Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/2009CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 2009 CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Churchill at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Jeannine Churchill, Tom Melander, David Schindler, Keith Diekmann, Ken Alwin and Tim Burke Members Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer, Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes, 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. Hearing none she called for a motion. MOTION Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, to approve the agenda. The motion carried 6 -0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 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 Alwin, to recommend approval of the minutes of the September 16, 2009, meeting. The motion carried 5 -0. Commissioner Diekmann abstained. 4. CONSENT ITEM A. Revision to C.U.P. Condition — South Metro Jazzercise The City Council approved a conditional use permit for the South Metro Jazzercise at 14791 Energy Way on September 24, 2009. Resolution No. 2009 -133 contained a condition that the property owner was to obtain a cross - parking easement from the condominium owner's association for the Knob Ridge Town Office development located on Lot 3, Block 1, Knob Ridge 2nd Addition. After fiuther review and discussions with the property owner, staff was informed that additional proof -of- parking spaces could be added which made it unnecessary for the property owner to obtain Sdp1anning\PLANC0MM\2009 agenda & minutes \100709mdoc Planning Conunission Minutes October 7, 2009 Page 2 of 8 the cross - parking easement. Therefore, staff is recommending that the conditional use permit be modified to remove condition number six. Chair Churchill asked for any comments from the Planning Commission. Hearing none, she called for a motion. MOTION Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, to recommend that Resolution No. 2009 -133 be amended to strike condition number 6 based upon the fact that additional proof -of- parking spaces have been identified which will satisfy the parking requirement for the commercial recreational use at 14791 Energy Way. The motion carried 6 -0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - -NONE- 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Bishop Storehouse Sign Variance — Consideration of a sign variance to reduce the required setback from 13 ft. to 0 ft. for a ground sign. Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes stated the applicant is requesting a variance in order to locate a sign abutting the north property line at Bishop's Storehouse, located at 6890 -145 Street West. The sign ordinance requires signs to be set back a minimum of 13 ft. from a property line abutting a street. The applicant is requesting a variance from 13 ft. to 0 ft. to accommodate a 5 ft. high x 6 ft. wide ground sign. The applicant states there is not adequate distance between the property line and the parking lot to accommodate the sign; however, there is 20 ft. between the property line and the curb for the parking lot. City staff approved a sign permit for the sign in August with the condition that the sign be located so that it met the sign code. Staff informed the applicant prior to the issuance of the permit that the sign would need to comply with the Code, and staff understood that the sign would be turned parallel to the road so that it met the setback requirement. The applicant now states that the setback requirement cannot be met and that it places an undue hardship on their business. The applicant's letter states that clients will not be able to find the building unless the sign is closer to 145 Street West, and perpendicular to the road. Also, the applicant states the sign may be damaged from snowplows if it is too close to the parking lot. The sign code states that all of the following conditions must be met in order for a sign variance to be issued: 1. Special conditions exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of these regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district and the terms of these sign regulations; 4. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege for a use not common to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and Sdp1anning\PLANC0MM\2009 agenda & minutes \100709mdoc Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2009 Page 3 of 8 5. The proposed use of the property shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent properties and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. In staff's opinion, the hardship test is not met. There is 20 ft. between the property line and the parking lot. The sign could meet the 13 ft. setback and there would still be 1 ft. between the sign and the parking lot curb. The sign could also be turned parallel to the street and meet the setback. Additionally, other businesses must comply with the 13 ft. setback requirement. Galaxie Car Wash, located at the northeast comer of 145 Street and Galaxie Avenue, received a variance for the sign location, but that is due to an easement that runs along Galaxie Avenue. The sign was moved closer to Galaxie Avenue so that it would not be located in the easement. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to locate in an easement. This is a privilege not enjoyed by other properties in Apple Valley. It should be noted that Apple Valley Collision does have a sign in the easement, but this building and sign were constructed in 1979 prior to the adoption of the sign code. The setback requirement is in place to create uniformity in sign placement so that all businesses are treated equally, and to ensure that signs do not encroach into drainage and utility easements. There is a 10 ft. wide drainage and utility easement along the north property line. The sign is proposed to be in the easement, which is a violation of the City Code. The Public Works Director has expressed concern about the requested variance and the location of a structure in a drainage and utility easement. Dykes stated that it is staff s opinion that the variance request does not meet the hardship test and that there are reasonable alternatives available to the applicant. The Public Works Director stated that he is uncomfortable with the requested sign being located in a drainage and utility easement. Additionally, the requested location of a sign structure in a drainage and utility easement violates the City Code. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the variance request. Dykes asked for questions or comments from the Planning Commission. Chair Churchill asked if there was any room on either end of the parking lot where the islands are located to install the sign. Dykes replied that it is landscaped with rock and mulch but certainly it can be modified to meet the setback. She stated that the applicant's hesitance with placing the sign close to the parking lot is it possibly being damaged by a snowplow or someone backing into it. The applicant wishes for the sign to be close to the road in order for clientele to find them. Dykes stated that the applicant does have the opportunity to place the sign parallel to the road, place it in another location or to place a sign on the building. Chair Churchill asked if there was a limitation on square feet with this building. Dykes replied no. Dykes stated that Apple Valley Collision has a sign that is closer to the road, but that was placed there prior to the sign code. It is grandfathered in. Commissioner Burke asked if the facility is parked correctly and if so, could they lose a stall. S: \planning\PLANC0MM\2009 agenda & minutes \100709mdoe Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2009 Page 4 of 8 Dykes replied yes they could lose a stall and meet that setback, although the applicant's concern is the distance from the road. Hearing no further comments, Chair Churchill asked if the petitioner would like to address the Planning Commission. The petitioner, Don Gordhamer, manager of Bishop's Storehouse, stated that they have the largest food shelf in the City serving 200 people per month. They also support Second Harvest, and contributed about 7001bs. of food to Community Action last month. They do not solicit food. They manufacture their own food and also have a cannery on site. They serve the surrounding areas of North Branch, St. Cloud and Rochester by truck. During the week, people from St. Paul, Anoka and Burnsville and all the adjoining areas visit the food shelf. They've been at their current location since 1982. Their location sits back 140 ft. from the road and people have a great degree of difficulty finding their building if they're not from the area. The only existing sign is on the building and it is very small. Mr. Gordhamer displayed pictures of the building, the sign, the berm and locations of other businesses along 145 Street West and their signage. Mr. Gordhamer stated that he believes their location has a hardship and that they are being unfairly singled out from making an attractive berm area like their neighbors. Mr. Gordhamer stated that he believes a parallel sign will not service their customers adequately. Commissioner Schindler asked the applicant if there has been any consideration to locating the sign somewhere else on the property. Mr. Gordhamer replied that the building is 140 ft. from the road. He stated that he doesn't think it's realistic to ask them to install a sign so far back from the road. Commissioner Melander asked the petitioner why they haven't made a larger sign for the building in the past. Mr. Gordhamer stated that it was the standard for the church in the past. Commissioner Melander stated that if the facility has operated since 1982 with the current sign, any improvement would be far superior to the existing sign. Mr. Gordhamer stated their business doesn't operate the same as it did in the early days. It is a bustling operation now. They're serving a much larger surrounding community which is not always local. Commissioner Diekmann stated that the north side of the parking lot has spaces available that could be taken to install the sign. Mr. Gordhamer agreed with Commissioner Diekmann, although he said it would be a horrible solution and they would not do it. S: \ptanning\PLANC0MM\2009 agenda & minutes \100709m.dm Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2009 Page 5 of 8 Commissioner Diekmann said it is a 10 ft. difference and from the City's standpoint this opens up a whole separate issue from what the applicant is speaking of He stated that this opens a precedent that the City does not want to have anything to do with. The City has a sign ordinance and business owners cannot put a sign in a drainage and utility easement. Mr. Gordhamer replied that someone could place a sign in an easement if the City Council approves it. Commissioner Burke stated that clientele will not speed by the facility since the speed limit on that road is 20 -25 mph. If people do happen to miss it, there is a lumber yard and then vacant lots. People will know by this time that they've missed the business. The road also ends at a dead end. With a bigger sign on the building, people would be able to see it even if it was a second time drive - by. Mr. Gordhamer stated that one of his neighbors, Apple Valley Collision, has a nice sign. Chair Churchill stated that the Apple Valley Collision sign was installed in 1979 before the sign ordinance. Mr. Gordhamer asked when the sign ordinance was put into effect. Dykes replied in 1990. Mr. Gordhamer stated that their facility was present previous to 1990. Chair Churchill stated that their business did not have a sign, but Apple Valley Collision did. Commissioner Alwin asked the petitioner if people are arriving at their facility because they happened to drive by or do they already know they're coming there. Mr. Gordhamer said they are given an address and an order form. Commissioner Alwin confirmed that they are looking only for an address. Mr. Gordhamer replied yes and many find their location by seeing their mailbox. Commissioner Diekmann asked if this is the only sign option the food shelf has. Mr. Gordhamer replied that he doesn't know. He said this is what they typically do in their other facilities. Commissioner Diekmann asked if this is the sign that the church approved and that this is their only option. Mr. Gordhamer replied that this is the standard sign that they use. S:\p1anning\PLANC0MM\2009 agenda & minutes \100709m.doc Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2009 Page 6 of 8 Chair Churchill, hearing no further comments from the Planning Commission, excused the applicant. She asked Dykes to review the site plan area of the proposed sign installation. Dykes reviewed the site plan with the Commission. Chair