Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/1994CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 15, 1994 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Acting Chair Karen Edgeton. Members Present: Karen Edgeton, Marcia Gowling, Jeannine Churchill, and James Cady. Members Absent: Frank Blundetto, Alan Felkner, Len Miller Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Scott Hickok, Consultant Planner Alan Kretman, Keith Gordon, and James Sheldon. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA There were no changes from the Staff or Commission. MOTION: Marcia Gowling moved, seconded by Jeannine Churchill, to approve the agenda as written. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 1, 1994 MOTION: Jeannine Churchill moved, seconded by Marcia Gowling, to approve the minutes. The motion passed 3 - 0 - 1 abstention. 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. Boston Chicken - Site Plan Review/Building Permit Authorization Marcia Gowling raised a question regarding the dumpster enclosure at Boston Chicken. Staff responded that the dumpster enclosure can remain the way it currently exists, but that once it is moved it will have to be rebuilt according to the downtown building standards. Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 2 B. Apple Valley Commons I & II - Street Setback Variance for Ground Signs MOTION: Gowling moved, seconded by Cady, to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion passed 4 - 0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Apple Valley Senior Housing - Conditional Use Permit for Senior Housing Density Bonus, Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization with Reduced Parking Alan Kretman presented the proposal for a 50 -unit Senior HRA Project, located south of downtown on 157th Street, approximately one block east of Cedar. The Planned Development #507 allows for a conditional use permit for added density for a senior project in a moderate density zoning district. This proposal currently includes 50 dwelling units with the potential future expansion for 49 units. Kretman indicated that the proposal at this time includes a congregate dining facility and common areas for the seniors in the development. Kretman also indicated that the parking has been reviewed and determined to be adequate for a project of this type. Kretman also noted that with the future expansion there will be expanded parking as well. This parking will take access off of 157th Street. Kretman pointed out that there are two issues: transportation access to this site, and internal amenities on the site. With regard to amenities, it is very important to consider the needs of the users -- in this case, the seniors. The site itself has incredible potential based on the open space that will remain beyond the buildings, and Kretman recommended walking paths and outdoor conversation areas be included in the site plan for this development. The building is a 3 -story building which is acceptable by both the zoning and comprehensive plan. Since it is a senior project, the building includes a step -down 2 -story element closer to 157th Street. The building has been designed with architectural banding and a residential character roof to give it a very compatible feel with the surrounding area, both to the north and south. idgeton asked if there were any questions. Gowling asked for clarification of the location of this building. Cady asked for clarification of the need for a conditional use permit; is it because it is a 3 -story or the number of units. Kretman explained that it is a combination of both the fact that it is a 3 -story and the number of units within the dwelling. Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 3 Edgeton asked for clarification regarding the future building and how it will be situated on the site in relationship to the building proposed., Kretman explained that the first building will be situated on the northeast portion of the site. The new addition would be located to the southwest of that first building. There will be a dining facility built in the first phase which will ultimately be shared by both facilities. Edgeton then asked if the additional parking that is dotted in will accommodate the future expansion area. Kretman responded that it would. Edgeton also asked about the drive coming off from the new Garrett alignment. Kretman explained that the drive will come off of that alignment after the road is installed and will allow access to the underground parking for this complex. Edgeton asked if there were any other questions of the Commission. Gowling asked a question regarding the landscaping that would serve as a buffer between the complex as it is proposed, and the residential area to the south. The landscaping would help block the headlights in and out of the complex at night. Kretman responded that one of the solutions that could be implemented is a site plan modification that would bring the driveway out between units across the street so that headlights do not become an issue. Kari Gill of the HRA stated that this proposed complex is part of the overall senior housing efforts of the HRA and Dakota County. The complex as proposed fits the HRA program, which includes a twofold element. One is to provide an attractive building for seniors, and secondly to keep that building affordable to the seniors of Dakota County. Gill stated that this will be very similar to a recently constructed building in Eagan, and it will be the seventh senior project developed by the HRA in Dakota County. Gill briefly discussed the plans for a future building on this site. It is the HRA's intent to build the first building and plan for a second building to be constructed at an unknown future date. Gill then introduced their architect, Kirk Willette with BRW Architects. Mr. Willette briefly explained some of the design elements of the building. He indicated that with the single family homes to the south, the HRA and architect wanted to keep the building back as far as possible from 157th Street and step the design of the building so that it approximates the scale of the homes across 157th Street as it is built. Willette also stated that the cul -de -sac turnaround is intended to circulate drop -offs of seniors to the complex. Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 4 Willette stated that BRW Architects have done design work for the HRA and they feel that they have a good working relationship, one that has produced attractive, as well as functional, buildings for the seniors. Willette indicated that they would respond to the question that was asked earlier regarding access to the site to assure that the access is successful and that headlights are not an issue in the development area that surrounds this project. Willette indicated that this building is 22 -25% coverage. In this planned development, they would be entitled to up to 30 % coverage of the site. Utilizing a colored rendering, Willette illustrated for the Commission how the building facade would appear upon completion. There will be a brick band around the base and banding around the front porch terrace to break up the mass of the building and add character. Edgeton asked if there were any questions for the petitioner. Edgeton then asked, on the issue of the future building, if there were any plans for connecting walkways or outdoor amenities to connect the two buildings. Willette stated that they have considered that and indicated that a link of some type would be required and a short walkway between the buildings would form a connection. Edgeton asked about connections from phases 1 and 2 to a potential future community center for seniors behind the complex. Willette responded that the two sites would probably be under separate ownership and management, and a connection would be made and designed at the time of the development of the senior community center. Edgeton then opened up the floor for public comment. Hearing no further comments, she closed the public hearing and indicated that it is the policy of the Planning Commission not to act on an item the night of the public hearing. Edgeton noted that this item will continue to appear on future agendas until all questions have been asked and a recommendation can be made to the City Council. