Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/18/2008 CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 18, 2008 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, Keith Diekmann, Tim Burke, Tom Melander, Frank Blundetto and David Schindler Members Absent: Thomas Helgeson Staff Present: Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer, City Attorney Sharon Hills, 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 Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann to approve the agenda. The motion tamed 6-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 2008 Chair Churchill asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, she called for approval of the minutes. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, to recommend approval of the minutes of the June 4, 2008, meeting. The motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Melander abstained. 4. 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE/ACTIONS Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist updated the Planning Commission on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Staff and the consultant are working on the next draft and it should be to the Planning Commission by the end of the week. This draft will be reviewed at the joint study session with the City Council at 6:00 p.m. on June 26, 2008. 5. CONSENT ITEM --NONE-- 6. PUBLIC HEARING 1 S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\061808m.doc A. Wal-Mart Addition -Consider amendments to existing conditional use permits and site plan building permit authorization to allow for the construction of a 60,683 sq. ft. addition to an existing 129,958 sq. ft. retail store. City Planner Tom Lovelace stated that the amendments are related to conditional use permits that already exist such as pallet storage, shipping bale storage, location of the garden center, propane tanks and temporary storage in the tire Tube express area and there maybe one or two others. Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson, Inc. and the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. have asked that the public hearing be opened and continued until the July 16, 2008, meeting. They would like to have further discussions with staff and City officials before their presentation before the Planning Commission. Chair Churchill stated that since the petitioner is not present and the meeting will be continued unfil the next meeting, public comments will not be taken this evening; they will be taken on July 16~'. Chair Churchill asked for a motion to continue the public hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Blundetto moved; seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, to continue the public hearing until the July 16, 2008- Planning Commission meeting. The mofion carried 6-0. B. Cobblestone Lake Master Sign Plan and "PD" Amendments -Consider proposed amendments to allow ffor increased height and reduced setbacks for monument signs and site plan building permit authorization for several monument signs and a clock tower in the Cobblestone Lake development. City Planner Tom Lovelace stated that the petitioner is requesting approval of amendments to "PD- 703" (Planned Development) to allow for reduced setbacks and increased heights for monument signs and off-premise signage; a master monument sign plan; and site plan/building permit authorization to allow for construction of several monument signs and a clock tower in the west half of the Cobblestone Lake development. The 320-acre mixed-use development is generally located in the northeast corner of 160a' Street West and Pilot Knob Road. The petitioner is requesting amendments that would allow monument signs to have a minimum setback of 5 feet from a property line and a maximum height of 12 feet. They are also requesting an amendment that would allow for off-premise advertising signage. The petitioner is proposing to construct monument signs at the intersections of 160`s Street West and Elm Creek Lane, 160"' Street West and Elmhurst Lane, 160a' Street West and Pilot Knob Road, 157x' Street West and Pilot Knob Road, and 155a` Street West and Eagle Bay Drive. They are also proposing to construct a 42-foot tall clock tower within the roundabout located at the intersection of Ehn Creek Lane and Cobblestone Lake Parkway. Several of the monument signs are proposed to be located in existing drainage and utility easements. Generally, the City does not encourage structures within drainage and utility easements because restrictions and/or conflicts that may impact the use of said easements. Also, the monument sign along the west side of Elm Creek will be located within a conservation easement. S:\planning\PI,ANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\061808mdx 2 Some of the monuments are proposed on private property not owned by the applicant and on property proposed to be dedicated as public park. The petitioner has received confirmation from Ryan Companies US, Inc. to construct a sign on property they own along the north side of 157a` Street West and from the City of Apple Valley to construct a sign on property on the south side of 157a' Street West. The petitioner has met with the City's Park and Recreation Director and it has been concluded that any signage proposed on property to be dedicated in the future for park will be omitted from any park dedication. A recent transportation study has indicated that a minimum of 250' ofright-of--way for'/< mile in each direction from the intersection of Pilot Knob Road and 160a' Street West will be needed in order to accommodate future changes to that intersection, which would likely mean that a minimum of 25' of/~ right-of-way would be needed along the east side of Pilot Knob Road and 160a' Street West. Although no timeframe has been established for any reconstruction of this intersection, the petitioner may want to take the issue of the additional right-of--way into consideration when locating the wall and monument signs within the area mentioned. The submitted plans indicate Target's bull's-eye logo on the pillars at the north and east end of the proposed wall. This is considered off-premise signage which the City has been very consistent in not allowing in the city. Staff continues to have a concern with this proposed amendment and potential impacts that it may have citywide. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the clock tower proposal and is recommending that nothing over 2.5' above the grade of the concrete apron shall be constructed within 10' of the apron. The petitioner has revised their plans to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer: Finally, the Acting Public Works Director has indicated that a license agreement will need to be executed between the City and petitioner, which clearly addresses issues of liabilities and responsibilities related to the clock tower and maintenance of the water and sewer lines located. within the roundabout right-of--way. Approval of the site plan/building permit authorization for the clock tower will be subject to the condition that the building permit shall not be issued until a license agreement has been executed by Tradition Development and the City of Apple Valley: Commissioner Diekmann asked if the signs are set back from the road at the same distance and what that distance is. Lovelace replied that there is not a consistency. Commissioner Diekmann asked which signs currently fall into an easement. Lovelace replied that the sign at the new liquor store location would encroach approximately 2' into an easement. Chair Churchill asked the petitioner to step forward. Jacob Fick, with Tradition Development Company representing South Shore Development, the property owner, stepped forward to address the Planning Commission. S:\planning\PI.ANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\061808mdoc 3 Mr. Fick presented colored renderings of the signs and their locations. He also stated the property owner is working with legal staff to create a license agreement for the maintenance of the clock tower. In answer to Commissioner Diekmann's question, each location of the signs is unique so that there are not consistent setbacks. Chair Churchill asked for comments from the public. Hearing none, she asked for further comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Diekmann stated that within the staff report, there was concern over the Target logo and its impact citywide. He stated that there is a Menard's sign in Fischer Marketplace that is located a half mile from the building. Lovelace replied that Menard's was allowed the pylon signs as part of the agreement and the sign is a quarter mile from the building. That was part of the overall signage to market the development. It also is self-contained within the commercial development. The Cobblestone Lake sign with the bulls-eyes is removed from the commercial development and is located at a corner where there will be residential development. Commissioner Blundetto commented that he is still okay with the bulls-eyes. Chair Churchill clarified with Mr. Fick that the bulls-eyes would be brushed stainless steel and not a bright red color. Mr. Fick confirmed this. Commissioner Burke stated that he would like to see the bulls-eyes removed. Commissioner Melander agreed that he would like to see the bulls-eyes removed from the monument sign. Commissioner Schindler stated he is comfortable either way. Commissioner Diekmann commented that he would like the bulls-eyes to stay. Lovelace commented that staffis not adamant that the bulls-eyes be removed, but staff wants to further review the issue to ensure that the City won't have a potential problem. Businesses are always looking for an advantage and if they see this, they may ask for off-site directional signs for those businesses that are not located right on major road frontage. Commissioner Melander stated that he's run into off-site signage in his line of work. This would be a precedent and the City has to be careful with precedents. It might come up later with other business signage that the City wouldn't support. Chair Churchill asked City Attorney Sharon Hills if there was better wording that would allow the Commission to move forward with an approval tonight and leave this issue as an item requiring further research and discussion. S:\plaxming\PLANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\061808mdoc q Hills replied that the item must be acted upon due to statutory time constraints. The other choice is to deny it and have the petitioner bring it back at another time. Commissioner Blundetto said he would like to see the Commission come to a decision this evening. He said he would consider staffls recommendation and vote to remove the bulls-eyes from the sign. Chair Churchill commented that she is leaning the same way because it is in a residenfial area. She is in favor of moving forward with staff s recommendation. If staff would find anything in the interim, staff could modify the recommendation to the City Council. Chair Churchill hearing no further discussion asked for a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Melander to recommend approval of the following amendments to Planned-Development Ordinance No. 703: • Monument signs shall be set back a minimum of 1 foot from public street right-of- way along 160th Street and a minimum of 5' from all other public street right-of--way lines. • No monument sign shall be allowed to encroach into an easement of record unless approved by the City Council. • Monument sign location shall be subject to Section 155.335 of the City code. • A monument sign structure shall have a maximum height of 12' from grade to the peak ofany roof feature. The motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler to recommend approval of the master monument sign site plan for the Cobblestone Lake Development, dated May 12, 2008, subject to the