Churchill asked that if the applicant would be under- parked for this use if they sacrificed one or two spaces in the middle of the parking lot. Dykes replied that she would need to review the parking calculations, although she doesn't believe it would impact them. Chair Churchill asked what the dimensions of the sign are. Dykes replied 6 ft. wide by 6 ft. tall. Taking out a space would allow the applicant room to plow snow and provide maneuverability. Commissioner Diekmann asked how far back the curb line is from the parking lot. Dykes replied 20 ft. Commissioner Diekmann said that the 13 ft. setback still allows 7 ft. for the applicant to install the sign without removing a parking space. Dykes replied yes, but the applicant's concern is someone backing up into the sign or a snowplow hitting and damaging the sign. Commissioner Diekmann stated that this could be done by removing only one parking space. Dykes replied that is correct Chair Churchill asked that given the size of the proposed sign, if it would be possible to put one on either side of the parking lot. Dykes replied that the site would be allowed only one sign. Commissioner Melander stated that it is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission to come up with an alternative for the applicant. He stated it is their responsibility to take action on whether they should grant a variance or not. Commissioner Melander made a motion to grant the variance for the site. Commissioner Burke seconded the motion. Chair Churchill replied that they have a motion and a second to grant the variance. She asked if there was any further discussion on the motion. Hearing none, she added a comment that the reason she was pursuing that line of questioning was to make sure that there was in fact reasonable alternatives that are available to the applicant. Also, that the Commission members satisfy their S: \planning\PLANC0MM\2009 agenda & minutes \100709m.doc Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2009 Page 7 of 8 concerns and that the Commission isn't unduly penalizing this applicant compared to other applicants throughout the City. Chair Churchill called the question of all in favor. No Commissioners responded. She asked for those opposed to the motion. The Commission voted unanimously to oppose the motion. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Commissioner Burke, to recommend approval of the variance request. The motion failed 0 -6. Chair Churchill stated that this was not the final action. She stated that this item will continue to the City Council with the Planning Commission's recommendation to not approve the variance. 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer stated that on May 29, 2009, the final draft of the City of Apple Valley's 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update was submitted to the Metropolitan Council for their review and approval. A short time later, like most of the other cities in the metropolitan area, Met Council staff notified the City that additional information was needed before they would consider the plan to be "complete." Staff has worked with other city departments to discuss the outstanding issues and collect the additional information that was requested, which pertained mostly to more detailed explanations of some of the City's policies, programs and ordinances. Several edits were needed in the Parks and Active Living chapter because Dakota County made changes to some of the elements of their trail system plan after the City had prepared its information. The most notable new item that was added to the plan concerns the future development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels in 5 -year increments out to the year 2030. The 5 -year staging plan map is a rough approximation of when development is predicted to occur. The plan is not regulatory, so parcels are neither required to nor precluded from developing at a time that is different from the timeframe shown on the map. The purpose of the 5 -year staging plan is to help the Metropolitan Council estimate how much sewer capacity will be needed in the future. The total area of the parcels that are designated "SG" (Sand & Gravel) and Vacant is 765 acres, accounting for 7% of the land area in Apple Valley. Rapidly developing communities that need to extend trunk sewer lines rely on staging plans to ensure orderly development in their community. Because Apple Valley is nearly fully developed, and only a small section of trunk sanitary sewer needs to be extended into the Mixed Business Campus area, the 5 -year staging plan is an informational tool rather than a critical planning tool for Apple Valley. Bodmer stated that once the Met Council approves the Plan, it will be returned to the City for the City Council to move to adopt. Bodmer asked for questions or comments from the Planning Commission. SAp1anning\PLANC0MM\2009 agenda & minutes \100709m.doc Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2009 Page 8 of 8 Chair Churchill, hearing no comments from the Planning Commission, thanked Bodmer. B. Review of the Upcoming Schedule and other Updates Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist stated that as part of the Comprehensive Plan, staff pays attention to active living within the City. Today was Walk and Bike to School Day and staff participated this morning at a local school. This event will be promoted every Friday in the months of October and November. Also, Nordquist encouraged residents to visit the City's website, mmmLcityofapplevalley.org and learn more about the Better Energy Initiative. Another aspect of the Comprehensive Plan is to promote investments and sustaining neighborhoods. A way to do that is to have an energy efficient home. There is still time for residents to sign up for an energy audit, which is a $400 value for a cost of only $20 to the homeowner. Nordquist continued by stating that the month of October is National Planning Month. The American Planning Association (APA) and the Governor of Minnesota have proclaimed October as planning month. Nordquist applauded the commissioners for their service to the City of Apple Valley. 8. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Churchill asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Commissioner Alwin, to adjourn the meeting at 7:43 p.m. The motion carried 6 -0. 5\planning\PLANC0MM\2009 agenda & minutes \100709mdoc.