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Cedarwick. Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review/Building Permit Authorization for 54 townhomes, 3 duplexes, 2 single family homes, and Conditional Use Permit for Alternate Exterior Materials Scott Hickok gave a presentation on the proposal, stating that this is a 7.9 -acre site, located south of 138th Street between Cedar Avenue and Pennock Avenue. Hickok utilized Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 5 photographs to give a sense of the neighborhood as it exists today, Illustrating that the site for this proposal is a wooded site with heavy vegetation that can be viewed from the surrounding streets and the adjacent development areas. In his presentation Hickok indicated that the proposal is consistent with the zoning and comprehension plan designations for this site. Giving a brief history, Hickok indicated that this site was rezoned and the comprehensive plan was amended in 1990. After much work through the Cedar Pennock corridor study, the City determined that a mix of moderate density residential adjacent to single family residential and twin homes adjacent to twin homes would be the most appropriate mix for this site. The uses are separated by a road that was officially mapped as part of this development. Hickok indicated that there were many concerns of the surrounding development area, including: traffic, compatibility, building design, density, and internal site amenity. Hickok discussed each of the elements, including making a statement that the City had hired a third party transportation consultant to provide information about the added traffic that would be a result of this development, and also the transportation issues related to the surrounding roadways as it relates to this proposal. Based upon the information provided by SEH /Glen Van Wormer, the Staff is comfortable with this proposal and the traffic numbers that will be generated by this proposal. As far as compatibility, Hickok explained that the zoning, which includes 8 grades of density, was designed to build in compatibility between uses. Hickok continued by explaining aspects of the development, including the design of the buildings which relate to the conditional use permit that is being requested. The conditional use permit is for an alternate building material. As the code is written, an M6 -B zoning is entitled to a conditional use permit for a permanent siding material such as steel, aluminum, or vinyl. The conditional use permit is based on the surrounding development area and whether or not 66 2/3% of the surrounding development area contains something that is equivalent or less than siding material that is being proposed. Staff did an evaluation and determined that of the surrounding development area and a 350' radius, as required by the code, 66 2/3% of the surrounding area does in fact include masonite or permanent siding, which is the equivalent or less than the material being proposed for this development area. Once again, as it related to compatibility, Hickok indicated that this not only qualifies as a development for a conditional use permit for alternate materials, but also provides a compatibility between the existing uses and the future use of this site. In response to a comment made by Dr. Karvell, real estate expert from St. Cloud University, Hickok stated that an addition of a multifamily development such as this adjacent to an existing single family area may or may not affect the land values of the Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 6 surrounding properties. In essence, Dr. Karvell's statement indicated that the design of the proposal is the issue, not simply the fact that it is there. The combination of the design of the development and the fact that this development is not placed in the center of the existing development area, but instead is on the edge of the development, makes a difference in the impact on values. It is Staffs opinion that based on the information, this development will not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding land values as they exist. Hickok concluded his presentation by giving a brief summary of the proposal as it has been worked and reworked by the developer. Hickok stated that the proposal at hand meets the 60% green space requirement that the developer had been asked to meet. This 60 % green space is consistent with the other developments recently approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Edgeton asked for clarification on the conditional use permit request for an alternate material and how Staff evaluates the request. Hickok responded. Edgeton asked if it was true that the front of the buildings and the surrounding area may be one building material, but the sides and the rear are a material such as masonite? Hickok responded yes. Hickok concluded by stating that Staff recommends approval of a 16 lot and 1 outlot plat which would allow 42 townhouse units, 6 twin units and 2 single family units. Staff also recommends approval of the site plan and building permit authorization pending the modification to 50% brick as required by code. Staff also recommends approval of the conditional use permit which would allow alternate materials in this development area. Edgeton then asked for the number of units to be reviewed once again. Hickok explained. Churchill asked about the traffic analysis, stating that she is slightly confused on how we would end up with 30 trips in the morning with 50 units in that development area. Hickok responded that these are 30 peak hour trips, and that is not to say that there will only be 30 trips out of the development, but rather 30 trips during the peak hour. This is based upon the fact that residents in this area will have different schedules, and therefore leave at different times. Churchill then stated that she understands that there will be at least 50 people employed based on the 50 units in this development area and is very uncomfortable with the traffic numbers that are being presented. Hickok responded that this is the reason for relying on a professional consultant rather than giving you the information ourselves. The consultant uses national standards, many samples, and their expertise to tell us what the Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 7 trips per day are going to be. Staff believes this information to be the most accurate