Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/1994CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 18, 1994 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Alan Felkner in the City Council Chambers of City Hall. Ch airman Felkner introduced himself to the audience and apologized for the crowded conditions in the room, stating that it is necessary to utilize that facility for public hearings because the Council Chambers are set up to tape for public broadcast. Members Present: Alan Felkner, Marcia Gowling, Jeannine Churchill, Len Miller, Frank Blundetto, James Cady, and Karen Edgeton. Staff Present: Richard Kelley, Scott Hickok, Keith Gordon, John Gretz, and Mike Dougherty. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MOTION: Frank Blundetto moved, seconded by Marcia Gowling, to approve the agenda, with the modification recommended by Staff that Bachman's be added as Item 6G. The motion passed 7 - 0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 4, 1994 The minutes were approved with the modification that James Cady and Karen Edgeton were absent and were not shown as such on the May 4, 1994, minutes. MOTION: Frank Blundetto moved, seconded by Marcia Gowling, to approve the minutes. The motion passed 5 - 0, with 2 abstentions. 4. CONSENT ITEMS A. Arby's Expansion: Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization at 7513 153rd Street West, passed on consent 7 - 0. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 2 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Fairview Clinic: Planned Development Rezoning, 1 Lot Replat, Conditional User Permit, and Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization for Medical Clinic Rick Kelley described the item, stating that this is for a medical clinic of approximately 25,000 square feet, expandable by an additional 10,000 square feet. Kelley continued by stating that the language in the planned development states that the allowable conditional uses include the term health centers, a term which is somewhat ambiguous. The proposal is to amend the language to specifically include medical clinics for human care. Since a public street may exist on the east of this site, a 15' setback, rather than the 5' foot setback illustrated, may be desirable. Kelley also stated that the institutional and multiple residential uses along the north side of 157th Street are intended to act as a transition toward the more intensive uses to the north at the edge of the City's downtown commercial area. Through the use of an overhead transparency, Kelley presented the elevations that are in a conceptual form that show a residential character to the building design, and somewhat of a prairie school design with large overhangs, pitched as opposed to a flat roof, and gables to add additional character and light into the building. The building also shows brick as a principal exterior material. Staff feels that this clinic provides an appropriate transition from the limited business and commercial areas to the north and the residential areas to the south. Karen Edgeton asked if this would be a 24 hour facility. The petitioner Ray Piirainen responded that they do have clinics in the metro area: Minneapolis, Elk River, and Savage that typically are 9 -5, Monday through Friday, facilities. They look toward Saturday and evening hours in the future, and eventually may incorporate Sunday hours into their program. Depending on the demands of this area, the clinic will expand their hours to respond to those needs. Edgeton then asked if the hours of operation are spelled out in the planned unit development portion of the code. Rick Kelley responded that he would check on this. Brian Mulvale, 7361 Upper 157th Street West, stated that he opposes any development of the land north of Apple Ponds that is not to be developed for housing. Mulvale went on to explain that he is watching a 200+ apartment complex being constructed between Apple Ponds single family development and Cedar Avenue and feels that residential would be the most appropriate use of this site. Mulvale concluded by stating that if the medical clinic project goes through, he would like to see extensive landscaping to buffer the parking lot from the residential area to the south. Kelley responded that at this Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 3 time we have not reviewed the landscape plan to determine what planting will be placed at the edge of the parking area. Harvey Sell, 7707157th Street West, asked how this project will influence traffic onto Cedar Avenue. Sell stated that he is a resident of the Morningview 2nd Addition Condominium Association. He also asked about the timing for a signal on Cedar Avenue at 157th Street and who would fund a signal light in the event that it is installed. Rick Kelley responded that he would have that information at the next meeting. A general discussion ensued, and the public hearing was closed. 5B; Cedarwick: Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review/Buildng Permit Authorization for 54 townhomes, 3 duplexes, 2 single family homes, and Conditional Use Permit for Alternate Exterior Materials. Chairman Alan Felkner introduced this issue and asked staff to make a presentation. Associate Planner Scott Hickok stated that the Cedarwick Development is located west of Cedar Avenue, east of Pennock Avenue and the existing homes along Pennock Avenue, and south of 138th Street. Hickok explained that the history of the site included a rezoning in 1989 and a official mapping of the roadway that is being proposed as a public roadway through this development. As part of that 1989 study, Hickok indicated that the City looked at all vacant parcels along Cedar Avenue and made modifications to bring the zoning into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan or to amend the comprehensive plan for a more appropriate use along Cedar Avenue. Through that process, an officially mapped road was drawn that would eventually link the Hallwood Highlands Development through Oaks IV and to 138th Street. The officially mapped road was to continue south of 138th Street and provide a public access roadway for this proposed development and would eventually turn toward Cedar Avenue and provide a 139th Street link. This would be a right -in and right - out access opportunity for the collistrial property south of the development proposal, to be left undeveloped at this time and is south. Hickok concluded by stating that there are a total of 7.9 acres. The zoning and this proposal are consistent. There are six twinhome units backed up to existing twinhome units along Pennock Avenue. There are two single family homes to be backed up to single family homes on 139th Court. There are also a series of 54 condominium units to be arranged in 8 unit and b unit buildings. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and offer direction to the petitioner. Gene Shellerud, president of Twin City Townhomes, indicated that he is the developer of this site and provided further explanation of the building design and association that will be a part of this development proposal. Shellerud indicated through the use of a display board and photographs that their proposal for an alternate material in this development is to provide a long lasting, maintenance free building exterior for the future Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 4 association. He indicated that in some of the surrounding areas, natural wood products were in need of maintenance, and he felt this to be an indicator that natural wood products are not the best solution for the exterior of these buildings. Shellerud concluded by stating that the development proposal is in line with the zoning and comprehensive plan, and that they have worked with staff to comply with setbacks and other aspects of the zoning for this multifamily development. Frank Blundetto asked for clarification of one of the pictures, whether the property shown in the photo is east of Cedar, and what the building material is in the photograph. A general discussion ensued regarding the siding on surrounding developments, both east and west of Cedar Avenue. Scott Hickok added that, as presented, this development represents 38% hard surface coverage and 62% green space. Those percentages are based on the overall development, including the single family homes, the twinhomes, and the condominiums. Hickok indicated that he had asked the developer for information on the percentages, specific to the condominium portion of the development site. The developer indicated that he was not prepared with those numbers that evening, but would have them for the next meeting. Karen Edgeton asked if the developer had a better rendering that would show the buildings. She also asked the developer to provide some information about a common gathering space for the units in the development. Edgeton continued by stating that we have had many requests for multifamily and as part of those requests we have tried to have the developer incorporate tot lots or open socializing areas for the residents of the development. Shellerud responded that a recently completed development of 108 units (all 8 -plex) had very few children, and those children rely on a local park. Karen Edgeton then asked about the open space and stated that there appears to be a lack of sufficient open space for this development. Frank Blundetto stated that he feels this development will serve as somewhat of an entrance to Apple Valley and feels that it is too crowded as it appears on the plan. He asked if there was a way to illustrate this proposal two- dimensionally to give us a better sense of what we would see as we would enter Apple Valley on Cedar Avenue. Shellerud responded that the buildings themselves will be approximately 28 feet high, and there is a minimum of 8' of berm that exists along Cedar Avenue. That berm would stay and would be landscaped to help minimize the height and feel of density between the Cedar Avenue corridor and this development. Chairman -Fellrner stated that the development proposal is staying within the comprehensive guide plan designations and zoning. Felkner stated that he believes the Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 5 green space should be in the area of 60% and that we should have a better sense of what the green space allowance is for the multifamily portion of this proposal. Shellerud responded that everyone does have a patio and that they do have an opportunity for their own outdoor enjoyment adjacent to their unit, but he would look at the open space numbers as requested. Shellerud stated that the 50% brick requirement is not a problem, and they would be happy to comply with that requirement. Len Miller stated that it appears by looking at the project that the developer "pushed the envelope" and that the density is about as high as it could be. Jeannine Churchill asked if the owners in this development area will belong to an association. Shellerud responded that an association will be formed for this development area. The bylaws for this association are very extensive and will be responsible for upkeep and maintenance of the development area. Shellerud continued by stating that financing, and the ability to finance the sale or purchase of these units in the future, will depend on a strong association and a high quality of maintenance and upkeep of the development. Jeannine. Churchill then asked whether there are basements in these units; with basements there is potential for future density within the development. Shellerud responded that a basement is included with the unit, and that typically the basement is used for additional space and storage. There is an egress window in the basement to allow it to be used for living area. Karen Edgeton asked for clarification of the new road and whether or not the link to Cedar Avenue would be made at this time. Staff indicated that at this time there are no plans to make the connection to Cedar Avenue. That issue would be addressed as the land to the south of this development is developed. For this development the road would dead - end with the possibility of a temporary turnaround for vehicles. Chairman Felkner opened the public hearing to the floor. Kari Dusich, 13920 Granada Court, stated that she had 3 points to make regarding this development. Dusich stated that she has lived in the area since 1991 and she, along with many of her neighbors, believed that the area between their court and Cedar Avenue would be for single family residential. Dusich's first point was that the conditional use permit to alter the exterior seemed to be way off base, when the code requires that they have at least 66% of the surrounding area with the same or similar material. Dusich stated that with brick, wood, stone and Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 6 stucco on the surrounding development areas, the vinyl or permanent siding proposed would not be consistent. Secondly, Dusich stated that the traffic is paramount, and she feels that there is a long standing, enormous concern with the density of development and the number of trips that would be generated - 442 trips per day as staff has indicated will be generated from this development. Dusich felt that with access at Cedar being very difficult, and the addition of 62 units, the development will create new traffic and new demands for the existing roadways. Dusich stated that at rush hour it is extremely difficult to get out at Cedar Avenue and also quoted Gary Humphrey, from January of 1989, "I think traffic issues on Pennock is paramount." Dusich then went on to state that the road going in between Pennock and Cedar Avenue was meant to alleviate or mitigate traffic concerns to those on Pennock Avenue in response to earlier concerns on traffic issues. Thirdly, for many of the reasons discussed, Dusich felt that those combined with noise suppression and looking at 10 units per acre, causes her to question the future of Apple Valley. When she looks at the City from a citywide perspective, she sees that the comprehensive plan shows moderate density residential being 1.9% of the overall land area in the community. She does not believe that the area between Pennock and Cedar Avenue is the appropriate location for that density, and asked what are the compelling reasons for density in this area, and what is the demonstrated need to provide this housing in this location. Dusich then stated that she has some additional