Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/1994CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 20, 1994 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Chairman Alan Felkner. Members Present: Alan Felkner, Frank Blundetto, James Cady, Jeannine Churchill, and Marcia Gowling. Members Absent: Karen Edgeton and Len Miller. Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Keith Gordon, James Sheldon, Consultant Planner Alan Kretman, and Planning Intern John Kragness. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Chair Felkner asked if there were any changes to the agenda. Staff responded that there were none. MOTION: Jeannine Churchill moved, seconded by Frank Blundetto, to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed 5 0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 15, 1994 Chair Felkner asked if Staff or other members had any corrections to the minutes. There being none, he called for approval. MOTION: Marcia Gowling moved, seconded by Jeannine Churchill, to approve the June 15, 1994, minutes as presented. The motion carried 3 - 0, with 2 abstentions ( Blundetto, Felkner). 4. CONSENT AGENDA Chair Felkner explained to the audience that the items on the Consent Agenda were considered routine and that they all carried recommendations of approval. If there were no questions from the audience, or from members of the Commission on any of the consent agenda items, they would all be approved with a single motion. Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1994 Page 2 MOTION: Jeannine Churchill moved, seconded by Marcia Gowling, to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. The motion carried 5 -0. Chair Felkner asked Rick Kelley to review the situation at the American Student Transportation site concerning buses being stored out of doors during the weekend. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Planned Development ZoningAmendment forAlternative Environmental High School & Preliminary Plat for 1 Institutional Lot Chair Felkner opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Acting Community Development Director Rick Kelley presented the item. The site is located on the west side of Johnny Cake Ridge Road, approximately 1/4 mile south of the north City limits. The initial proposal is to subdivide an 8 acre parcel out of the Minnesota Zoological Garden property and to amend the planned development to allow educational uses to occur within this area. The purpose of this would be to construct a 400 student alternative high school that would have an emphasis on environmental studies. Mr. Kelley noted that the actual boundary survey and description of the property is likely to change, since the precise location of the school building and parking lots are being refined to minimize the disruption of the natural environment on the property. Chair Felkner asked Mr. Kelley about the issue raised in the Staff report concerning the Birch Pond Storm Sewer outlet. Mr. Kelley stated that if an outlet is to be connected from this pond under Johnny Cake Ridge Road to interconnect with the Wheaton Pond and the rest of the City's storm sewer ponding system, it will be necessary for the Zoological Garden to cease pumping water from their central pond into Birch Pond. The reason for this is that the Zoo's central pond also receives storm water runoff from the outdoor animal pens, which the City would not want to see introduced into the rest of the City's storm sewer ponding holding system. City Engineer Keith Gordon also noted that there is a strong likelihood that Birch Pond is spring fed, which would emphasize the need for a storm sewer outlet. Doug Danks of HGA Architects discussed the evolution of the site plan with the Commission. He stated that initially they had started with seven potential sites within the Zoological Garden and eventually narrowed it down to this site on the north side of Birch Pond. He noted that the parking lots provide for 205 automobiles and that there is a connection to allow overflow parking to occur on the north Zoo parking lot. The new parking lots would follow the contours of the land to minimize environmental disruption. He also stated that the location of the parking lots on top of the existing pipeline easement Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1994 Page 3 would mean that they would be constructing the lots on land that had already been disturbed in the past. As part of their landscape plan, they intend to restore a portion of the site with natural prairie grass environments. The building is oriented with a southeasterly exposure to maximize solar access and to minimize the need for artificial interior lighting. The building itself consists of two levels built into the hill. The lower level, which contains the main entry, opens out upon the Birch Pond area. The upper level is at grade on the north. He further stated that it is their intent to select a brick from a color palette that matches the existing colors in the earth upon the site, so that the building itself looks as if it has grown out of and is part of the property, rather than having been artificially placed there. Commissioner Gowling asked the distance from the school itself to the parking area. Mr. Danks stated that it is approximately 1,000 feet to the farthest part of the parking lot. He stated that they had evaluated a parking scheme where the size of the lots were condensed and brought closer to the school, but felt that the greater impacts upon the site would detract from the environmental theme of the school. He also stated that it seems to be in keeping with the environmental philosophy of the school to ask students who choose to attend here to walk further from their automobiles. Member Churchill asked about handicapped parking stalls. MT. Danks stated that they will occur either on the northernmost portion of the proposed parking lots, or that they will be incorporated into the dropoff circle area. The details still need to be worked out on this. Chair Felkner asked if there was sufficient