information available. Gowling asked if the traffic counts are based on the original proposal (54 units) or whether or not these are based on the revised lower number (42 units). Hickok responded that these figures were based on 54 units and that the actual trips per day will drop relative to the number of units in the development. Gowling stated that she is concerned about the road to Cedar not being put in initially and the potential problem of not carrying cars out of the development. Hickok responded that the future development of the area to the south would require that the roadway go out to 139th Street. Hickok also stated that there are issues related to the City Staff s discussion with the County on 139th Street. Hickok indicated that the County at this time did not want to see 139th Street going out to Cedar Avenue. Also, the County has pointed out that at the time that the median is closed for southbound traffic to go east on 139th Street, they would consider that 139th Street connection south of the development. Gowling stated that she recalled the discussions back in the 1990's at the time of the rezoning of the comprehensive plan, and the importance of this roadway to the development of this area. Hickok responded that there are options consistent with those discussed in 1990. However, it has not been our practice to require the installation of a roadway prior to the development of the land. In this case the Calistro property south of this proposed development is not being developed at this time, and therefore traditionally Staff or the City does not require the installation of the roadway on property that is not being developed. Churchill asked for clarification about the consultant's numbers being based on traffic going north, not south, onto 139th Street. Hickok responded that this is correct; the connection of 139th would improve on those numbers given by the traffic consultant. Edgeton asked if there were any additional questions. Hearing none, Edgeton then asked for the Petitioner to come forward. Gene Shellerud of Twin City Townhomes stated that he would like to talk about some of the changes and why they were made. He stated that they have worked with Staff and that the plan being proposed includes a reduced number of units and also an increased percentage of green space that was required by the Commission and Council. Shellerud indicated that they have been careful to work with zoning as it exists on the site and to design units that will be compatible with the existing development area. He also stated that some the condominium units have been modified to be single loaded buildings to bring them down to the 60% requirement. The building's front elevation will appear just the same; however, the side and rear elevations of those units will be different based on their single loaded design. Shellerud pointed out the private areas that have been created by the reduction of units and the increase of open space outdoors. Shellerud discussed the Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 8 expanded right -of -way required by the County Highway Department to 100' half width right - of -way as opposed to a 75' half width right -of -way. Shellerud displayed a transparency illustrating the site and the development as proposed. He noted that there had been parking along Cedar in the original parking that extended out into the 75' setback area. He stated that it has always been their intention to keep landscaping heavy and to include the berm along Cedar Avenue. Shellerud stated that sound attenuation is something they feel is very important to salability of this development, and the berm provides buffering from Cedar Avenue for the development. Trees, bushes, and landscaping do almost nothing to achieve sound attenuation, but an extensive planting plan, including sod and irrigation for the berm, has been discussed. Shellerud concluded by stating that they agree to work with Staff on site drainage and landscaping around the buildings, on the berm, an d street plantings. In regard to the brick requirement, the developer is open to the recommendations of Staff, Commission and Council, to bring that portion of the plan into compliance of the code requirements. Churchill asked a question regarding the back side of the buildings of those units that have been cut off to be single loaded units. Shellerud responded that the roof design is different. He utilized the illustration of the existing proposal to show that the building's roof pitch will change on the rear elevation, and the face of the building will actually include doors and windows which will have a very complete look about it. The rear will be sided and will contain brick as required by Code. Gowling asked if Staff has seen what the rest of the building will look like. Hickok responded that they have not. Shellerud brought photographs to show what their buildings built to date look like and would also be glad to provide a rear elevation to show how that building will look. Churchill asked if the roof elevation has dropped due to the building being cut. Shellerud referred to the illustration and pointed out that the roof of the building would begin to drop at approximately the point where the gable comes off from the building on its existing elevation. He also showed a blueprint of the side elevation of the building and pointed out the area where the roof line would be cut. Shellerud indicated there are privacy fences along the back to shelter the units. Gowling asked for clarification on the privacy fences separating the units. Gowling also asked for more information on the window and door arrangement on the rear of the building. Edgeton asked for further information about the rear elevation design. Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 9 A general discussion ensued regarding the elevations. Gowling stated that she continues to be concerned about the elevation and the windows and doors as proposed. Forest Harstad of Twin City Town Homes volunteered to quickly illustrate on the blueprint how those building elevations would appear. Edgeton asked Staff for clarification of the 50% area requirement on a building and whether or not it would be different on a single loaded building as opposed to a double loaded building. Hickok responded that based on the square foot area of the building, the mix of brick to siding material could be quite different, and the square foot dimensions of the walls obviously are different on a single loaded as opposed to a double loaded building and therefore the brick amount will be different as well. Hickok stated that he would make sure that the brick appears on the rear elevation of the building to break up that building face. A general discussion ensued regarding building design. Edgeton asked for clarification on the duplex and single family units and whether or not there are plans for those units. Shellerud responded that currently the plans for the twin units have been laid out, and they do have a proposal to take the same basic building of the larger condominiums and reduce the size of those buildings to fit the twin site. In other words, the 8 -plex building could be reduced down 2 units, and that gives an approximate idea of what those twin units would look like. Shellerud explained that there would be a master suite on the main floor with master