condition that all sign locations shall be subject to applicable requirements set forth in the sign and zoning ordinance, and Planned Development Ordinance No. 703 as amended. The motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Melander to recommend site plan/building permit authorization for monument signs in locations identified on the Cobblestone Lake Master Sign Site Plan, dated May 12, 2008, subject to the following: • Construcfion shall be in conformance with all applicable City ordinances. • The Target logo shall be removed from the monument sign located at 160th Street West and Pilot Knob Road. The motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler to recommend approval of site plan building permit authorization to allow for construction of a clock tower at the Cobblestone Lake Parkway/Elm Creek Lane roundabout as indicated on the revised plan dated June 11, 2008,. subject to the condition that no building permit shall be issued unfil a license agreement between Tradition Development and the City of Apple Valley has been executed. The motion carried 6-0. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\061808m.doc g 7. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Russell Porch Setback Variance -Consideration of variance from the 75 ft. shoreland setback to allow for an existing 12' x 14' four-season porch and a new 12' x 16' deck to be located 50' from the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of Long Lake. Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer stated that Steve and Sandee Russell; 5617 - 133rd Street Court, request a variance to the shoreland setback requirement to allow an existing 12' x 14' deck and to build a 12' x 16' deck to the rear of their home. The zoning code requires a minimum building setback of 75' from the Ordinary High Water (OI1 W) level of Long Lake. The Russells request the variance to allow the porch and deck to be located approximately 50' from the lake. The Russell home is located adjacent to Long Lake and is therefore within the "SH" (shoreland) overlay zoning district. The SH zoning district is an overlay zoning district which places more stringent development requirements on properties within 1,000' of a recreational development lake as classified by the DNR. The SH zoning district requirements were adopted after many of the homes adjacent to the lakes were constructed, so in many cases the homes are legal non-conforming structures. The Russell home was constructed in 1974; the SH zoning requirements were adopted in 1983. In the Russell's case, a porch was constructed onto the back of the home in 1995, which should have met the 75' shoreland setback requirement. However, the site plan that was submitted by the builder stated that the porch would be set back 110' from the lake, which appeared to meet the code requirements. Last summer Mr. Russell met with City staff to discuss constructing a deck onto the rear ofhis home. While staffwas reviewing the property information, the discrepancy in the site plan was identified. Mr. Russell was informed that the existing porch did not comply with the existng requirements and that a new deck would similarly not comply. A deck is classified as a pervious structure. It is assumed that water is able to infiltrate the soil to some extent under the structure. The proposed deck would be located no closer than the existing 4- seasonporch. And the deck would also be a pervious surface. Chair Churchill asked Bodmer if Long Lake has risen higher in recent years. Bodmer replied that it has somewhat and there has been construction of water pumps to regulate the water levels so that issue has been addressed. Commissioner Melander said that this request is a reasonable use for the property and he has no problem with it. Bodmer displayed some photographs that showed the footings of the four-season. porch with no foundation underneath. Chair Churchill hearing no further comments asked the petitioner if he wanted to add anything. Petitioner Steve Russell stated that he contracted the porch to be built. The builder stated that he would obtain the appropriate City building permits, although he misrepresented the distance from the S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\061808m.doc shoreline. His request for a deck is fairly modest in size and water will be allowed to pass through it and down to the lake. Chair Churchill hearing no further comments asked for a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Commissioner Burke to recommend that the variance for the existing 12' x 14' porch and a new 12' x 16' deck be approved based upon the hardship created by the shoreland setback requirement which was enacted after the construction of the home and based upon the fact that the variance will have no negative impact on adjacent properties. 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. Opportunity for comment on the Draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update, particularly the Land Use Element. Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist commented that there are two new designations being proposed in the draft plan of the land use element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: business campus and private recreation. The City has asked the property owners that would be affected by these new designations to provide comments and concerns. They are Pete Fischer, representing Fischer Sand and Gravel, and Peter Coyle, representing Apple Valley Golf Course. Peter Coyle, of Larkin Hoffman and Law Firm on behalf of Apple Valley Golf Course, stepped forward to address the Commission. He said he and Mr. Watrud, owner of the golf course, appeared informally before the Planning Commission and expressed some of their concems about the viability of the golf course, which has been an institution in character and zoning within the City. Regrettably, as with many of the smaller, 9-hole, undersize, undeveloped golf courses, its