questions that she would like to ask the Commission and Staff regarding this development, including what is the occupancy rate of the existing condominiums and what is the rental rate for owner occupied versus rental in Apple Valley. She stated that she understands that the price range is between $83,000 and $89,000 and asked how this meshes with the surrounding development area. Dusich then asked about the reputation of the Twin City Townhome Company. She stated that she felt the City has a vested interest in knowing that reputation prior to having this project approved. Dusich stated that they were told a very different story when they purchased their homes, and that they had asked questions about what would be taking place on this property as it develops. Dusich asked what is the drawback of having single family homes in this area. If we look further to the north, there are single family homes right along Cedar Avenue. Dusich stated that she understands that there are differences in the topography, but feels that single family may be an appropriate use in this area. On exterior siding, Dusich asked what is on the other side of Cedar. She felt that we should look closely at what is surrounding the proposed development on the west side of Cedar Avenue because Cedar does provide its own buffer. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 7 Felkner asked if Staff would work up a zoning history for the next meeting and explain where the changes came, and why it is that Staff and the Commission have historically looked to step the residential densities between a major roadway and existing single family development. Marcia Gowling stated that the property owners have rights, and those rights would allow them to develop a property in accordance with what the City has guided the land to be developed for. Jeannine Churchill stated that she would like to see a comparison of the before and after, before the Cedar/Pennock study and after the study. Connie Elasey, 7715 139th Court, asked again about the price range of the units being proposed. Elasey stated that with the existing traffic in the area, she has no idea where we would put the additional people and additional trips that would be generated by the development. She concluded by stating she feels that this is going to add a very dangerous amount of traffic to the area, considering the number of kids. Judy Young, 13835 Pennock Avenue, expressed concern over the developer's statement that the school bus picks up only 4 children in their other development of 108 units. She stated that we cannot count on children not occupying these units. Apple Valley is a very young, family- oriented community and it is quite likely that we will have very young families in this development area. Young continued by stating that the proposed road will not eliminate traffic on Pennock Avenue and that there is already much traffic along Pennock. Young concluded by stating that with $200,000+ homes in this area, she does not fuel that this development is compatible, and that there should be more price compatibility between the proposed development and those homes that exist surrounding the site. Chairman Felkner asked Staff to prepare a count of how many trips per day would be generated by a purely single family development. Young concluded her statements by saying that the park along Pennock is not of a sufficient size to support the development area that surrounds it. She asked about parks in the area. A general discussion ensued regarding parks, and Felkner stated that not every park can he an Eastview Athletic Complex. Felkner did state that the Park and Recreation Advisory Board makes the decisions about what happens within a park. He asked Staff to do an update of what is proposed for this park along Pennock. Ms. Thomas Turle ( ?), 13960 Granada Court, asked what's wrong with this picture. This development bordering 138th and Cedar Avenue will double the trips and people through the existing Timberwick area. Ms. Thomas felt that the developer should go back to the drawing board because he won't find as many people as being proposed for this Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 8 development as there is in all of the rest of Timberwick. Thomas continued by stating that there is no room for parking or spaces for a tot lot, and children will have to cross Pennock, a busy street, to get to a park. Thomas concluded by asking the Commission to please consider rezoning the property to R -3, Single Family Residential. Karen Edgeton asked if Staff could prepare a checklist of what is being considered. Albert Rago, 13845 Pennock Avenue, asked that since we are not rezoning and since the developer does not have the numbers for open space, the Staff and the developer should go back and do more work on this development. Paramount to his views in this development area are the trees, and he does not feel that the development fits the site. He concluded by asking that the developer at least exceed the 60% green space as requested by the Commission. Bernie Dusich, 13920 Granada Court, reiterated the green space statement by saying that this development is not "pushing the envelope" but 'breaking it." He feels there is not enough green space, and the development as proposed will harm the integrity of the existing housing and development. Dusich continued by stating that there should be a traffic study when people go to work, and the traffic study should include the alternate routes that people will use if they cannot get onto Cedar. Dusich then stated siding is an issue that this development should consider closely to make sure the development blends with, and is compatible with, surrounding development area. As proposed, Dusich does not feel that this development fits in the neighborhood. Gowling asked what the limits on roads are, and do we have numbers for maximum trips per day. Felkner asked for information from Staff on traffic going north and south on Pennock Avenue. Torrey Leech, 12828 Essex Way, stated that she does not understand why the City has to build so much. Her first impression of the community was that there were beautiful green, wide open spaces. Leech asked why the City cannot leave some of that open. Fenner responded that someone owns the land and does have a right to develop it in accordance with the land use plan. Felkner continued by stating that whenever the City changes the comprehensive plan or zoning, there is a public hearing and it is a public process. That process has occurred on this site, and the zoning and comprehensive plan designation have been given to this site, and this development proposal is consistent with that designation, both in the comprehensive plan and zoning. Felkner then reiterated that this is a site plan approval and building permit authorization, along with the preliminary plat. There is not a request for a variance or rezoning in this case. Felkner then stated that the County must have a vested interest in this development proposal and asked for feedback from the County on the proposal. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 9 A general discussion ensued. Alan Felkner explained the process to the audience that the Planning Commission will gather this information and then make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will make the ultimate decision on this development proposal. Felkner then stated that the City is not in the land speculation business, and to buy the land to hold it open or to develop a park must be in accordance with the comprehensive plan and interest of the Park and Recreation Advisory Board. Gowling stated that she moved out to this area over 20 years ago and that she has heard over and over again that people would like the City to stop growing. The land owner does have the right to develop the land, and it is a land owner who has requested the opportunity to develop this parcel. Tom Stube, 13830 Granada Court, stated that in 1980 when he moved to Timberwick, all the land was zoned RCL Single Family, and he feels cheated by a modification to that RCL designation. He felt that the land designation was pre- existing and was the appropriate designation for that development area. Barb Calistro, who is a land owner of the property south of this development, proposal, asked how you put in a road on a piece of property that does not belong to you. Calistro then asked if the City would consider putting stop lights on Cedar Avenue. Felkner explained that Staff will address her concerns at the next meeting. Calistro then stated she has concerns about how we will get people across Cedar Avenue from this development. She stated that she has visited with the County Highway Department in Hastings, and that this development proposal is not consistent with the expected growth scgnario for this area. Calistro then asked questions regarding traffic flow, the widening of 140th between Galaxie and Johnny Cake, and when that type of project will happen south of her property: Keith Gordon explained that there are no plans to widen 140th in her area. The project between Johnny Cake and Galaxie is to make that section of the road consistent with what already exists south of the Calistro property. With no further comment, Felkner closed the public hearing. SC. Galles Addition Preliminary Plat for 6 Single Family Lots, Between 307 and 309 Cimarron Road After introducing the item, City Planner Rick Kelley explained that this proposal includes consideration of a variance to the minimum lot width of 100'. While the lots meet or exceed the minimum lot area requirement of 18,000 square feet, they 0 fall short of that 100' lot width at the building setback. Kelley continued by stating that many of the existing Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 10 cul -de -sac lots in the neighborhood also fall short of the minimum lot requirements, so an overall review of that development area shows that this request is consistent with the surrounding development area. Kelley continued by stating that an existing storm water ponding easement must be vacated over the outlots in order to allow the new lots to be built. Kelley went on to explain the vacation process of the existing ponding easement and the replacement with the storm sewer. In his presentation Kelley also indicated that a similar proposal received preliminary plat approval some years back, and at that time, the storm water issues were discussed and the minim lot width variances were granted. Kelley concluded by stating that a hydrologist had evaluated the low areas and those areas were not determined to be protected wetlands. Therefore, they would be permitted to be filled and developed. Felkner asked if there were questions of Staff. Edgeton asked about the minimum lot width falling short of the 100' measurement. With the use of an overhead, Rick Kelley explained that dimension. Glen Galles stated that although Staff did a fine job with their presentation, he would be glad to answer any questions that the Commission may have. Bob Smith, President of R.P. Smith Land Planning Consultants, Inc., drafted a letter identifying issues of the people in the neighborhood. Smith indicated that he knows Mr. Galles has the right to develop the land, but asked that the proposal be continued until the nest week for further information to be gathered regarding the development. Sn$h R that some questions yet to be answered were the. grading and storm water runoff plans for this development, the need for a variance to the lot width dimension in this area, the pond issues and the pond's future, and Lot 12 short-term flooding that he feels will occur as a result of this development. Smith continued by stating that he wants to see those issues addressed. Through the use of an overhead Smith indicated that Cimarron comes down to a certain point, and the intersection must be upgraded if this development is going to occur. The upgrade should include a sediment catch basin which will shift out the sand and salt from the roadway before entering the ponds. Smith continued by stating that there is constant flooding on this intersection and in this development area, and if that flooding occurs around the oak trees in the area after this development, many of those mature trees may die. Smith then stated that the plan shows minimal grading will be done in certain areas, but the impacts to the natural area will be far greater than shown on the illustration. Smith then stated that the request for the variance is to allow compliance with the R -2 lot size minim dimension, but the fact that all the lots need a setback variance does Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 11 not make this development area consistent with the surrounding R -2. In order to grant a variance, there needs to be a hardship. And in all cases the hardship cannot be monetary, but one of site conditions which make it necessary for a variance. Smith felt that the number of lots should be reduced to five, which would allow adequate lot dimension for each of the lots surrounding the cul -de -sac. Smith then generally discussed issues, including a Sunday meeting, where there were concerns about the compatibility of this development with the zoning ordinance, the inadequacy of the engineering information provided to the neighborhood regarding the development, the need to upgrade the intersection and also Planner Kelley's statement that the developer will contribute to the installation of the improvements. "Contribute" was an issue with the neighborhood, according to Smith, because there wasn't a clear indication as to whether or not the remaining portion would be picked up by the surrounding residents of that development area, whether he is contributing as a developer to a small portion of the costs, or whether the entire cost will be born by the developer. Smith stated that the neighborhood residents do not want to be responsible for development costs related to any of the improvements for this development. Felkner asked if there were any questions for Mr. Smith. Felkner also asked Staff to prepare for the next meeting a history of this site, including the present information on storm water runoff. Felkner also asked Staff to comment on the curbing upgrade at the intersection of Cimarron and the new development. roadway. Mr. Galles stated that there would be pad placement for the homes at the time that the lots are sold; therefore, the homes could be designed to minimize impact on the surrounding area. A, general discussion ensued. Edgeton asked Staff to indicate on a map where the impact areas of concern are. Blundetto asked Staff to comment on the sediment issue raised by Mr. Smith. Churchill asked for some history as to how this area became a ponding area and if the City is relinquishing any rights to ponding by allowing this development to occur. Mr. Galles explained. The engineering plans are to not have any ponds on this property, but to have a storm water improvement installation that would handle the water and take it off from the site into a holding pond. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 12 Diane Bointon, 367 Cimarron Road, asked a question regarding the pond behind their home, how it will be handled if half the pond is on their property and the other half is on the property to be developed. What will happen to that pond once the property develops? Gus Botterweich, 128 Saber Court, asked about the slope on the south end of the pond that goes down to the development and what would happen if this pond caused erosion on the adjacent properties. Orin Stone, 315 Cimarron Road, asked how you can allow a developer to build with variances which addresses the distance between homes when each of the existing homes in the area has at least 1/2 acre or more? Stone went on to state that the single family lots should meet the minim lot width. Lynn Smith, 404 Cimarron Road, asked for a transparency that would show the vacant parcels surrounding the development area. Kelley, through the use of a transparency, explained what land surrounding this development area is available for future development. Edgeton asked if the site is zoned the same as the surrounding development area. Kelley responded that it is. Milo Radotich, 340 Cimarron Road, stated that he felt that the drainage created by the construction in this Cimarron area is a cause for concern, and also asked why the pond in this area does not meet the wetland criteria. Galles stated that Dakota County records show that there is a ponding easement that originated in approximately 1969. The original developer put up 3 or more horse barns, fences, etc., and showed everyone how nice it would be to live in the Palomino Hills area. The owner went to the City and asked for sanitary sewer on all of the lots, and storm sewer was constructed at that time. In 1974 the Palomino Development Corporation voluntarily complied with the City's wishes to have a storm sewer easement over the property, and in exchange, the property owners were given a $600 relief from their assessments. Galles continued by explaining that these ponds were created and were not existing, and they are exceptions to the wetlands regulation. Galles then referred to documents on file which indicate that he has had a hydrologist review the wetlands, and they do not meet any of the wetland criteria so they can be developed. Yvonne Norlun, 309 Cimarron Road, asked a question regarding the little path of trees on either side. She is concerned about losing the trees with the construction of the roadway to this development. Also, Norlun stated that the sight line coming down Cimarron is not great for an access at this point and she is concerned about safety with the addition of this development. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 13 Felkner asked if we would look into the tree question with Ken Brackee. Roy Brandenberg, 394 Cimarron Road, questioned the statement that the developer will be able to contribute, and asked who will be responsible for the remainder of the expense. Staff explained that the development costs are to be born by the developer. Bill Boynton, 367 Cimarron Road, stated that there is not curb and gutter throughout Cimarron Road. Boynton said that the effect is very nice without curb and gutter; however, there have been some storm water concerns in the area. Through the use of a transparency, he illustrated where his concerns were. Dan Freeze, 302 Cimarron Road, pointed out that if the drainage is expected to happen through a large culvert and there is curb directing the water to a catch basin, there should be consideration given to the design of the existing conditions. He stated that he had trees that had fallen over because of drainage in this area and the saturation of the soil on the slopes where the trees had once existed. He concluded by stating that he hopes the engineering will be carefully evaluated with the development of this property. Hearing no other comments, Fenner closed the public hearing. He indicated that this item will appear on the June i agenda for action by the Planning Commission if all questions have been answered. 51). Barton Sand & Gravel Alan Feikner introduced this item and asked Staff for a brief presentation. . City Planner Rick Kelley stated that the public hearing is regarding an amendment to the comprehensive plan to place a temporary sand & gravel mining designation over an 80 acre parcel. A rezoning to sand and gravel over 80 acres and a conditional use permit for mining operations on that same 80 acres are requested. Also, the petition involves a request for a revised permit for the existing mining operations on the 160 acres adjacent to the west. Kelley, through the use of a series of overheads, indicated the mining areas and that new or expanded mining operations must be consistent with the overall mining and redevelopment plans contained within the environmental impact statement for the consolidated sand & gravel mining operations, as well as the City's most current mining performance standards. At our last meeting Kelley indicated that Barton Sand & Gravel had been asked to provide additional documentation, which has been attached to the report. This information helps explain how the operation as proposed will tie into the master mining and redevelopment plans and the overall mining EIS requirements. Kelley pointed out the 525' deep strip along County Road #42, which was intended to be kept substantially at grade Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 14 with the highway. Staff recommends that the acreage of each new mining cell be identified. Staff further recommended that the additional narrative concerning the westernmost future mining area be inserted. Kelley pointed out on a transparency where the existing mining has been occurring and stated that the petitioner has attempted to satisfy all of those concerns with the documentation they filed with the City. Felkner asked if there were any questions of Rick Kelley. Blundetto asked how many 25 -acre holes will there be related to this proposal. Kelley explained. Edgeton asked for clarification of Phase 1. Kelley stated that Phase 1 includes both the existing Barton Sand & Gravel operations and Phase 1 of the new mining area. Kelley went on to explain that the heavy line indicates the perimeters of the first phase of mining. Edgeton asked for clarification on whether the existing mining would be shut down before Phase 1 is completed. Kelley explained through the use of overheads that areas 1 and 2 will be completed by 1994, area 3 by 1997, area 4 by 1998, through area 8 sometime after the year 2010. Edgeton then asked again about the 20-25 acres that would be open at a time. Kelley