bath. He continued by describing the elements of the twin units as they would appear on the site. A general discussion continued. Shellerud stated the single family design may be very similar to the twin units, although provisions for a third garage stall would be made for the single family units. The single family units would be 1300 -1500 square feet. Edgeton asked about the existing vegetation behind the existing development area and what will remain to separate this development from the existing development area. Edgeton also asked if there were mature trees up to the property line. Edgeton asked for further clarification of the homes that backed up to the duplexes and single family homes, and asked that Staff work with the City Forester to assure that any trees that exist currently that could be left would be left to provide a buffering between the proposal and the adjacent areas. Shellerud responded by stating that the developer is Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 10 interested in keeping as much as possible. Obviously grading for drainage and positioning of units will be required, but wherever possible they would like to keep vegetation on site. A general discussion regarding natural screening ensued. Shellerud once again utilized photographs of their existing projects to show how they have attempted to preserve vegetation and provide screening to adjacent buildings. Gowling asked if clearing will be done separately for each unit, or whether or not for the twins they will clear all away down the line and then put in the homes. Shellerud indicated that there will be underground pad correction required and that they will have to clear beyond the units themselves. Shellerud stated they will try to clear only what needs to be cleared for each of the units. He indicated that they have not done their soil tests yet to know exactly how much soil correction will be required for placement of these units. The site had been used as a borrow pit in the past. There may be areas that have to be cut or filled in order to make this unit design work well. Shellerud concluded by stating that he would not be at all opposed to having Staff go out with them to determine a line, and they would place an orange snow fence as a boundary for grading. Hickok responded that it is very typical for the Forester to work with developers to set up a line. Gowling asked what we have for units per acre. Hickok responded that we are at 7.76 units per acre with a range of 7.5 to 10 units per acre. Edgeton mentioned that now rather than being at the top of the range, we are at the low end of the range. Gowling stated that in 1990 when the R -CL cluster homes were to be placed in this development area, they could have been placed at 10 units per acre, and this development is 7.76 units per acre. Hickok responded that in 1990 the developer and owner of the land were interested in a much higher density, which may have been a 3 -unit building, providing open space around it, but a much different building design. Churchill asked how much of the development area south of 138th was in place at the time of the 1990 study. Hickok utilized a 1989 G1S map to show what homes were in place at the time of the 1989 Pennock /Cedar Study. A general discussion ensued regarding the conditions and the number of units that were in place during the time of the 1989 study. Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 11 Gowling stated that she would like to see some type of a Staff recommendation for the brick on the units. She understands that Staff hasn't had a chance to look at the unit design specifically as it relates to brick, but she would like to see a recommendation. Hickok responded that the Commission's recommendation could include a requirement that Staff work with the developer or include a condition that Staff be required to approve the brick prior to receiving a building permit to begin construction. Edgeton stated that although this is not a public hearing, if anyone has new information, they may speak at this time. Dallas Carl, a resident from the development to the west, stated that he still has a problem with the access to the development. Carl stated that if the road came down to 140th, he is concerned about how that would match up at 140th, and if it does not go out to Cedar Avenue as proposed in the official mapping, he is not certain what the access possibilities would be for the development of the Calistro land to the south. Hickok responded that either 139th or a connection to 140th would be possible with the appropriate design. Chris Conway from 139th Street Court stated that he needed some clarification of Mr. Hickok's report. Did he understand correctly that there are no restrictions as far as owner- occupied versus rental units. Edgeton stated that we do not have the authority to regulate owner versus rental. She also stated that the single family residents could rent their property just as easily as the condominium owners could rent the property. Conway then asked, of the 392 trips, how many would exit west on 138th Street versus east on Cedar. Edgeton responded. Mr. Conway stated that he would like to see the traffic study do a little bit more on where those trips would go, indicating that most of the traffic is brought into Pennock south, and more information is needed on how much traffic is expected to be added to Pennock. Edgeton asked Hickok for the date of the study. Hickok responded that the study was taken on June 9th, six days prior to the meeting. Judy Young, 13835 Pennock, stated that there will be over 100 cars to begin with and she does not believe the numbers in the traffic study as that study relates to the number of trips onto Pennock Avenue daily. Alice Thomas of Granada Court invited the Commission to personally visit the development area so they get a feel for it as it exists and also the traffic elements as they currently exist. Thomas also felt that the traffic study needed additional work. Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 12 Edgeton stated that she feels that the Commission has had adequate opportunity to take a look at the development area and understands the issue of the development. Gordon Hendrickson of Hanover Way indicated that he is Lot 13 of Granada Court which has not been built yet. He feels there is already traffic on Pennock South and has questions of future development south of this proposal. His biggest concern is that he would like to see an upscale development in this area that would assure property values. Edgeton asked if Hickok would review the zoning as it exists on this site and what they would permit as far as development. Alice Thomas asked about garbage trucks pulling in the development area. Edgeton stated that Staff has reviewed the plan and there is adequate turnaround for emergency and garbage trucks. Patty Parmeroy of 139th Court asked how emergency vehicles will access the area. Edgeton stated that the plan has been reviewed by police and fire and that the vehicles will be able to get in and out. Parmeroy asked if they specified the route. Edgeton asked Staff if there are any reports. Gowling stated that Pennock Avenue is a collector, and based on that asked Staff about emergency vehicle ability and the carrying capacity. Hickok stated that the road could carry up to 4,000 trips per day and that all the roads have been designed for emergency standards. Hickok then utilized an overhead transparency to show how emergency vehicles would get in and out of a development area. Hickok explained the review for the turnarounds for emergency vehicles. Edgeton asked if the Commission had any further questions or concerns. Hearing none, Chair Edgeton called for a motion. Cady asked for clarification of the motions. Edgeton explained a motion is needed on the preliminary plat, site plan review /building permit authorization, and conditional use permit for alternate materials. MOTION Cady made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for 16 condominium lots, 1 outlot, 6 twin lots and 2 single family lots. Churchill seconded the motion, and the motion passed 4 - 0. MOTION Cady made a motion to approve the site plan approval and building permit authorization, seconded by Churchill. Gowling asked if this is where we put in the Staff review of the brick and Cady stated that he would amend his motion, including a requirement that Staff review the brick. The motion passed 4 - 0. Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 13 MOTION: Cady made a motion for alternate building materials, seconded by Churchill. The motion passed 4 - 0. 6B. Pannekoeken Planned Development Revision and Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization for Multi- tenant Building Community Development Director Rick Kelley indicated that this property is at the southeasterly intersection of CR #42 and Gleason Path. Kelley indicated that this is a modification to Planned Development 244 which calls for a single use as opposed to multiple uses in the planned development. Kelley reminded the Commission that this item had been before them as a single use and Pannekoeken had done further evaluation and determined that the cost of development of the site would require that they incorporate other users into the site to divide up the development cost. As proposed, the development would include two leasable areas of 1,750 square feet each. Those leasable areas would be designed to reflect the original Pannekoeken design. Kelley stated that due to an inconsistency between the footprint of the building and the renderings of the building as they relate to a canopy, Staff has asked the developer to modify the plan to bring these two elements into consistency. Kelley indicated that there is room to make the modification and still have adequate parking on site for the use as proposed. Kelley then explained elements, such as the sidewalk and landscape features, that would tie this site into the surrounding development area and also explained in greater detail aspects of the building elevations as proposed. Each retail space would have its own separate entry. Kelley concluded by stating that there is a representative of the petitioner present this evening. Staff recommendation is to approve the site plan /building permit authorization and modification to the planned development for this use. Cady asked if Staff has done an analysis of like spaces in the downtown area, what the leased percentage is for downtown, and whether this is needed. Kelley responded that a building such as this is probably only between 5 and 10% unleased at this time. Kelley indicated that as designed this would be a preferred type of retail space in the Southport complex and feels that it will be a very successful retail space. Gowling asked if there is enough parking for the additional space. Kelley responded that there is still one additional stall over the code requirement. Gowling asked for clarification on the appearance of the back of the building. Kelley responded that the back of the building would be primarily of a drive -up material with brick Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 14 banding and accent decorative bands as well. Kelley also pointed out that there are some decorative scuppers on the rear elevation of the building to add character. Gowling asked about the refuse area. Kelley responded by pointing to the illustration on the transparency and stated that the building is stepped to allow loading. In that step area will be a walled area around the dumpster enclosure. Edgeton asked if there were any questions of Staff or the developer. Kelley indicated that we only received one comment from Mid- America who owns the balance of the Southport Center development area. It was our understanding that Mid - America was also interested in buying the site, which may be one of the reasons why they were opposed to the rezoning as indicated. David Stevens, the developer with Pannekoeken, stated that the enclosure around the dumpster area is designed in a way that you would not really be able to see the dumpster from many of the adjacent sites or roadways. Edgeton asked if this meets code requirements. Edgeton asked if there was anything further that the petitioner would like to add. Stevens responded that they would be moving the pylon sign to a different location, but that location is acceptable to Staff. Edgeton asked Kelley about the concerns over dedication of the easement. Kelley responded that there are no concerns about easements adjacent to this site. MOTION Churchill moved to amend Planned Unit Development 244 to allow the retail uses as proposed, Gowling seconded. The motion passed 4 - 0. MOTION Churchill moved to recommend approval of the site plan/building permit authorization based upon Staff recommendations, seconded by Gowling, and passed 4 - 0. 6C. Comprehensive Plan - Amendment to Utility Chapter Concerning Essential Electric Service Facilities and Transmission Corridors Community Development Director Rick Kelley made a brief presentation indicating that this item relates to the comprehensive plan utility chapter and the placement of utility substations and transmission lines in the community. Kelley utilized an overhead transparency to illustrate the location of the existing transmission lines in the City of Apple Valley, as well as indicating the future utility corridor routes. Kelley indicated that as proposed, the future transmission line would use a route Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 15 along CR #42 and head north at Johnny Cake Ridge Road. Kelley stated a new substation will be located at the intersection of 140th Street and Johnny Cake Ridge Road. Kelley indicated that there will be alternate transmission lines allowing an option on either side of the Northstar concrete facility in Apple Valley. Kelley indicated that the former plan along CR #38 would put a substation between Cedar Avenue and Galaxie Avenue. This was not a preferred route because of the existing vegetation, development, and terrain which would make it very difficult to place a substation now in that location. The need for a transmission line substation and switching station has been indicated by Cooperative Power and Dakota Electric, and the City concurs that additional power is necessary. The location of the transmission lines was really the question to be answered. Kelley stated that there will be some technical elements to the drafting of the comprehensive plan amendment that talks not only about the routes for the transmission corridor, but also any special conditions as it relates to the development areas in which they will exist. Kelley concluded by stating that representatives