economic viability is growing increasingly in doubt. Mr. Coyle continued to address the Commission. The following comments are verbatim. "We've indicated to staff that the fmancial trend line, unfortunately, is not positive; it is negative and this year is no exception. He said they had a very dismal start to the spring. The cool weather and rains have essentially cancelled out the market. Typically, by this time, if you don't have your seasonal recreational user attuned to the sport and you don't have them captured, they've switched onto something else-they can do reliably. Staff has shared with us the proposed re-guide of the Apple Valley Golf Course property. We understand the objectives of staff and respectfully, we think that it is too narrow of a designation.. We think that singling out the golf course as the only guided private recreafional use in the City begins to look like a spot zone. The combined linkage between the Comp Plan and the institutional zoning allows the only other viable private institutional use to be church use. We have laid out the property to show how a church could be situated on the property. It actually would work well so I'm not here to suggest that that wouldn't be a potenfially very viable use for the property. From our standpoint though, our goal here is to provide the most flexibility for the use of this property. The objective we had when we reviewed the plans with you this past winter was to highlight a possible range of low to medium density residential uses that would mhror the surrounding residential neighborhood that encompasses the golf course property. The private recreation guiding doesn't support that. So that is really the only objection we have; not proposing that the property be S:~planning~PLANCOMM~2008 agenda & minutes\061808mdoc rezoned. We're not even proposing that we change the actual use of the property because frankly this is the Watruds' livelihood. So from their standpoint they hope that the golf course can survive and be operational for their family. But, we have to anticipate that the increasing likelihood that that is something that cannot be sustained. So my understanding of the City's policy in the respect to Comp Plan amendments is that you do not initiate them on behalf of a property owner or a developer, mid-stride after you've developed your plan. So, what we want to avoid is a circumstance where in three years from now the land use that has been there for so many years needs to change and our only option that we are left with, based on the guiding and zoning, is a church. That doesn't seem to me to put the property owner in a very fair position relative to the marketplace or even the use. It may not even ultimately be the best use for the property assuming there is even a buyer for the property for that purpose. The -key question for me becomes if we are in that circumstance how then do we pursue a viable alternative private use of the property short of having it be kept effecfively as a public use even though it is in private ownership. I know that isn't the City's intention and certainly is not our desire but I wanted to express that concern to you because of the unique nature of a golf course in this marketplace. We've seen plenty of other examples in the suburban communities where these things are essentially dying on the vine and rather than sit on our hands and come in to you with a developer by surprise, we thought it would be better and fairer to alert you and the public and to ask you to provide whatever flexibility you can within your Comp Plan to support reuse of the property when and if that is necessary in the near term. Those are my comments and if you have any questions, I would be happy to respond to them." Chair Churchill stated the Planning Commission's intent was to modify the Comp Plan designation for this property and to recognize that. the golf course may submit. a proposal to change the use of the property. Chair Churchill said the City wanted to ensure that it was clear to everyone that the golf course is not public property and that there maybe changes. Commissioner Blundetto stated the Commission also wanted to put some flexibility in the language so that there were options for later uses. Chair Churchill stated the Commission will review the language further. She again emphasized that the City only intended to state the property was private property, not, as some people may have thought, public property. Mr. Coyle replied that he understood that, and added the following, "In fairness to staff, the language that they have crafted consistent with the private recreation guiding they are proposing, certainly sends a message to the reader that something could change here in the near term. The dilemma though that we are left with is we still have a hard guiding that can only change with the discretionary permission of the City Council and so it doesn't give us any of the assurance of flexibility that we are talking about. It only acknowledges the possibility that that request may come forward. By comparison I would point to other areas of the City where you have transitional uses that are likely coming. And the City is in fact proactively re-guiding those properties to the use that you would like to see occur there. And in my mind this is the same circumstance. I think we are all relatively certain that the golf course use is not going - S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\061808m.doc g to be there within our lifetimes and so in my mind we ought to use this opportunity with the Comp Plan to set the designation .for what you would like to see there as opposed to hoping that the golf course use will be able to sustain the economic times that we are in and I'm going to suggest respectfully that that is not going to happen. Thank you for your time." Chair Churchill thanked Mr. Coyle. Gent' Duffy, attorney for the Fischers, stepped forward to make his comments to the Planning