on the original plan. Lovelace said he did not have the plan with him, although he will let the petitioner address his question when they come forward. Commissioner Schindler said he did not like the trucks coming through the parking lot. The plan for the garden center has always been there; why the sudden change in the process? Julie Idelkope, a representative for Wal-Mart, stated that when the conditional use permit was reviewed the Planning Commission in March there were concerns raised about Wal- Mart's garden center delivery trucks being parked in front of the store. At that time, a condition was added that prohibited delivery at the front of the store and required internal movement of all goods to the garden center. However, Wal-Mart agreed to the condition without its design team evaluating the procedure for its feasibility. Idelkope said Wal-Mart raised the issue with staff and members of City Council before the Council voted. The consensus was for Wal-Mart to do everything they could to make it work; otherwise they should return at a later date. Wal-Mart challenged their design team to make it work but it just wouldn't for two reasons: 1) Internal Safety -forklift operation of 2,000 Ib. pallets throughout the store; safety issue for both customers and employees. 2) Dock Safety -significant concern of unloading chemical goods and grocery goods at the same dock. Idelkope said Wal-Mart would not be opposed to limiting the time that a truck is permitted to unload. Chair Churchill said that at the March meeting she doesn't believe that the Commission imposed a surprise condition. Wal-Mart offered to modify the store and offered to transport all goods internally. Furthermore, the concern about parking and unloading in front of the store has always been a concern of the Commission because it is a fire lane and it has never been an approved unloading area. Idelkope states that she doesn't recall Wal-Mart being the one to impose the condition of internal movement of goods, although they have tried to make this work and it just is not an option for them. Charlie Howley, engineer of Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson, Inc., stepped forward to address the Commission's issues. • Truck Unloading Timeline -Maximum unloading time would be approximately 2 hours; requiring a time stipulation would be no problem. • Changes from the Original Plan - An entirely enclosed area for bale and pallet storage, a separate enclosed structure for recycled products, and an environmental cage. S:Aplanning~PLANCOMIM2007 agenda & minutesV090507m.doc Commissioner Diekmann if impervious surface would increase with the addition of the 13' retaining wall. Also, he inquired of the width of the unloading azea is. He said is concerned there will not be enough room to unload a flatbed track in that area. Howley said he had not worked out the calculations for impervious surface coverage, but said there is an underground infiltration chamber already in that location that will be sized to accommodate any impervious surface increase. He said he was not sure of the-width of the unloading area, although he believes it is somewhere between 26' and 30'. This has not changed from the original plan. The trucks that would be pulling through could be either a flat bed or a van truck. The primary use of the lane will still be for the loading of goods by customers. Howley explained that this is a prototype currently being used in other Wal-Mart stores so it does work. Commissioner Helgeson suggested unloading the trucks at the proposed gate area on the new plan and moving the goods via forklift from that location. Howley stated that this was an option. There were limited discussions with Wal-Mart, but they stated this process would take too long and would they would like to use the operafions similar to those used at other stores. Commissioner Helgeson stated he does not want to see more conditional use permits requested that modify the original plans. Chair Churchill, hearing no public comments, closed the public heazing with the standard comments. D. Drive-Thru for Class III Restaurants -consideration of zoning code amendment to allow adrive-thru in conjunction with a Class III Neighborhood Restaurant in the "RB" (Retail Business) zoning district. Associate Planner Kathy Bodmer stated that the property owner, Clear Choice Properties, LLC, of the East Valley Plaza shopping center, would like to have adrive-thru window for a coffee shop on the southwest end of the building. The shopping center is located on the southeast comer of Pilot Knob Road and 140th Street West at 14050 Pilot Knob Road. The property is zoned "RB" (Retail Business) which currently has no provision for drive-thru windows in conjunction with a Class III restaurant. This proposed location is closer than 1,000 ft. from residential property. Under the current zoning of "RB", this could not be accommodated. For that reason a zoning amendment is requested that would allow a Class III Neighborhood Restaurant is able to have adrive-thru window. The Planning Commission discussed this item as a sketch plan at the July 18, 2007, meeting. At that time the Planning Commission indicated general support for adrive-thru window in conjunction with a coffee shop. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2007 agenda & minutes\090507m.doc i p The current definition of a Class III Neighborhood Restaurant is an eating facility including bagel shop, sandwich shop, coffee house, lunch counter, delicatessen, ice cream shop where all of the following exist: • No drive-thru window service is provided. • Restaurant does not exceed 2,500 sq. ft. in size. • Hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. daily. • The restaurant does not serve foods which require the installation of a Type I ventilation hood, grease and smoke removing, as defined in the Uniform Mechanical Code. This classification was originally created to allow smaller shops to be located near residential properties. Possible nuisance characteristics that relate to drive-thru windows include: • Noise from outdoor speakers and idling vehicles • Odors • Headlights • Heavy traffic volumes • Emissions from idling vehicles • Conflicts with pedestrian and bike traffic The current code states that if you are a Class II restaurant, you cannot be located within 1,000 ft. of residential properties. The petitioner is stating that a Class III restaurant has fewer of these nuisance characteristics and would like to add adrive-thnx window. Bodmer pointed out that even when you eliminate the fast food aspect you still have some of the nuisance characteristics present. Staff proposes that the ordinance be crafted so that condifions could be placed on the orientation and the landscaping of a drive-thru window that would deal with those nuisance characteristics that are still present. Staff is proposing an ordinance that would amend the zoning code to allow for adrive-thru window as a conditional use in the "RB" zoning district far a Class III Restaurant. It would allow for the following provisions: 1) The Class III Neighborhood Restaurant definition no longer prohibits drive-thru windows. 2) The permitted uses in the "RB" zoning district are amended to allow Class III Neighborhood Restaurants as a permitted use. 3) The conditional uses in the "RB" zoning district are amended to allow adrive-thnx window at a Class III restaurant provided three conditions are met: a. The City Council determines that any noise, headlights, traffic volume and emissions from idling vehicles resulting from the operation of the window does not negatively impact surrounding residential and institutional uses. b. The drive-thru lane cannot impede or conflict with vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic circulation on the site as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. S:\planning\PLANCOMIvP2007 agenda & minutes\090507m.doc 7 7 c. When a neighborhood restaurant is located less than 1,000 ft from residential or institutional use, the City Council may restrict the hours of operation of a drive-thru window to mitigate any adverse impacts caused by noise, headlights, traffic volume and emissions from idling vehicles. The ordinance amends only the "RB" zoning district at this time. Staff recommends that the other zoning districts not be changed until the City has had experience with drive-thru windows at the neighborhood restaurants in the "RB" zoning district. Bodmer summarized that the petitioner is requesting consideration of the ordinance amendment and this would go into effect Citywide for any properties under the retail business zoning district. If the Commission were to approve this request, and ultimately approved by the Council, then the property owner would come back at a later date and make a separate request for a conditional use permit for adrive-thru window. Typically a zoning code amendment does not require that residents within 350 ft. need be contacted and notified of the public hearing. However, in this case, there are residents residing within 250 ft. approximately of the proposed drive-thnr window. Because of thi< staff felt it appropriate to notify the residents and give them the opportunity to speak. So, residents within 350 ft. have been contacted and notified. Cormnissioner Diekmann asked for clarification between a similar situation that was recently voted on in a "PD" zoning. How does that differ from this one in "RB" zoning district? Bodmer clarified that the "PD" zoning situation was just for that particular area. With this zoning amendment, the effect would be Citywide for all "RB" zoning areas. Chair Churchill stated that Bodmer named the petitioner as Clear Choice Properties. She wanted clarification that the petitioner would actually be the City of Apple Valley. Bodmer agreed that the City is the petitioner in this case, prompted by Clear Choice Properties. Commissioner Helgeson wondered what would be the worst case scenario if there would be many shops then asking for conditional use permits. Bodmer stated that she believes that this shopping center with the "RB" zoning district is the closest in proximity to residential areas. Typically commercial areas near residential is zoned Neighborhood Commercial "NCC" zoning district. Commissioner Helgeson asked if Bodmer had considered making this provision for just this mall and not Citywide. Chair Churchill asked for clarification from Bodmer that as a conditional use permit, any other entity, wishing to add this type of facility would have to come through the Planning Commission. S:\plauning\PLANCOMM\2007 agenda & minutes\090507m.doc 7 Bodmer agreed that this is the case and there would be a public hearing for the process. Chair