stated that it will not always be the case that a new 25 acre pod opens up as the old acreage closes down. However, the mining will eventually become less and less each year as the development occurs. Edgeton stated we are basically approving what was part of the Fischer property and an existing Barton Sand & Gravel operation. Kelley stated that this is correct. Blundetto asked for clarification as to whether the whole property is owned by the same property owner or whether it is a combination of owners. Kelley explained. Edgeton then asked where the pipeline issue is in relationship to the new information that has been provided. Kelley explained the pipeline relocations which would include a lowering of those pipelines. Edgeton asked if we anticipate any problems with the relocation of the pipelines. Kelley responded that he did not think so. Blundetto asked if there is going to be a point when we will have only 25. acres open for mining. Kelley explained again that the 'big hole" is closing or reducing, according to the schedule of open acreage. Each phase is on five year increments. Blundetto then asked what is closed at the end of the first five year increment. Mike Dougherty explained that Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 15 it's probably easiest to look at this in the shape of a "V' rather than a linear basis over the course of time, 5 to 20 years, what is open. John Voss, Planning Consultant and Representative for Barton Sand & Gravel, and Kent Schuller, Gaylen Gillian, and Kirsten Rohena of Sunde Engineering, were present to answer questions that the Commission might have. Voss explained the incremental mining plan according to the transparencies. Jim Cady asked if there would be any fencing around the development. Voss responded that there will be some security fencing around the equipment; however, the mining area does not have a fencing plan. Occasionally they will use an emergency type bright orange fluorescent fence to delineate areas for mining as occurring. However, Voss felt that they are quite a distance from children and should not have a problem with the mining as it is occurring in this area. Felkner asked if there were any comments from the audience. Kirt Proud, Williams Pipeline, stated that he believes that there should be a comprehensive study for the moving of the pipeline. Because one movement of the pipeline involves other sections of the pipeline, the developer should be given incentives to find a new route and establish that route early on in this process. Proud stated that to determine the best route, there would be approximately 60 hours of engineering analysis required and a 60 day time frame to complete that plan and an agreement. Edgeton asked can this be done, can approval or recommendation be made with a stipulation to this effect. John Voss stated that he has met with Mr. Proud on a number of occasions and that their mining operations will be 50 feet from a property line and 100 feet from the _Pipeline itself and it will not significantly impact the pipe with this proposal. Mike Dougherty stated that we could put it as a condition to the conditional use permit for 1995. Frank Blundetto asked if Staff would get a plan showing the 25 acre parcels to be opened as part of a CUP process. MOTION Karen Edgeton made a motion to recommend the amendment to the comprehensive guide plan by establishing a temporary sand & gravel overlay designation on the 80 acre parcel. This motion was seconded by Len Miller and passed 7 - 0. MOTION Karen Edgeton made a motion to recommend a rezoning from agriculture to sand & gravel. The motion was seconded by Len -Miller and passed 7 - 0. MOTION Karen Edgeton moved to approve the conditional use permit subject to Staff recommendations contained in the summary of issues and the William's Pipeline Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 16 comprehensive plan agreement as recommended through the public hearing process. The motion was seconded by Len Miller and passed 7 - 0. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Middle School #6: Comp. Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential and Single Family to SH School, Rezoning from Agriculture to Institutional, Preliminary Plat Approval and Site Plan Building Permit Authorization for Property Located on Southeast Corner of Johnny Cake Ridge Road at County Road #38. Rick Kelley introduced this issue and stated that the purpose of the land use changes is to prepare the site for construction of a middle school. Kelley gave a brief history, including the description of the old air strip that was owned by Mr. Doyle and utilized as a private air strip for many years. Kelley indicated that the initial plan displayed two weeks ago illustrated the school on the uphill portion of the land, adjacent to the existing residential area; and the football, soccer, track and other athletic uses along Johnny Cake Ridge Road. This involved the connection of 128th Street and a cul -de -sac on Exley Way. Kelley indicated that a revised proposal has resulted from discussions at the first public hearing. That proposal shows the school on the Johnny Cake Ridge Road side, closer to both Johnny Cake Ridge Road and County Road #38. This proposal would allow access at Johnny Cake and right -in and right -out at County Road #38. Felkner then asked if there were any questions of Rick Kelley. Hearing none, Felkner asked Kelley to review the problems discussed by the residents with the extension of 128th Street, as well as discussion related to the athletic field and parking on this site. Kelley explained the discussion items as requested. Kevin Sullivan, architect representing the school district, explained in detail the new site plan, and how the bus circulation, parking, access to roadways, and use of the site for athletic purposes will work. Edgeton asked how the City feels about the two cul -de -sacs at 128th and Exley. Kelley explained that the cul -de -sacs are not as efficient as a through street on 128th, however, it is an acceptable solution and will work with this site plan. Edgeton then asked if there will be parking on those cul -de -sacs, and will that parking cause problems in the adjacent neighborhoods. A general discussion ensued. Kelley stated that, regardless of the site plan, parking on these cul -de -sacs will be an issue. Felkner asked if the VAA would be using the athletic facilities. The architect indicated that although it is not certain, it is quite likely. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 17 Architect Sullivan explained that the total event parking had increased by 122 stalls. Gowling stated that she shares the concern about parking during after school events. Gowling wanted to make sure there was adequate parking adjacent to these athletic facilities. Sullivan stated that their firm had done an analysis of middle schools with the number of students, the square foot dimension of the building, the number of handicap stalls, and number of overall parking stalls. This middle school has more event parking stalls than the majority of the other schools they studied. Edgeton reiterated her concerns about parking adjacent to the athletic facilities and stated that she lives next to a school and understands the dilemmas of on- street parking in residential areas because of lack of parking on school properties. A general discussion ensued. Miller asked how many students are anticipated for this school. The student capacity at this facility is between 1,200 and 1,400 students. Felkner agrees with the parking concerns and understands the issues related to parking in neighborhoods adjacent to athletic facilities. Edgeton stated that she felt Site Plan A made a lot more sense in its orientation of the building and athletic facilities. Blundetto stated that there is no doubt that event parking would be beneficial and stated that if you look at the bus loop, the parking is very close to the playing fields. Gowling stated that she did not believe people would enter the bus loop to park for events and explained examples about the cars at the Cedar Park Elementary School. Gowling concluded by stating that people will go wherever they have found it easiest. Blundetto stated that he felt that this plan does help the issue of traffic through the neighborhoods. Miller asked about the possibility of no parking in the residential areas. Gowling stated that even with no parking signs, parking will occur in the neighborhoods. Edgeton supported this statement. Miller asked if the City Council has the authority to designate no parking areas and whether the police enforce it? A general discussion ensued. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 18 Patsy Schroeder, 12970 Exley Avenue, asked if there would be any assessments for the improvements on the cul -de -sac. Rick Kelley explained that the school district would be responsible for paying for that. Patsy then asked about sidewalks in the neighborhood and what are the plans. Felkner asked the audience, based on their view of Plan A and Plan B, if there are any responses to a favorite option. The audience almost unanimously agreed that Plan B is the 'lesser of two evils." A general discussion ensued. Michelle Scheuerlein, 5591 128th Street West, asked if there is a way that they could move the large parking lot closer to the fields. The architect responded that no, there is not. The architect then stated that they feel they need approximately 50 stalls per ball field and that the design capacity required will not allow the relocation of the parking. Blundetto asked for further clarification. Cady asked how many children are outside on the play fields at any given time. Sullivan responded that there would be 70-80 kids typically and a maximum of 150 kids. Cady then asked if any fences are proposed. Sullivan responded that there are not any fences proposed at this time. Miller asked if there is adequate protection for the students who walk to this facility. Sullivan stated that there has been a significant change in the pedestrian traffic flow and he feels that it is a very sound proposal. t Gary Heppelmann, 12772 Diamond Court, asked if there was a way that the size of the cul -de -sac could be reduced, thus allowing for deterring parking on the cul -de -sac. Rick Kelley responded that this is the standard size cul -de -sac. Felkner asked for a motion. MOTION Len Miller moved to approve the comprehensive plan amendment from LD and SF to SH; Jeannine Churchill seconded. The motion passed 7 - 0. MOTION Len Miller moved to recommend approval from agricultural to institutional, seconded by Jeannine Churchill. The motion passed 7 - 0. MOTION Len Miller moved to recommend approval of preliminary plat for Plan B, seconded by Jeannine Churchill, and passed 5 - 2, Edgeton and Gowling dissented. MOTION Len Miller moved to recommend approval of the site plan/building Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 19 permit authorization for Plan B, subject to the submission of a detailed landscape plan. The motion passed 5 - 2, Edgeton and Gowling dissented. 6B. Thompson Gymnastics/VenStar Building: Site Plan /Building Permit Authorization for a Light Industrial Building for Gymnastic Use Associate Planner Scott Hickok explained that this proposal involves a 20,185 square foot industrial office building to be used as a gymnastics academy complex. The building has been designed with a sawtooth design which would accommodate future truck loading at the east elevation of the building, in the event that the building is later sold and utilized as a industrial warehouse or storage facility. The parking for this facility has been designed utilizing a formula of 2.7 stalls per 1,000 square feet. Parking for commercial recreation facilities are to be calculated at a ratio of one space for every 3 occupants based on the building's capacity. Hickok then explained that industrial manufacturing uses are calculated at a ratio of one stall per 800 square feet plus four stalls. With 54 stalls as a part of this proposal and a potential for 30 additional stalls, Hickok stated that Staff believes the parking will be adequate on site. The landscape plan has been submitted and is being reviewed and verified to meet the 1 -1f2% of the building construction value. Hickok then stated that Staff recommends approval of the building permit authorization for this 20,185 square foot building on Lot 4, Block 2, NorthStar Industrial Park. Hickok stated that the approval should be conditioned on a finished east elevation of the same high quality aggregate panel as the north, west, and south elevations. Felkner asked if there were any questions of Staff. Felkner stated that he is familiar with the existing Thompson Athletic Academy in the VenStar 15 building, and asked if there has ever been a parking issue with the existing facility. Julia Thompson, owner of Thompson Academy of Gymnastics, stated that for almost 20 years they have been in existence and have over 2,000 students. They run competitions during the year for the class of students and have weekend and Saturday competitions. They have not had a parking problem in the VenStar 15 building and wanted to be certain that in the design of this building they would have adequate parking. Thompson concluded by stating that she believes that the parking will be adequate for their use. Felkner stated that you can't plan for maximum needs and he understands that, and asked if there is an overflow plan. Dave Ericksmoen stated that the VenStar 15 building across the street has parking, and because the events typically take place on weekends, VenStar does not have a problem with the utilization of their parking area for overflow if necessary. However, they do not feel that this will be the case. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 20 Thompson stated that she is involved with the National Safety Certification of her gymnasts and has designed the building with safety in mind, including the traffic and capacity issues. Miller asked if this is another situation like the VenStar Hoyt building where the school district was leasing the building for 10 years. David Ericksmoen explained that this is being designed and built for Thompson Athletic Academy, and it is their building. In the event that they decide to sell that building, being situated in an industrial park, they felt it was necessary to design that building to accommodate future needs. A general discussion ensued regarding the athletic events, and Ms. Thompson stated that typically she has 3-4 groups at one time, with 8 -15 parents, and 2 -3 instructors. The maximum number of cars expected for this site will not exceed the parking as designed, and if so, they do feel comfortable with the overflow arrangement that can be made on adjacent sites. MOTION Gowling moved to approve the Thompson Athletic VenStar Building. This motion was seconded by Frank Blundetto and passed 7 - 0. 