room for buses to stage and turn around at the turnaround circle area. Mr. Danks stated that the nature of this school is such that there will be fewer school buses coming to the property, and those that do will likely be the smaller vans rather than the traditional full size buses since alternative high schools have a much larger attendance area and a more dispersed student population. He stated, however, that there is room for approximately 4 full-size school buses to be staged within the turnaround area. Member Gowling asked about staff parking. Mr. Danks stated that approximately 30 of the stalls in the new parking lots would be designated for staff. There would be about 14 staff members for this alternative high school. Chair Felkner asked Staff to evaluate the total number of parking stalls being provided on site relative to other high schools in the district. Member Blundetto asked for an explanation of what an alternative high school was. Mr. Danks stated that ISD #196 projections indicate a need for high school facilities to accommodate an additional 2,000 high school students above and beyond the fourth high Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1994 Page 4 school which is currently being planned. Rather than build a fifth high school or add on to the four high schools, it is the district's plan to construct four smaller high school facilities, each with a separate educational emphasis. Attendance at these high schools would be open to all students within the district, who would have to make specific application to attend the alternative high school of their choice. Member Blundetto asked about provision of athletic field space on this site. Mr. Danks stated that students would continue to have a home base high school based on the normal high school attendance areas. All extracurricular and athletic activities that they choose to participate in. would be done at their home base high school, not at one of the alternative high schools. Chair Felkner asked if any members from the audience wished to comment on the proposal. There being no public comments, Chair Felkner closed the public hearing with the standard remarks. He stated that this item would reappear on the August 3rd Planning Commission agenda. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Apple Valley Senior Housing - Conditional Use Permit for Senior Housing Density Bonus, Site Plan /Building Permit Authorization with Reduced Parking Planning Consultant Alan Kretman presented the proposal. The property is located on the north side of 157th Street, east of Cedar Avenue. The area is zoned under a planned unit development for mixed uses, including multiple residential, with a density bonus provision for multiple residential units for the exclusive use of seniors. The first phase of construction would consist of a three -story building with 50 dwelling units, a public access point onto 157th Street, and a service and underground garage access point onto Garrett Avenue. In accordance with the provisions of the planned unit development zoning, architectural design features must be utilized to de- emphasize the height of the building and emphasize the horizontal nature of the structure. To this end, multiple textures and colors are proposed on the varying stories, as well as design which places a two -story front along 157th Street which abuts single family homes. It has been requested that the height of the brick ledge on the first floor be raised higher than on the initial drawing. It has also been requested that the drive aisle of the second phase parking be installed at this time to allow a complete loop access in front of the building, specifically for emergency vehicle access. Also related to turning movements for larger emergency vehicles, Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1994 Page 5 it has been suggested that the center island be changed to a half moon configuration to increase the turning radius area. Finally, the actual location of the driveways onto 157th Street will be field located and adjusted to avoid lining up these driveways with front windows of the single family homes on the other side of 157th Street. The site plan also illustrates the potential location of a 10,000 square foot area senior center building with its own separate parking. Certain pedestrian connections and site amenities are expected to be installed with subsequent phases of the buildings. Landscape documentation must be provided to illustrate that the cost equals or exceeds 2 1/2% of the building construction value. Member Gowling asked if any problem would be created over separate ownership of the senior center on one parcel of land. Mr. Kretman stated that an easement would be created upon the property, rather than a subdivision of land, to facilitate this. Chair Felkner asked what the percentage of green space was for the project. Mr. Kretman stated that it had not been calculated for all phases of construction at this time. However, a glance at the site plan indicates that there is substantial green space. MOTION: Member Churchill moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to approve the site plan and building permit authorization. The motion carried 5 - 0. MOTION Member Churchill moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to approve the conditional use permit for increased density in accordance with the planned development standards. The motion carried 5 - 0. Chair Felkner noted that this item will appear on the July 28th City Council Agenda. 