Churchill stated that although this isn't really a matter brought by Clear Choice Properties, if they are represented, the Commission would certainly welcome their comments. Charles Savitt, General Manager of Clear Choice Properties and owner of the shopping center, came forward to comment. One of the tenants at this shopping center is Walgreen's and they do have adrive-thru window. He has not seen more than one vehicle waiting in the drive-thnr since it's been present and they've been a good neighbor and a good fit for that area. Savitt continued that it's in his best interest and also the City's to have a shopping center that is fully leased. Right now the proposed-space for this coffee shop is empty as it was a dollar store that lasted less than a year. Another tenant is Mr. Movies and they have not renewed their lease. This center is a community center and he would like it to remain so. In order to do so, he feels that help is needed from the City to change this ordinance in order to allow this sort of community business. Dean Madson, an architect of WCL Associates, resides on 142°d Path. Although, he's working on this project he also is a resident that lives 3-4 blocks away from this location. As a resident of the neighborhood he quoted what his wife said, "She will use this coffee shop." Chair Churchill asked if anyone from the public would like to come forward and comment. Bodmer stepped forward to present an email that she received that afternoon from a concerned citizen. Monica Augustin of 13942 Ember Way was concemed about the hours of operation of the drive-thru window which was addressed in the proposed amendments. Also, Augustin was concemed about the increased traffic flow. This is an item that would be considered as part of the conditional use permit. Charles Thomseth of 14136-141x` Street West, living right across the street and is also a committee member of the Foxmoor Association. He said he is opposed to seeing the ordinance change and doesn't want to see the increased traffic flow. It's already a busy road with traffic to and from Domino's Pizza and Horizon Daycare. Steve Burrows of 4827 Dominica Way is concerned about the precedent this sets. As there are more drive-thrus the speed increases as opposed to people stopping and getting out of their vehicle for their goods. This particular area has a daycare, two schools across the street and amulti-level apartment building with children that access this shopping mall. He's concerned about the increased speeds and the traffic. There already is a lot of traffic and this will only increase the levels. He would like the Commission to consider making this site attractive to neighbors of all ages and a place that neighbors want to go to without concern for their safety. He's opposed to the site and the ordinance change. Norm Johnson of 14132-141st Street West stated that there is already a problem with. traffic and it's dangerous to add more traffic to this area. There are two shopping centers here with S:Aplanning~PLAlACOMM~2007 agenda & minutesV090507m.doc 7 q two separate entrances. People are cutting through these areas and going between the two centers. There is a stop sign, but people mostly ignore this. Chair Churchill, hearing no further public comments, closed the public hearing with the standard comments. 6. ACTION ITEMS A. Harr Garage Variance -consideration of a front yard setback variance to allow for construction of an attached garage addition. City Planner Tom Lovelace stated that the applicant is requesting a setback variance of 17 ft. from the required front yard setback of 30 ft. to allow for the construction of a 24 ft. x 33 ft. attached garage. The proposed garage addition will be constructed in front of an existing two-stall garage. The site is located at 469 Reflection Road. The petitioner has stated that the steep slope in their backyard and the mature trees on the property make it difficult to locate a site to build additional garage space without encroaching into a building setback area. Reflection Road is a local street with 17 ft. of boulevard area. Local streets typically have 13 ft. of boulevard area. If the variance was approved the petitioner would have 30 ft. of driveway surface from the curb of the street to the front of the proposed garage. The variance request could be considered excessive. Residential garages vary in depth from 20-24 ft. Reduction in the depth of the garage to 20 ft. would require a front yard setback variance of 13 ft. If approved, the garage addition should be compatible with the existing dwelling unit and should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding dwelling units. Similar materials to the existing dwelling unit's exterior should be used on the proposed garage addition. Commissioner Helgeson asked if this is a three stall garage addition or whether this is replacing the existing garage. Lovelace responded that it is an addition to the two stall garage that is currently in place, making this a 30 ft. plus deep garage. Commissioner Burke asked what the rules are on percent of garage space to house space. Lovelace responded that a garage cannot exceed the footprint of the house. On this particular project the garage area is 1,165 sq. ft. and the foundation is 1,600 sq. ft. so it does not exceed the 100% in this case. Chair Churchill asked how much of that existing footprint is garage space. Lovelace responded that the 1,600 sq. ft. does not include the garage. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2007 agenda&minutes\090507m.doc 74 Commissioner Diekmann asked what the side yard setback is, the distance of the current garage from the side lot line. Lovelace responded that the setback is 10 ft. The existing garage is not identified by the petitioner, although the proposed garage is 10 ft. The existing gazage is currently greater than 10 ft. Commissioner Schindler is having a hard time picturing what the finished product would look like. Lovelace stated that from the front, it will appear to be a three car garage. Chair Churchill commented that the Commission does not have anything in writing from the adjoining neighbors on their opinion ofthis project. Also, in the Commission's written materials it states that a number of people in the area have been expanding their garages and requesting variances. She does not see evidence of this. Lovelace stated the City did not notify neighbors within 350 ft since this is not a public hearing, although Lovelace did suggest to the petitioner to speak with his neighbors especially those that are adjacent to his property to gauge their opinion on this addition. Lovelace mentioned that there is one property nearby that requested and was granted a garage expansion, although it was for a rear setback. Petitioner Dustin Harr stepped forward and stated that he has new information than was originally provided to the City. After further calculations, instead of a 17 ft. variance, he would only need an 8 ft. variance to build the garage addition. The garage addition is for storage only, not to run a business. His intention is to store his 24 ft. boat trailer, 3 vehicles and a riding lawn mower. He has spoken with some of his neighbors and some are for it and others are against it thinking it may be too large or that it may block their view. Commissioner Helgeson asked for clarification on exactly what dimension is being requested for the variance. Helgeson also stated that the City does want homeowners to continue to work on their homes and to improve them. He supports an 8 ft. variance, but definitely not a 17 ft. variance. Lovelace stated that the 17ft. variance was based on the original information and Harr is bringing in new information to change this to an 8 ft. variance. An option is to table this and have the petitioner get a survey and then come back with exact dimensions. Commissioner Diekmann stated that the drawing that shows the 24 ft. x 33 ft. addition to the front of the home also shows a small alcove in the back. He would like to know why this area is not being used for garage space. Harr responded that their kitchen currently expands into the gazage space by a 4 ft. x 4 ft. section and because of the roof lines of the home, he cannot use that area. He could definitely work within an 8 ft. variance if that could be granted. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2007 agenda & minutes\090507m.doc 15 Chair Churchill said that she felt uncomfortable with the conflicting information. She applauds the fact that the petitioner wants to improve his property, although the Commission wants to act in the best interest of the homeowner and the neighborhood. She would be a lot more comfortable considering this request if the Commission was presented with more information. Commissioner Helgeson asked what the timeline is for the project. He stated that with the process of coming before the Commission again and then the City Council and getting approval that it would be October and it is pushing up against a tight timeline to get into the ground before winter. Helgeson is not opposed to act in favor of the 8 ft. variance. Harr said he wants to get into the ground before the start of winter. Commissioner Melander stated that if this issue is tabled, he would like to see Lovelace bring back how many five car garages are in a 1-2 mile radius. The five stall garage seems excessive. Commissioner Diekmann said he calulated 260 sq. ft. of garage space could be put on the side of the house without a variance request and the homeowner could be in the ground before the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Churchill said she does not believe constructing the garage is less expensive than realigning the roof lines. And in order to grant a variance, the Commission needs to seethe hardship in the land and she just does not see it on this property. Commissioner Schindler does not have enough accurate information to grant a variance at this time. Harr responded that he is not able to build on the side of his house because of the significant slope and a utility and drainage easement running along the property line. Lovelace stated that the petitioner does have to be 10 ft. from the side lot line and Harr could apply for a variance to be at 5 ft, but generally the City does not allow encroachments into drainage and utility easements. Harr then presented information from laptop computer and showed the Commission the garage addition renderings from many different angles and in a 3D format. Chair Churchill asked what the roof overhang could be. Lovelace responded a maximum of 30" encroachment.. Commissioner Helgeson found the 3D visual format to be very helpful and can certainly see the hardships with the roof lines and the property. Lovelace reminded the Commission that they do have the ability to table an item ask for additional information. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2007 agenda & minutes\090507m.doc 16 Han said that if the Commission is more comfortable with a 4 ft variance, he would be thankful to have that. Chair Churchill could support a 4 ft. variance. Commissioner Diekmann said he struggled with granting any variance without accurate information. Without a lot survey, the Commission would be guessing. He also does not see the hardship since there is land available for use, but the petitioner just does not want to use the land. MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Commissioner Burke, to approve a front yard setback variance of 4 feet to allow for construction of an approximately 20 ft. x 33 ft. attached garage at 469 Reflection Road due to the following hardships: 1. The plight of the homeowner is due to circumstances not created by the homeowner. 2. Granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The approval of the variance shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The garage addition shall be compatible with and have an exterior finish similar to the existing dwelling unit to include overhangs. 2. A licensed survey must be completed prior to construction. The motion carved 3-3. City Attorney Bob Bauer was refereed to and he said a recommendation from the Planning Commission of 3-3 was acceptable to move forward to the City Council. SKETCH PLAN A. Centennial Homes Sketch Plan -Sketch plan review of a 30-unit memory care building addition to the existing 60-unit assisted living facility. City Planner Tom Lovelace stated that Ecumen is seeking comments from the Planning Coxnrnission regarding a proposed 30-unit memory care addition to their existing 60-unit assisted living facility, located at 14615-25 Pennock Avenue. The building will be tucked into the southwest corner of the 3.95 acre lot. The current facility is located in "PD-341/zone 5" (Planned Development) which allows for nursing homes, rest homes, retirement homes or hospitals for human care, day care centers and private schools as conditional uses. Therefore an amendment to the conditional use for the existing use would be required as part of any approval of this expansion. The two existing buildings have a maximum building coverage of 21 %. The planned development allows for a maximum building coverage of 30%. The proposed memory care unit's building coverage cannot exceed 9%. The petitioner is proposing to reconfigure a portion of the parking lot, which will remove 7 existing spaces and add 19 parking spaces for a total of 48 spaces to serve 90 existing assisted living/proposed memory care units. Required parking for this type of operation is one space for each four beds plus one space for each two employees and one space for each staff doctor. The petitioner will need to provide information on the number of beds and staff at the time of formal submission. S:\planning\PLANCONIM\2007 agenda & minutes\090507m.doc 17 A courtyard is shown on the west side of the building approximately 15 feet from the west property line. It appears that it will encroach into an existing berm. The berm was installed to provide a buffer between this use and the residential properties to the west. Further scrutiny of the encroachment and its potential adverse impact on the residential properties will be part of any formal review. The submitted perspective sketch indicated the use of face brick and lap siding for the exterior finish. The proposed fmish should complement the existing buildings on the site. Commissioner Helgeson speculated what the courtyard is being used for when typically memory care facilities are locked down for the safety of the residents. Would there. be any issues with the housing and the daycare facility nearby? Lovelace stated that it would be an issue to address with Ecumen as to what the use would be of the courtyard. Maybe a decorative fence would be added to the courtyard for the safety of the residents. Commissioner Diekmann asked if the applicant would need to retain the stormwater, and what is the maximum building coverage. Lovelace stated that Ecumen would need to provide onsite infiltration of the new building. The total coverage is 21 % and the maximum allowable is 30%. Commissioner Melander stated that the building looks good on the site and it is also in the capacity that the Ciry needs. He would like to see it blend in architecturally with the surroundings, likes the thought of a single-story over atwo-story. The courtyard would be a nice facility for the residents to sit outside and enjoy the weather and it would probably be supervised by staff Chair Churchill thinks having an option like this available in Apple Valley is critical. Lovelace stated no official action is needed. The applicant is seeking input from the Planning Commission regarding their proposal. Lovelace will relay their comments to the applicant, Ecumen. 8. ADJOURNMENT Chair Churchill asked if there was any other business. There being no other business, Chair Churchill asked for a motion of adjournment. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler, to adjourn the meeting at 10:07 p.m. The motion carried 6-0. S:\planning\E'LANCOMM\2007 agenda&mioutes\090507mdoc ]g