Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/1994 CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 16, 1994 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Alan Felkner. Members Present: Alan Felkner, James Cady, Frank Blundetto, Karen Edgeton and Marcia Cowling (arrived 7:05 p.m.). Members Absent: Len Miller. Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Tom iovelace, Kathy Bodmer, Keith Gordon, Mike Dougherty, John Kragness and Planning Consultant Julie Farnham. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Felkner asked Staff if there were any changes to the proposed agenda. There being none, he called for its approval. MOTION: Member Cady moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion carried 4 - 0. 3. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 2, 1994 Chair Felkner asked. Staff and the Commission members if there were any changes to the proposed draft minutes submitted in the packet. There being none, he called for their approval. MOTION: Member Cady moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to approve the minutes of November 2, 1994, as submitted. The motion carried 4 - 0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS - None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None - Member Cowling arrived at 7:05 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1994 Page 2 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Williamsburg II & III Townhomes Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Planning Consultant Julie Farnham gave a brief presentation and summary of this townhome proposal. The property is located on both the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection of Galaxie Avenue and County Road 38. The property is currently zoned R-1, Large Lot Single Family, but is guided on the comprehensive plan for low density multifamily at a density range of 3-6 dwelling units per acre. The development proposal meets all of the bonus. criteria for site amenities, as well as the performance standards of the proposed M3-C zoning district. Williamsburg II, located on the north side of County Road 38, contains a total of 36 dwelling units. Williamsburg III, located on the south side of County Road 38, contains a total of 19 dwelling units. In this particulaz case, there would be a scenic easement dedicated to the City covering the Outlot A, and the future right-of-way for 131st Street would be dedicated to the City immediately, even if it was not constructed at this time. For both Williamsburg II & III, the final landscape plan would require documentation that the value of the landscape equals or exceeds 2 1/2 percent of the building construction cost. Ms. Farnham presented additional information concerning the expected traffic generation from these two developments, pazticulazly as it related to the capacity of the intersection of Galaxie Avenue and County Road 38. She noted that the traffic study attached to the planning packet uses figures for peak hour generation, as opposed to total average daily traffic throughout the 24-hour period. This is because the peak hour represents the worst case scenario, which is what the City would be interested in. The conclusion of the traffic study is that in 1995, the morning hour peak period would cause a queue for northbound Galaxie Avenue traffic to back up from County Road 38, almost to the point of intersection of future 131st Street. For this reason, the traffic study recommended that no additional dwelling units be directed to use this intersection other than the Williamsburg III area. Ms. Farnham then presented a series of overhead transparencies, illustrating how three different future roadway alternates in the Williamsburg III azea could provide additional access to the townhomes themselves, as well as access to the undeveloped property in this general location. Gene Shellerud, the developer of GM Homes, approached the Commission to explain their criteria in requesting the M-3 zoning classification. He noted that the slightly lower M-2 zoning category is intended for sites which have mature vegetation as rolling Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1994 Page 3 topography. He stated that neither of these pazcels have significant trees, only grasses, and wnsequently felt that the M-3 zoning category was the appropriate one. There being no further questions on the proposed development, Chair Felkner called for motions regarding its approval. Commissioner Cady noted that the developer has attempted to respond to all of the issues raised by the City or the public during the hearing process. To his mind, however, the issue remains the appropriate zoning for the property. He felt that it was inappropriate to change the zoning from its existing R-1 designation at this time. MOTION: Member Cady moved, seconded by Member Cowling, to deny the rezoning request to M3-C. Member Blundetto stated that in his opinion, the issue of access to Galaxie Avenue at 131st Street would create an unsafe traffic situation and for this reason he could not support a rezoning at this time. Commissioner Bdgeton stated that she had similar feelings as Member Blundetto, and that until the other internal roadway connections were installed, a single intersection onto Galaxie Avenue was not acceptable to her. Commissioner Blundetto. asked a question of Mike Dougherty,. the City Attorney, concerning the vote on a motion. to deny, versus a motion to approve, which failed. to receive a majority vote. Mr. Doughez-ty stated that. the motion, as constructed would convey to the City Council. the Commission's desire to disapprove the project presuming that the motion carried. Commissioner Cowling. stated. that she did not have a significant problem with the Williamsburg III development and access onto Galaxie Avenue, but that she was concerned over the appeazance of density and large bulk of the buildings on the" Williamsburg II property on the north. Chair Felkner then called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried 5 - 0. MOTION: Member Cady moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to deny the preliminary plat. The motion carried 5 - 0. MOTION: Member Cady moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to deny the site plan and building permit authorization. The motion carried 5 - 0. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1994 Page 4 6B. Evergreens of Apple Valley Assistant Planner Tom Lovelace presented the item, identifying its location on the west side of Pennock Avenue, north of 147th Street. The property is currently designated on the comprehensive plan for a combination of limited business and retail business uses, and is consistently zoned under the Carrollton Estates Planned Unit Development. The development request consists of an adjustment of the zoning boundary between the limited business and retail business uses, a preliminary plat to subdivide the property, a conditional use permit for elder care facilities, and site plan approval and building permit authorization for the first two buildings containing a total of 60 dwelling units. At some point in the future a third building would be constructed, and for this reason it is also requested that the planned development performance standards be amended to increase the building lot coverage from 20% to 30%. Mr. Lovelace noted that the public hearing continents from the previous meeting centered around the depth of the remainder parcel in the retail business area, and whether or not it was of a sufficient size to provide for a variety of retail building sites; the lack of brick on the building, the proposed increase in lot coverage; and the need or desirability of pathway connections from the site to the future sidewalk along Pennock Avenue. Mr. Lovelace also stated that the Apple Valley Economic Growth Partnership Committee reviewed this project at its meeting on November 10th and requested that any action to approve it be delayed until these concerns could be addressed. He stated that the applicant had met with Planning Staff in an attempt to address these issues. They are now showing a building elevation which has a partial brick face, and that sidewalk connections to Pennock Avenue would be installed immediately in conjunction with the project. He also noted that the increase in lot coverage for the building would impart the offset by the limited amount of parking lot or other impervious surface necessary for such a low traffic volume land use. Commissioner Blundetto asked Staff what their recommendation was concerning this project. Mr. Lovelace stated that Staff was recommending approval because it served as a very good transition between the other commercial uses in the downtown area and the existing single family neighborhood within the Carrollton Estates area. Chair Felkner asked what the lot depth would be after setbacks were taken into account. Mr. Lovelace displayed an overhead transparency which illustrated the lot depth and sizes for other commercial properties along 147th Street in this part of the downtown area. The remainder parcel would be a minimum of 250 feet deep, which was equal to or greater than all of the other commercial lots along 147th Street in this area. He noted that questions about the amount and location of brick facing would be best addressed to the petitioner. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1994 Page 5 Rolly Crawford, Legal Counsel for the current property owner Bart Winkler, approached the Commission. He stated that the minimum depth of the lot is 250 feet in accordance with the survey exhibit. He also distributed handouts showing lot sizes and depths of other commercial properties within this general neighborhood. He also noted that the current Planned Development Zoning Boundary is a somewhat arbitrary line in that currently the property consists of a single outlot and is not subdivided. He said that the line was drawn across on the zoning map on what appeared to be a convenient, but not final, location. when the planned unit development was originally approved. Mr. Crawford also distributed a letter from Planning Consultant John Voss concerning the suitability of the lot depth for a variety of commercial buildings. Bob Hopman, representing Evergreen Development, stated that he had met with City Staff and agreed to the pathway and sidewalk connection to Pennock Avenue, and that he had suggested an addition. of a partial brick face as a compromise. He said that while the cost of the brick is certainly a consideration, their largest concern is that the architectural appearance of the building would; in their opinion, be compromised by putting on an all brick exterior. He said that while they had referred to this project. as aquasi-residential use, since it is in a transition area, it should be made clear that it is a commercial enterprise that will be paying significant pTOperty taxes. He said that the first phase will have a value of over $4 million, and he estimates that the property taxes will be about $130,000 per year. He also stated that there would typically be about 60 jobs for this 50,000 square foot facility, with six of them being in management positions. He said that the residents of this facility would also be users of the medical services provided in the community, and would be providing spin-off employment in that respect. He said that in reviewing their ambulance records at the existing facility they find an average of one run per month. There would also be no heavy truck traffic. Deliveries typically occur in step vans, and there are no rear service or dumpster areas to impact the adjacent residential neighborhood. He said that they held an open house at their Brooklyn Center facility, and about 15 residents from the Carrollton Estates area attended and appeared to be impressed with the operation. He said that this site was selected since it was adjacent to a significant water feature, which the elderly residents find very attractive. The wildlife attracted to such a water feature significantly enhances the living environment for the elderly residents. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1994 Page 6 He said that they were aware of the brick requirement for commercial buildings established in the City in 1989, but also noted that several of the neighboring commercial buildings have either no brick, or mixed brick and permanent siding materials. He also read for the Commission testimonial letters from Brooklyn Center building officials, and from the Moorehead Fire Marshall, stating that similar projects by this developer are of high quality and have been well maintained with positive working relationships established over the years. Commissioner Edgeton said that she still believes the lack of brick is a significant issue, and that the project was. not ready for a recommendation yet. Commissioner Cowling said that other buildings lacking 100% brick have been built since 1989, and she asked Staff approximately what percentage of the building face of these buildings consisted of alternate materials. Community Development Director Rick Kelley stated that alternate materials had never exceeded about 20% of the building face, and that these alternate materials typically consisted of decorative block to provide an alternate appearing building surface or metal facia for canopy work. Coaunissioner Blundetto said that he felt that in some cases there may have been more than 20%. He referred to the recently reconstructed Firestone Tire building that has a complete building elevation of rock faced block, rather than brick. Yawnes Blumentalls, the architect for the Evergreen project, attempted to explain the amount of architectural detail present on the building, and the amount of relief provided by the many building jogs and bay windows. It was his opinion that no brick was necessary, or even desirable, on a building elevation such as this. Chair Felkner stated that while this is not a hearing, he would entertain any comments. from the audience at this tune. There being none, he offered his opinion concerning the project's evaluation. He said that if a project is residential in character or use, it means that we would typically want to see 60% of the property left as green space. If the property is to be considered commercial, the development standards stipulate all brick on the building elevations. He said that in his opinion, a project could not be both. Commissioner Blundetto stated that he wanted to see the use in Apple Valley, but thinks that additional brick should be added to the project, such as as high as the wainscoting azound the entire perimeter. Mr. Hopman stated that they are really looking for action this evening, and felt that a recommendation to approve, with stipulated conditions, would be acceptable. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1994 Page 7 Commissioner Edgeton stated that in her opinion, if the front of the building had all brick and half brick on the rears, it would be acceptable. Mr. Hopman stated that he would be willing to place full height brick on the front faces, a 36" high brick up as high as the wainscoting on the side faces, and leave the rear side with no brick. Commissioner Edgeton said that she felt that would answer the majority of the concerns since the non-brick side would be adjacent to the residential uses. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to amend the Planned Unit Development zoning boundary to conform to the proposed subdivision. The motion carried 5 - 0. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for the proposed elder care facility, subject to the addition of brick facing in accordance with Exhibit A. The motion carried 5 - 0. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to recommend approval. of the preliminary plat as submitted. The motion carried 5 - 0. MOTION:. Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to recommend approval of the site plan and building permit authorization for the Evergreens Elder Care Facility. The motion carried 5 - 0. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to recommend approval of an amendment to the Planned Development Performance. Standards, increasing the amount of lot coverage from 20% to 30% in this district. The motion carried 5 - 0. The architect,. Yawnes Blumentalls, noted that because a relatively small parking lot is all that is required for a facility such as this, in essence the total amount of green space remains unchanged. They're simply trading coverage of the surface by asphalt with coverage for a building. 6C. Variance for freestanding sign at Ryan Real Estate Building This item has been tabled at the request of the petitioner. 6D. Variance fora 12' high security fence Planning Intern John Kragness presented the request located at 8790 - 135th Street West. This home backs up to the Apple Valley Golf Course, and the purpose of having a Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1994 Page 8 12' high fence at the proposed location is to deflect errant golf balls being driven from the adjacent T-box on the golf course. 'The petitioner Kim Reagan, stated that he feels the fence is necessary to provide for the safety of his family when they are either in the rear yard or on the rear deck of the home. He said that their yard is constantly bombazded with errant golf balls, and that they have replaced several windows. He noted that the adjacent house even has a golf ball that has been driven into its siding. Member Edgeton asked Mr. Reagan how long he has resided in the home. Mr. Reagan stated that he has lived there for three years. Member Edgeton asked if he was not aware of the fact that a golf course existed adjacent to his property prior to buying the house:. Mr. Reagan stated that he was aware of that, but had not expected the number and strength of errant golf balls. Member Gowling stated that she thinks that such a protective barrier would. be necessary, regardless of prior knowledge of the golf course. She asked if there would be any landscaping installed along with the fence. Mr. Reagan stated that he would be willing to make the fence as aesthetically pleasing as possible, and suggested something like flowering ivy along the fence. Joe Watrud, who resides at 8750 - 135th Street West, approached the Commission and stated that he was also the owner of the golf course itself. He stated that he had been in discussion with Mr. Reagan for some time concerning this issue, and that he felt a barrier netting, constructed of green colored nylon would be more appropriate, since it visually would disappeaz into the existing vegetation as one viewed through it. He said that such barrier netting comes with a 10-15 year warranty and would provide enough protection from errant golf balls. He also stated that he would allow such a barrier netting to be erected on the golf course easement that exists on Mr. Reagan's property, but that he would not allow a similaz fence constructed of chain link. Mr. Craig Alger approached the Commission. He stated that he is the realtor who recently sold the home adjacent to Mr. Reagan's. He said that this home is sited on the lot such that it views the golf course across the corner of Mr. 12eagan's property. He said that construction of a fence here would result in an impairment of the view line from this adjacent house. Mr. Reagan told the Commission that he had talked to the manufacturer recommended by Joe Watrud, and was told that barrier netting as such would not be strong enough and that he would instead need something called impact netting. Mr. Watrud stated that there are other manufacturers that provide different grades and strengths of barrier netting, and that some other alternate would remain available. Planning Commission Minutes November 16, 1994 Page 9 Chair Felkner stated that he believes the Commission feels there is some justification for a variance in this case, but that some other details appear to be in need of being worked out between the petitioner, the golf course owner, and staff. Mr. Felkner then stated that he would continue this item to the next meeting to allow the parties to work out some of these details. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None - 8. OTHER BUSINESS The Commission briefly discussed the scheduling of their annual Holiday Party. Sinee the December 7th agenda is expected to be light, the Commission decided to have their Holiday Party following the conclusion of that meeting. Marcia Cowling volunteered the use of her home for the party. 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Cowling, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried 5 - 0. The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m.