were there from Cooperative Power and Dakota Electric to answer any questions. Edgeton asked if there were any questions for Kelley or any comments from the developer. The developers indicated that they had no additions. Mike MacNamara of Apple Valley, the former owner of the site now referred to as the Eastvew Athletic Complex, indicated that he sold the land to the City with the understanding that the land would be used for soccer fields, ball fields, and athletic uses. MacNamara indicated, however, that he did not feel that it is right that the City now is entertaining the use of this site for a substation and transmission lines when that was not the purpose for which he sold the property. Edgeton asked for clarification. Kelley responded. Dave Ericksmoen from Condex Corporation, who also owns Northstar Concrete and VenStar Corporation, utilized the overhead transparency to illustrate that he had talked to Cooperative Power about the switching station location. He stated that it may be in their company's best interest to have the switching station over on the west edge of the transmission corridor on the west edge of the Northstar property as opposed to the east edge. Although Ericksmoen did not know that it would be an enormous problem, he felt that it would allow potentially additional flexibility to have the switching station over on that side. Kelley responded to Ericksmoen's comment by stating that anywhere along the transmission corridor would be appropriate, and the decision could be made at a later date. Edgeton asked for a motion. Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 16 MOTION: Marcia Gowling moved that the Commission recommend an amendment to the comprehensive plan utility chapter be adopted in accordance with Staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by James Cady and the motion passed 4 - 0. 6D. Eastview Park Expansion - Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning; Conditional Use Permit for Electric Substation Rick Kelley stated that this proposal has been heard at the previous Planning Commission Public Hearing and at that time it was discussed that this is approximately an 72 acre site that was purchased for the expansion of the Eastview Athletic Complex. Currently the comprehensive plan indicates a mix of medium density residential, limited industry, and limited business. The current zoning is a combination of sand & gravel and agriculture. The proposal is to amend the comprehensive plan to show the entire site for "PK' on the comprehensive plan, to remove the temporary sand & gravel mining designation, and also rezone the entire site to 'P" (institutional) which would allow the expansion of the athletic complex. Kelley indicated that at this time it is only a conceptual layout that the City has related to this development, but it would include playground, parking, soccer fields and ball fields. This would be bound by 147th Street on the south, future Ferris Avenue on the west, Johnny Cake on the east side and 140th Street to the north. Kelley stated that there was a comment from Michael MacNamara regarding the rezoning stating that because the purchase agreement included mining of sand & gravel to continue for some years, that the City may not want to at this time remove that sand & gravel. Kelley stated that a rezoning and amendment to the comprehensive plan would not prohibit MacNamara from continuing his sand & gravel operations, however MacNamara would only be entitled to continue those operations in accordance with the sales agreement and no expansion of that sand & gravel would go beyond the last year of that purchase agreement. Kelley further explained the potential switching station site indicating that the intersection of 140th Street and Johnny Cake Ridge Road at the southwest quadrant of the intersection would be the most appropriate location for the switching station. Based on the topography, the scheduling of installation of the switching station, and a future layout of the ball fields, Staff feels that this location would be the most appropriate and would provide the least amount of complication as the site develops in the future. Kelley stated that the transmission substation would be open primarily in the middle with the equipment and would be fenced with a bermed area and extensive landscaping surrounding the substation. This landscaping and the varying contours would provide a very limited view at best of the transmission equipment inside that area. Utilizing a cross Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 17 section, Kelley illustrated the site lines that could be viewed from adjacent properties and right -of -ways as you pass the transmission substation location. In conclusion, Kelley stated that Staff is recommending approval of the comprehensive plan amendment and zoning for the expansion of the Eastview Athletic Complex and offered to answer any questions that the Commission may have. James Cady asked whether or not Kelley had more information about the future layout of the Eastview Athletic Complex. Kelley responded that at this time we only have a conceptual plan, however based on the amount of acreage and the anticipated needs, that it would primarily be a mix of soccer and ball fields with parking on site to accommodate the users on these fields. A general discussion ensued regarding the expansion design. Mike MacNamara stated that his continent remains the same, that the sale of the property was really for this athletic use, and urged the Commission to consider whether or not a substation would be appropriate on this site. After hearing no further comments, Karen Edgeton asked for a motion. MOTION Jeannine Churchill moved to recommend approval of the amendment to the comprehensive plan to "PK" from the current uses. James Cady seconded the motion and the motion passed 4 - 0. MOTION: Churchill moved to approve the rezoning from the existing designations to "P" (institutional), Cady seconded. The motion passed 4 - 0. Churchill then asked for clarification from Jim Sheldon on the purchase of the property and the connection between our purchase of that property and the conditional use permit being requested for the property at this time. Sheldon stated he will get that information from his firm. He explained that since he was elected to the Dakota Electric Board, he feels that it would best that he have someone else from his Staff answer that question. MOTION: Churchill moved to approve the substation location at the intersection of 140th and Johnny Cake Ridge Road and the conditional use permit, Cady seconded the motion, which passed 4 - 0. Chair Edgeton stated that she would like to commend both Staff and Dakota Electric Cooperative Power for their efforts in bringing this to a win -win conclusion. Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 18 6E. Apple Valley American Legion - Site Plan/Building Permit Expansion of Clubhouse and Variance to Exterior Building Material Standards Associate Planner Scott Hickok gave a brief presentation regarding the American Legion's intentions to expand their facility on the south side of the existing facility in Apple Valley. The expansion area consists of a 14' x 125' addition for storage on the south elevation of the building. The building itself is a Butler metal building with a metal roof. The addition as proposed is a metal skin building with a metal roof as well. Hickok indicated that Staff has very few plans related to the American Legion, other than to say that the building addition consists of a 14' x 125' extension. Using the site plan, Hickok stated that there are only 15' from the building as it exists today and the southern lot line. However, the American Legion did acquire the property south of the American Legion. Providing they consolidate the parcels as one tax parcel, they could then construct the addition without any future danger of having the building be too close to the lot line. Hickok explained that in recent reviews of Arby's, the Rossi Auto Parts Store downtown, and other retail business complexes when there have been simple or minor modifications to the exterior, a wholesale exterior revamp has not been required. Hickok indicated that this is the case with this proposal. It is a minor modification and expansion of an existing building, so it did not seem appropriate to require that the entire building be refaced with brick. Edgeton asked for clarification of the consolidation of the independent lots as one tax parcel. Hickok explained that he has not discussed that with the petitioner. After a general discussion regarding the consolidation of the southern lot the, the Commission asked if the petitioner had any comments. Cady asked what the setbacks are for a building on this site. Hickok responded that the standard setback is 15' and the building has been constructed to that standard. Gowling asked, since Staff has not talked to the petitioner about consolidation, if there will be a problem with the petitioner. Kelley responded that the site will not be entitled to a building permit without that consolidation, so it is in the American Legion's best interest that this action take place. Gowling asked for clarification as to whether it is even open to discussion being that the permit would not be issued based on the minimum setback of 1'. Hickok responded that consolidation does have to occur prior to issuance of a permit. Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 19 Edgeton stated that she was having a hard time visualizing how the addition will look. Hickok responded that, unfortunately, there were not any renderings submitted along with the application. Therefore, there are no further illustrations that could be used. MOTION: Churchill moved to approve the site plan/building permit authorization subject to the stipulation that the American Legion complete the consolidation of the two lots into one tax parcel and also approve the setback dimension as recommended by Staff. The motion was seconded by Gowling and passed 4 - 0. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Sketch Plan Review for Conversion of Commercial Property into a Townhouse Development in Carrolton Estates on West Side of Pennock Avenue at 146th Street West Alan Kretman indicated that this is a proposal for a site approximately 220' north of the intersection of 147th Street and Pennock Avenue. Kretman continued by stating that this is a planned unit development which would allow for a mix of retail and limited business uses in this location. Kretman showed that there is single family to the west, a large commercial site to the south, and there is an existing storm water pond to the north of the development area. The proposal is for nine 4 -unit buildings for a total of 36 units. It would occupy approximately 4 acres of the 6 acre site and would give a density range of approximately 9 units per acre. Regarding the building orientation from a land use standpoint, Kretman questioned whether or not a townhouse is appropriate for this location. If so, is the site plan as proposed appropriate. Kretman pointed out that a residual parcel is being created south of the development, but north of 147th Street, and due to the wide and shallow dimension of that remaining parcel, it may make it difficult for future development of that parcel north of 147th Street. With the combination of parking, building setbacks, etc. it may become very difficult to develop this site. The development would include a building of approximately 60' in depth, which may make it very inflexible for future retail use. The Commission may want to consider whether or not townhouses are appropriate and if so, maybe the townhouse use should continue down to 147th Street as opposed to leaving this narrow parcel along 147th Street. Kretman then went on to state that the site plan itself lacks some imagination. In working with the developer, Staff suggested that there may be an opportunity to open up the site plan to allow vistas into the development from the pond and visa versa, thus making the pond much more of an amenity. There will be a buffer of both the landscape berm and distances from the buildings to the existing single family to the west. The development Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 20 should also be buffered from the retail to the south as part of the plan. Kretman concluded by stating the developer should consider incorporation of the southern site into their townhouse development, which would allow more flexibility of units on the site -- a more creative plan. Kretman asked for any insights that the Commission may have on the proposal to the developer. Gowling asked if the same person owns the narrow site north of 147th Street and the site that is being proposed for townhomes. Kretman responded that the developer would be going through the subdivision process and an amendment to the planned development that would allow this use to occur, and also the subdivision of land to allow the separate uses as proposed. Gowling asked for further clarification of ownership of the site and a general discussion ensued regarding the subdivision and modification of the planned development. Gowling stated that she does not feel comfortable with this because she feels we should know first how much retail space and limited business space the City needs before we rezone something from retail or limited business to a townhouse use. Gowling concluded by stating that we should know where the City wants to go with their downtown prior to allowing a townhouse development to utilize some of the commercial area. Churchill agreed with Kretman's comments that the development needs a bit more imagination, but feels that the use as a transition may be appropriate from commercial to the existing residential. Cady echoed that we need to see a little more information about how the retail use would mesh with this townhouse use prior to making a decision. Edgeton stated that she does not see that this would be a viable area for a townhouse development in the downtown. She also feels that the comments about needing to know what type of land is needed yet for the downtown is important. Edgeton stated that an evaluation of future uses and needs or demands for downtown commercial space may be appropriate. Edgeton asked what was the zoning on the land when the single family homes were built. Kelley responded that it was agriculture and part of the Carroll farm. Jim Johnson with Sienna Corporation thanked the Commission for taking the time to review and comment on their proposal. Johnson stated that what has driven the site plan is the 40% maximum hard surface coverage and the 60% green space. Johnson indicated that when they originally