6B. Rearyard Setback Variance for Porch Addition at 7229 59th Street West Planning Intern John Kragness presented the item. It is proposed to construct a porch addition at 7229 159th Street West that would have a setback of 22 feet to the rear property line rather than 30 feet as required by ordinance. He noted that the lot is located within a planned unit development that allowed for small lot single family units. By its very nature, a small lot single family planned development creates properties which have limited expansion capability. Other lots and homes within the neighborhood are in a similar situation, and this property does not display any unique characteristics. For this reason, Staff is recommending denial of the variance request. Member Blundetto asked for an explanation concerning the measurement of the setback relative to foundations or overhangs. Mr. Kelley noted that up to 30 inches of overhang is permissible beyond the foundation line. To the extent that an overhang exceeds Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1994 Page 6 30 inches, there is an imputed adjustment of the foundation in order to have a consistent adjustment. Member Cady asked what was behind the subject lot. Mr. Kragness noted that there was another back yard of an adjacent single family home in the same planned unit development. The petitioner Pat Gilbertson stated that he has a letter from his neighbor on the rear, stating that the proposed addition and setback variance were okay with him. There was a general discussion among the Commissioners concerning setback requests in general, and specifically how setbacks were administered within planned unit developments for small lot single family homes. Chair Felkner asked if it would be possible for Staff to check with adjacent communities to determine if different setbacks were used in similar small lot single family home planned unit developments. Staff responded that they could do an informal survey to gather this information. Chair Felkner then directed Staff to gather this information and stated that he would table this item until that information became available. Lane 6C. Sideyard and Frontyard Setback Variance for House Addition at 389 Walnut Planning Intern John Kragness presented the information. He noted that there were two separate variance requests for this property. On this particular lot the house is set square or parallel to the frontyard street line. However, the lot lines themselves are not perpendicular to the street, which causes them to run askew relative to the side of the house. Consequently, an extension of the house into the backyard encroaches upon the west lot line setback requirement of 10 feet. The variance proposal on this side would be to reduce the standard 10 foot setback to 7.81 feet or a setback variance of 2.2 feet. Because of the lot line arrangement, Staff feels that there is a unique situation on this property and has recommended approval of the side setback variance request. The house is currently set back 33 feet from the front property line. It has been requested to build a 6 foot addition on the front of the house which would necessitate a 3 foot setback variance to allow the front of the house to sit at a 27 foot setback from the front property line. Staff evaluation of the lot conditions finds that there is no unique situation on the front portion of the property. Consequently, Staff is recommending denial of the frontyard setback variance request. Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1994 Page 7 Chair Felkner inquired whether a frontyard setback variance would cause any site distance problems along the street. He was informed that with the curvature of the street, this particular house is on the outside of the curb, so that there would be no problem with site distances if the variance were to be approved. A general discussion ensued concerning the relative merits of the side and front setback variances being requested. Member Churchill stated that she did not feel that the skewed side lot line was of itself a hardship situation and requested the petitioner to explain why the proposed addition could not be modified or shifted over. The petitioner Bill Scholberg stated that the house is a split level design. He attempted to explain the issue of the varying roof lines on the existing structure and how they needed to be extended and integrated into the addition. He also noted that across the street from their home is permanent open space, which is part of Alimagnet Park. He felt that this situation was different from other homes within the immediate vicinity. Mr. Scholberg also distributed copies of the existing and proposed floor plan of his house. He explained that one of the reasons to have the front addition is to create a separate closet space that would not intrude into the living room area. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to approve the sideyard setback variance, based on the hardship created by the skewed lot line. The motion passed 4 -1 (Churchill). MOTION: Member Churchill moved, seconded by Member Cady, to deny the frontyard variance request, based on a lack of hardship. The motion passed 3 - 2 ( Blundetto, Gowing). 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Sketch Plan Review for Hunters Wood Townhomes Planning Consultant Alan Kretman presented the proposal. The site is located on County Road 11 and existing Palomino Drive. The property is currently designated both on the comprehensive plan and zoning map as multifamily residential uses. It is proposed to construct 73 townhome units within this parcel. He noted that the City is considering a realignment of Palomino Drive at this time to intersect County Road 11 at a location to the south. Development of this property will have to take into account that realignment. Mr. Kretman noted that the general proposal for townhome development at this location is consistent with the permitted land uses. A detailed development plan will need to be prepared which addresses the issues of minimum setbacks, buffer areas, and ponding or drainage easements on the site. Currently Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1994 Page 8 the site is heavily wooded and there is very severe topographic relief over much of the site. Minimum setbacks to single family units vary based on the height of the multifamily buildings which are not yet being illustrated. A 60 foot setback is required for single story multifamily, a 75 foot setback for two story multifamily, and a 100 foot setback for three story multifamily. Within