Commission. The following comments are verbatim. "We've also met with staff a couple of Imes to discuss our concerns with respect to the Comp Guide Plan changes in respect to our properties. Our biggest concern is the business campus designation: Our initial concern is what is it exactly supposed to be? What is the mix here? If you can give us an idea of what the mix is, if it's broad enough, if it gives us enough flexibility. That's what we would really like to see. As we've told staff and the Mayor, if someone comes in and says I want 40 acres to put a business campus like Medtronics on Fischer property, we're certainly not going to say no. But we want the flexibility to deal. with what the marketplace brings to the property. One of the issues we think needs to be addressed is a very specific definition of what this business campus is and what can go there. What sort of mix of things can go there. That becomes important on a lot of different levels. Initially it becomes important because it drives some of our end use grading. Density will drive how big the ponds have to be and where we can put certain things. So there are some issues that have a real time impact now as we go forward. We would like that to be addressed. We've been working with staff and think we've made some headway on those kinds of issues. Hopefully the things we've discussed will have been addressed when the draft comes out by the end of the week. Our big concerns really are within that business campus designation -the size of it, what are the mix of properties that will be allowed within it, what are the impacts of those uses on things that we all know are out there; the biggest one being transportation. Are we going to be more dense, are we going to have problems with transportation, what is the transportation going to look like? Are we talking about trucks? What are we talking about? What are the times that these vehicles will come and go to the property? Those are issues that we would like to be proactive on. And the way that we can be proactive with our property and with you is if we really know exactly what it is we're talking about. To the extent that we can be more clear and more descriptive of what's going to be in that campus, the more helpful that will be for us and more likely that we can work with you to get to where we're all actually happy with the end product. That really is where we are." Commissioner Melander said his interpretation of the business campus designation is that the City is looking for less specificity as opposed to more.. Not many cities have an opportunity to have a piece of land this size to offer for business instead of residential. He said the City would prefer not to limit it so that it has a broader range of appeal. Mr. Duffy said the property owner would like to know how broad the designation is going to be. He made the following comments verbatim: S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\061808m.doc q "Using the term business campus doesn't help me understand whether or not they can go out and say that includes some commercial office, smaller medical, smaller industrial, office wazehouse. What are we going to be allowed to do? If the City owned the property, the City could sit on it for 50 years and if it developed, it developed and if it didn't, it didn't. But a private land owner can't do that. We can't sit on it for 50 years and hope that, like Lakeville did, people will want to buy airplanes and use Airlake Industrial Park. One of the parks that were cited by Mr. Nordquist in his letter to us is in Roseville. I have some familiarity with that and it hasn't developed. And they're very disappointed in the fact that it is 20 years old and it hasn't developed. As a private land owner, we can't have that happen. Developers don't want to own land: The worst thing that can happen to them is to own land. We want to be in a position if someone comes to us and tells us they would like to buy a chunk of our property and it looks like its something really good for-the City of Apple Valley and really good for the Fischers that were not going to have to have a Comp Guide Plan change as part of the process to get that to happen. Somehow we have to get the City's desires and our desires to be on the same track. And please understand that we want to do that. We want to work with that. It may mean that we will have to have more meetings to sit down and talk about what this thing should look like. We want you to know that we're absolutely open to having those discussions." Mr. Nordquist thanked the representatives of the businesses. He said the City will work to address these are legitimate concerns for their properties, and better define the business campus designation. Chair Churchill said that both properties have been primary concerns during the Comp Plan process. She said the City wanted to continue to work with the property owners to ensure any designations work for both the City and the property owners. B. Review of upcoming Schedule and other Updates Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist reminded the Planning Commission that of a joint session with the City Council on Thursday, June 26, 200$, at 6:00 pm. Items of discussion will include: • Comp Plan and update • Transit-oriented development and transit comdor • Update Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit facility improvements as it relates to the station stop locations Also, July 2, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. is an informal work session for work on the Comp Plan. The meeting will take place in the Regent Conference Room. 9. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Churchill asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Commissioner Blundetto moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler, to adjourn the meeting at 8:22 p.m. The motion carried 6-0. S:\planning\PI,ANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\061808mdoc 10