6C. Nordic Townhomes: Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization for 16 Townhomes at Northeast Corner of Galaxie Avenue and 132nd Street West Associate Planner Scott Hickok gave a brief presentation on the Nordic Townhome Limited Partnership proposal by Bob Casselman, in which he stated that the plan includes 14 townhome units on a 1.99 acre parcel in Nordic Woods 6th Addition. The land lies northeast of the intersection of Galaxie Avenue and 132nd Street West, and this proposal is consistent with both the zoning and the comprehensive plan. 2 Hickok went on to explain that the history of the site is one which originally would have allowed Neighborhood Center Commercial, and in 1983 a public hearing was held to modify that planned development for a combination of 8 apartment buildings and a 48 unit townhouse complex. The densities were 15 units per acre on the apartments and 12 units per acre on the twnhomes. That amendment was approved and stayed in place until August of 1988 when M. W. Johnson asked for consideration of a planned development which would include the mix that we see today. That mix includes three 8 -plex apartment condominiums at the northeast corner of Galaxie and 132nd Street. In 1989 a variance was granted allowing the northernmost 8 -plex building to be constructed 20 feet of the right -of -way on 132nd Street Court. Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 21 In 1991 Centel Telephone requested site plan approval and building permit authorization for a switching building on the triangular corner piece created by the diagonal easement for utilities owned by the City. In 1991 the City Council approved the site plan for the Centel building and a variance to exceed the 20% ground cover, bringing the ground cover at that time to 21.38 %. In April of 1994 Bob Casselman requested consideration of this 14 unit townhouse proposal. Initially Casselman indicated that he would like to put 16 units on this site. Staff worked with the developer to determine what the best site plan would be. The developer made several attempts and the determination was made that 16 units would not fit on that site. At that time the developer reduced the number to 14 units, thus eliminating the need for any variances to this site, bringing the density in line with the zoning for the site and also bringing the project in compliance with the 60% open space, with a total open space of 57.8% green space. Hickok concluded by stating that Staff recommends approval of the site plan and a 2.8% site coverage variance to allow construction of the 14 townhouse unit complex on this site. Hickok stated that this approval should be conditioned on the verification of landscape values of 2 -1/2% of the construction project and approval by the City Engineer for that portion of the drive that crosses the City's utilities. easement. MOTION Gowling moved to approve the site plan/building permit authorization with a variance to the 20% maximum ground coverage allowing a 2.8% increase. The motion was seconded by Miller and passed 4 - 3. 6D. Setback Variance for Post Office Parking Lot Expansion Scott Hickok explained that the United States Post Office Apple Valley Branch has requested a variance to the 15 foot setback along 147th Street to allow reconstruction of the parking lot, including diagonal parking along 147th Street and a T6" dimension between the property line and the back curb. The property contains a total of 1.26 acres and is located on 147th Street. The comprehensive plan and zoning are retail business and the use is consistent with those designations. The redesign of the parking lot would allow an additional 12 parking spaces, but the greater benefit would be the circulation improvements by moving the drop off boxes from the front of the building on the south elevation to the northeast comer of the building. As designed, circulation would occur or drop off and a separate lane would provide access to diagonal parking stalls. As designed, truck traffic would have clear circulation around the building, even at times when mail is being dropped in the drop boxes. Churchill asked for further clarification of the landscape issues with the slope and a reduced setback dimension between the ring route features and the parking lot. Hickok Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 1994 Page 22 explained. Churchill asked if a retaining wall will be required. Hickok explained that at a 2 to 1 slope, a good solid root base is required, but he felt that working with our forester a landscape solution could be obtained. MOTION Churchill moved to approve, seconded by Frank Blundetto. The motion passed 7 - 0. Items 6E and 6F were tabled at the request of the petitioner. Item 6G was tabled by the Planning Commission until the June lst meeting. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None - 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. Annual Business Meeting 1) Election of Officers MOTION Blundetto made a motion, seconded by Miller, to reappoint Alan Felkner as Chair. The motion passed 6 - 0 - 1, one abstention by Felkner. MOTION Fenner moved, seconded by Gowling, to reappoint Karen Edgeton as Vice Chair. That motion passed 6 - 0 - 1, Edgeton abstained. MOTION Felker made a motion to reappoint Marcia Gowling as Secretary. That motion was seconded by Edgeton, and passed 6 - 0 - 1, Gowling abstained. k 2) Readoption and /or Amendment of Bylaws. MOTION Marcia Gowling moved, seconded by Len Miller to approve the bylaws as written. That motion passed 7 - 0. 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION Len Miller moved, seconded by Karen Edgeton, to adjourn the meeting. That motion passed 7 - 0. The meeting adjourned at 11:46 p.m. AGENDA NO. 5A MEMO TO: Chair and Members of the Apple Valley Planning Commission FROM: Rick Kelley, Acting Community Development Director DATE: June 1, 1994 SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Amendment to Comprehensive Plan - Utility Chapter, Master Electrical Transmission System Plan Attached is a draft copy of a proposed amended section of the Comprehensive Plan Utility Chapter concerning a Master Electrical Transmission System Plan. This plan would provide for an additional overhead electric transmission corridor along Johnny Cake Ridge Road from C.R. #42 to 140th Street, and along Pilot Knob Road from C.R. #42 to C.R. #46. The plan also establishes a new substation on the southwest corner of 140th and Johnny cake Ridge Road, and a switching station on the east side of Johnny Cake Ridge Road at the 145th Street alignment. It is recommended that the public hearing be opened, comments be taken, and the hearing closed. It is the policy of the Commission to refrain from acting on an item the same night as its public hearing.