the setback area there is also stipulation that a 50 foot deep band adjacent to the existing single family homes must not be altered. This means that no grading or tree removal can occur within this 50 foot area. Mr. Kretman displayed an overhead transparency that showed the conceptual layout for the townhomes on the property. He noted that in many cases circular asphalt drives were being proposed that did not seem to be necessary for circulation purposes. It may be possible to eliminate some or all of these to minimize the amount of impervious surface and grading that would have to occur on site. Mr. Kretman also noted that with the realignment of Palomino Drive, some of the natural topography existing on the south side of the current alignment of Palomino Drive would provide a natural buffer area to the potential commercial uses that would also be permitted in the vicinity. Also, as part of the Palomino Drive realignment, the westernmost intersection of Hunters Way would have to be realigned and extended to meet new Palomino Drive. This development must take this factor into account. Mr. Kretman noted that in addition to the existing public street accesses, two private drives are being proposed to connect to Palomino Drive. Issues of site distance and separation between these drives and public streets need to be refined. Member Churchill asked about the required 50 foot buffer area, relative to the private drives being illustrated adjacent to the back of some of the single family lots. Mr. Kretman noted that some adjustment would have to be made there. Herb Wensmann of Wensmann Homes stated that this was just a conceptual layout at this point. What he was really looking for from the Commission was some type of feedback about whether they felt that, in general, this type of use would fit on the site. Greg Kopischke of Westwood Services stated that he would be doing the actual design layout for the property. The concept plan that the Commission was reviewing this evening was prepared by Mr. Wensmann's architect for conceptual purposes, and was not intended to address all of these detailed design issues. He stated that he will let the existing topographic and vegetative issues drive his design, and that may result in some request for amendments to the planned development requirements in a couple of places. Member Blundetto asked what type of townhomes these would be. Mr. Wensmann stated that they would be single level units, and would be expected to sell from $200,000 to $300,000 per unit. Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1994 Page 9 7B. Sketch Plan for Assisted Living Senior Residential Complex Acting Community Development Director Rick Kelley presented this issue. He stated that the development proposal does not involve a site at this time, but that the developer has requested to appear before the Commission to explain what he is looking for in the community. Bob Hopman of ACM Inc. gave a brief presentation for the Commission. Chair Felkner called a brief recess at 8:55 p.m. to allow for the video operators to change the recording tape. The meeting reconvened at 9:11 p.m. Bob Hopman stated that their unit design provides for 30 residential spaces within each building. The building is further divided in half to create 5 pods of 5 residential units on each side. He equated the 5 -unit pods to a residential neighborhood, and the consolidation of the pods themselves into a complete community. It has been their experience that people in the age group that they cater to need to have a compact living arrangement in order to compensate for their reduced mobility. Mr. Hopman then played a brief videotape that illustrated existing senior residential complexes that they have constructed. After viewing the tape, Chair Felkner asked Staff what was the difference between this type of living arrangement and something such as the Apple Valley Villa. Rick Kelley explained that the type of residential product that ACM is proposing is essentially one step below a full fledged nursing home, but it is something more than a typical senior housing project such as the Apple Valley Villa. Hopman went on to emphasise the fact that the average age in their complexes was 89 years. The people that reside in the units do not drive automobiles, do not cook, they need help with taking medication, and often have some limited mobility due to a disability. The current monthly rates run from $1,595 to $1,700 per month at the Earle Brown Center complex. This monthly charge includes 3 meals per day and snacks. Member Blundetto asked what type of transition for higher levels of care can be accommodated within this type of living arrangement. Mr. Hopman stated that in addition to a prescribed level of personal assistance and medication management, they also have the ability to arrange supplemental home health care service for people residing within their complexes. They have found that the provision of a balanced meal schedule, the ability to socialize and keep active, prolongs the period during which the resident does not need to have this higher level of care. There are, of course, cases where the resident needs a much higher level of medical care and would have to be transferred to a skilled nursing facility. Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1994 Page 10 In their experience, however, this does not occur often and most residents live out their lives at their facility. Member Cady asked about the size of the site necessary for facilities such as this. Mr. Hopman stated that for 90 dwelling units they typically look for between 3 and 4 acres. If the site is perfectly square or rectangular, they find that they can get by with a little bit less than this. The site designs meet or exceed all of the stipulated code requirements for the communities they have located in, with the exception of parking requirements. Because essentially none of their residents own their own cars or are even capable of driving, it does not make sense to provide parking stalls for individual dwelling units. They feel that parking only needs to be provided for staff and visitors. They have received permission for reduced parking stall requirements from the communities where they have previously built, and in all cases no parking problems have been created. Chair Felkner asked how many dwelling units would be proposed in Apple Valley. Mr. Hopman stated that currently they are having a market study performed, but expects that they will probably be looking for 60 units in Apple Valley, perhaps expandable to 90 units. A question was raised concerning married couples residing in these units and whether or not they were large enough to accommodate two people. Mr. Hopman stated that they are large enough to accommodate a married couple; however, in most cases singles are living in them. Their experience has been that within a complex of 90 units about 3 or 4 units are occupied by couples. Many times these individuals choose to occupy separate rooms rather than live in the same room. Member Cady asked if there were any guest quarters provided in the complex. Mr. Hopman stated no, but that the rooms were large enough to allow such things as a sofa bed that would allow a grandchild or visitor to sleep over. S. OTHER BUSINESS A. Consider Resolution Finding the Alternative Environmental High School Development and Ice Arena Addition Consistent with the Overall City's Comprehensive Plan and Eligible for Inclusion in TIF Master Development District Acting Community Development Director Rick Kelley explained the need for this resolution from the Commission in order to move these projects forward. Chair Felkner stated that since the Commission had not yet acted on the rezoning involving the alternative environmental high school, he would not be comfortable considering the resolution at this time. He stated that they would take it up at their next meeting when action could be taken on the site plan and rezoning itself. Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1994 Page 11 8B. Consider Resolution Finding the Gravel Redevelopment Area Consistent with the Overall City's Comprehensive Plan and Eligible for Inclusion in TIF Master Development District and Tax Increment Financing District Acting Community Development Director Rick Kelley presented the issue. He explained that the redevelopment of the gravel mining area on Galaxie Avenue and County Road 42 would require additional levels of municipal infrastructure. These would involve such things as additional collector roadways, traffic signalization, and construction or relocation of major storm water holding ponds. In addition, some of these revenues could be dedicated toward the additional costs that will be involved for electric substation and switching station improvements to be installed by Dakota Electric and Cooperative Power. MOTION. Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to approve this resolution. The motion carried 5 - 0. 8C. Receive Recommendation for Economic Growth Partnership Committee Acting Community Development Director Rick Kelley presented the item. He noted that at a previous Planning Commission meeting a sketch plan had been proposed to convert vacant commercially designated property along the west side of the City's downtown commercial area to a townhome use. Discussion before the Commission at that time questioned whether the City would be shortsighted to convert commercial property to multifamily at this point in time. The request was then forwarded to the Economic Growth Partnership Committee for their recommendation. Mr. Kelley stated that the Economic Growth Partnership Committee reviewed this issue at its July 14, 1994, meeting. The Committee concluded that since there was a significant amount of vacant land throughout the community that was already designated for townhome or multifamily uses that it would not be in the City's best interest to convert this commercial land to a townhome use at this time. Mr. Kelley stated that this recommendation would be forwarded to the proposer of the townhome project. 81). Consider Resolution of Appreciation for Scott Hickok Mr. Kelley stated that Associate Planner Scott Hickok had resigned his position with Apple Valley to take a new position of Planner Coordinator for the City of Fridley. Mr. Kelley felt that it would be appropriate for the Commission to consider adoption of a resolution thanking Mr. Hickok for his years of work at Apple Valley furthering its planning efforts. Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1994 Page 12 There was some discussion relative to the amount of Staff turnover within the Planning Department over the past year and whether there was something that could be done to retain these quality employees. Mr. Kelley stated that the former two Associate Planners with Apple Valley had moved on to positions of greater responsibility and authority that were simply not available to them within the smaller planning organization of Apple Valley. Member Blundetto asked if, in addition to a resolution of appreciation, some other form of recognition could be given to Mr. Hickok. There was some discussion concerning the use of one of the cast stone apples. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to adopt a resolution of appreciation for Scott Hickok and to request that the City award him a commemorative apple. The motion carried 5 - 0. Member Blundetto asked if it would also be possible for Scott Hickok to attend the next Planning Commission Meeting so that they could give him the resolution personally. 8E. Development Checklist Chair Felkner referred to the model development checklist that is currently being used by the City of Northfield to help them review development projects. He asked that it be placed on the next Planning Commission agenda for discussion purposes, presuming that there are not a lot of development items. 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Churchill moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried 5 - 0. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.