started, they felt that 48% green space would be appropriate. Knowing now that the Commission looks for 60 %, Johnson indicated that there were very few options for him on this site. In order to make the project work, Johnson stated that Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 21 they are pursuing a major planted berm along the southern edge of the property that would separate the townhouse uses from the retail business uses to the south. Johnson concluded by stating that he understands the Commission's interest and need to understand the demand for future commercial in the downtown area; however, he does not know how long that will take and how that would affect the development of this proposal for townhomes. Johnson indicated that as proposed he feels this development is of a very residential character and would provide a nice transition to the existing single family homes to the west. Johnson again thanked the Commission and stated that he will take the comments back to Sienna Corporation and they will evaluate whether or not to pursue this townhouse proposal. Edgeton stated that one of the things that the developer will find about the City of Apple Valley is that they are very adamant about protecting their downtown area and also adamant about providing transition between uses. Edgeton then asked if Kelley felt this is something that should be presented to the Economic Development people. Kelley indicated that this would be a very good topic for that Committee. He feels that it could be presented to them at their next meeting to gain further input on whether or not their view is that this should be retained as limited and retail business designations. 7B. Sketch Plan Review for Single Family Lot Division at 1121/2 Hidden Meadow Road Associate Planner Hickok stated that this is a sketch plan proposal for a subdivision of land located in the northern part of Apple Valley. The parcel is in an R -2 zoning district which would require an 18,000 square foot minimum lot size. The parcel in question is a 2.02 acre parcel which, based on square foot dimension, could accommodate two R -2 single family lots. Hickok stated that the vegetation, terrain, and location of the existing structure on the site would make it very difficult to subdivide the land as being proposed by the petitioner. Through the use of transparencies showing the contours of the site, Hickok indicated that a very unusual shaped lot, very long and deep with a very narrow dimension, has been proposed, and where that subdivision or future lot has been planned, the contours provide for a very steep sloped site. Hickok concluded by stating that he did not feel this subdivision of land is appropriate and had passed that information along to the petitioner. However, the petitioner felt that they would like to have the Commission review it so that they could get a better sense of direction before they spent the money for surveys, subdivision drawings, etc. Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 22 Churchill asked for further clarification of where this lot is located in the City of Apple Valley. Hickok explained through the use of a transparency that it is located up in the Palomino area on Hidden Meadow Road. Hickok stated that there is one other consideration, and that is that the existing structure is 112 1/2 and there is also a 112. The subdivision of this property would put the address at about 112 3/4, and from an addressing standpoint this does not make much sense. A general discussion ensued regarding the topography and vegetation on the site. Edgeton asked if there were any further questions of the Commissioners. Marlene Allen of Edina Realty stated that she has been a realtor for 12 years and that she has been in the Apple Valley area for 32 years. Marlene indicated that due to circumstances of the property owner of 112 1/2 is being forced to move off the property. Marlene felt that many homes have been built on beautiful wooded lots with slopes where they could terrace the back, put in railroad ties, etc. Marlene pointed to the house to the left and stated that there is about a 200' frontage and the site then drops considerably. She did not feel that this would affect that property if it were built into the slope. Marlene concluded by stating that the land is very valuable if it is separated, but as one lot with the existing homestead it does not add much value to the property. Rita Gutenkauf, owner of the property, asked for a transparency showing the buildings in the adjacent area. She indicated that she did not feel that as proposed this would create a problem and felt that there is potential for a home site in that area. Rita utilized some photographs of an adjacent home to indicate the kind of slope that they had to build into and how they successfully built their home. The Commission reviewed the photos and Edgeton asked for clarification if these homes were all in the immediate area. Gutenkauf responded that they were. Edgeton then asked whether Gutenkauf had spoken to a builder regarding whether or not this lot would be a buildable site and whether or not they would have a plan that would fit on that site successfully. Gutenkauf stated that she had not, but that she would be glad to do so. Gowling echoed her concern about the construction of a home on that site and whether or not there is a possibility of building a home on that site. Hickok responded that although he understands the Commission's willingness and interest in having a contractor look at it, he believes that there probably is a home plan that could fit on the site and there are probably many contractors who would be glad to build on this site. However, the question that we must answer is whether or not it is appropriate to subdivide the lot. The Planning Commission Minutes June 15, 1994 Page 23 surrounding homes currently have a very nice spacing, large lots, wooded areas with slopes. This home would break that pattern, eliminate a lot of the vegetation, and the home could possibly look out of place. Gutenkaufs realtor stated that they felt the land would be worth $35- 50,000 subdivided, but would not provide that additional income on the sale of her property as one parcel. A general discussion ensued. Edgeton concluded by stating that if the petitioner had any further information from a builder, developer, etc., the Commission would gladly look at the information before the project moves forward. However, at this time it does seem that Staffs points about the unlikely fit are valid and that the Commission would support that. S. OTHER BUSINESS A. Consider Cancellation of July 6, 1994 Meeting Chairman Felkner asked that the Commission consider this based on the July 4th holiday. Many of the members may want to take a long weekend or schedule their vacation at this time. Based on this, Felkner felt that it may be best to cancel that meeting. Gowling asked what that would do to the July 20th meeting. Kelley stated that at this time the agenda does not look heavy and the only public hearing items were for the zoo school and also a sketch review for the assisted senior housing development. Edgeton then asked for further confirmation of agenda items. MOTION: Churchill moved to cancel the July 6, 1994 meeting, seconded by Gowling. The motion passed 4 - 0. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.