Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/1993PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY April 21, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Alan Felkner called the Planning Commission meeting of April 21, 1993 to order at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Members Present: Chairman Alan Felkner, Marcia Gowling, Frank Blundetto, Jeannine Churchill, Jim Norris, Len Miller and Karen Edgeton. Council Member Ginny Sterling was also present. Staff Present: Richard Kelley, Meg McMonigal, Keith Gordon, Dennis Miranowski and Dennis Welsch. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted. 3. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 7, 1993 MINUTES Member Gowling asked that the minutes be corrected to state that she was not present at the April 7th meeting. MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Churchill to approve the minutes of the April 7, 1993 meeting with the change in attendance for Member Gowling. The motion carried 6 - 0 with Member Gowling abstaining. 4. CONSENT AGENDA - None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None - 1 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning from "A" to "SG", and Conditional Use Permit for Sand & Gravel Mining LOCATION: 300 Acres South of CR #42 along Pilot Knob Road PETITIONER: Fischer Sand & Aggregate Co. (PC93- 006 -PZC) Chairman Alan Felkner described the procedure for the meeting noting that no action will be taken this evening by the Planning Commission. He suggested that the Commission ask for answers to questions from the Staff and the petitioner regarding issues and input that had been previously brought up at the public hearings. Chairman Felkner listed the potential decision dates for the Planning Commission and the City Council. Chairman Felkner asked City Planner Richard Kelley for a review of the issues and to describe the request by the applicant. Kelley listed the questions that have been received from the public hearings including: 1) Air Quality 2) Noise 3) Traffic and Roads 4) Visual Screening 5) Operations Details 6) Approval /Review Process Details 7) Land Use /Fiscal Impact /Property Values Issues 8) Impacts on Other Business and /or Government Units 9) Quality of Life Member Edgeton asked for clarification regarding the Environmental Impact Statement. City Planner Kelley explained that it was the City's responsibility for completion and the accuracy of the Environmental Impact Statement. He noted that information had been sent to all state agencies and adjoining cities, asking for comment. The City requested further data to complete the Environmental Impact Statement. The City then asked for additional input on the final Environmental Impact Statement prior to the City Council accepting the document as an accurate portrayal of the environmental impacts of the proposed use. Chairman Felkner asked the Commission to add or delete any questions from the lists prepared by the Staff. The answers to the questions will be provided by the City Staff at a succeeding meeting. 2 Member Blundetto asked if the conveyors can be covered and whether covering the conveyors would reduce noise and dust. He also asked that the answer regarding conveyors include a discussion of safety and aesthetics. Rick Kelley responded that the City Staff will add this question to the operations details section of the responses. Member Edgeton asked for details regarding the pipeline. Who will pay for the pipeline? Who will move the pipeline? More direct information is necessary from Williams Pipeline. She asked the Staff to follow up. Chairman Felkner noted that in a letter from Williams Pipeline in the Lakeville packet, Williams states that their policy is to disrupt pipelines as little as possible and to reduce the amount of pumping or drilling that occurs under a pipeline except in unavoidable situations. Member Edgeton asked if the petitioner could provide a physical model of the site. She asked what the site would look like with berms, houses, and the gravel pit depressions. City Planner Kelley responded that a scale model of the site would not show the topographic differences adequately. Chairman Felkner asked for clarification regarding the .02 inches of water proposed to reduce dust on the haul road. He asked what is a reasonable standard to control dust on a hot, windy day where the effect of the water lasts one hour or less. Member Blundetto stated that none of the studies have shown a comparison of the land uses and overall cost of the project to the community. He asked what are the gravel pit costs for the City over a 60 year period? He asked the Staff to prepare a 60 year matrix and show the costs of the use of the site including: development costs, taxes generated, police costs, the 4 -5 uses proposed on the site, the costs of utilities, and the cost of "quality of life." Member Edgeton asked what are the current restrictions on the property north of County Road 42 -- could a comparison be done? Member Norris asked the Staff to include restrictions on the property adjacent to the Fischer site where gravel is currently mined. Member Churchill asked to what extent the City can extend new regulations on areas north of County Road 42. Chairman Felkner asked what the process is to put new restrictions on the area south of County Road 42. How will new regulations be phased in? Member Norris asked the Commission and Staff to consider the storm water and drainage issues as it relates to the entire area. K3 Chairman Felkner asked the Staff to complete answering all questions in topic area #6 (Details of Approval) and topic area #7 (Decisions and Values). He asked the Staff to prepare a list of criteria which the Commission could use in evaluating the proposal. Member Miller asked for clarification on what process is used to correct a problem once the Conditional Use Permit is approved. Member Edgeton asked for clarification regarding the Martin - Marietta Study and what the City has done regarding local property values. City Planner Kelley said that the City had reviewed local property values and it is within a section of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Chairman Felkner stated that topic area #8 (Impacts on other Business and Government) and topic area #9 (Quality of Life) questions should be addressed by the applicant as well as the Staff. Member Churchill asked how other operations in the area south of County Road 42 can be tied to the Fischer proposal. She asked for a history of the existing pits south of County Road 42. Member Blundetto asked who will review the information before the Planning Commission receives the Staff information. Community Development Director Dennis Welsch stated that a task force coordinating gravel communications will review the information. Member Churchill asked for clarification regarding what Apple Valley decisions will have an impact on the operations north of County Road 42. Member Miller asked for details of what additional impacts would occur on County Road 46 if the new entrance is approved on Pilot Knob Road thus changing the route for some trucks. He also asked if trucks leaving the Fischer site are covered. Member Norris asked for a history of the conditions in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the zoning for the properties in question. Jerry Duffy, representing Fischer Sand & Aggregate, stated there was no need to make a full presentation on behalf of the applicant at tonight's meeting because of the additional questions that have been asked by the Commission. He stated he was prepared to show a schedule illustrating how the area north of County Road 42 will gradually be shut down. Member Churchill asked if this schedule can be put in writing and be made part of an agreement. 0 Mr. Duffy stated that the area north of County Road 42 is large and if it were developed as one project it would require another Environmental Impact Statement. The developer will do this redevelopment in smaller phases as per an original market study done in the late 1980's. The area north of 140th Street will be reclaimed and reconstructed first. The area adjacent to Greenleaf which is considered a north /south 40 acres are be available for housing in 1993 -1994. After the north /south 40 acres is developed, the remaining east /west 80 acres adjacent to 140th Street and Johnny Cake will be developed. Only after the area that is adjacent to the north side of 140th Street is reclaimed will activity begin on the 350 acres south of 140th Street. Mr. Duffy and John Voss, Consulting Planner representing Fischer Sand & Aggregate, explained that the area north of 140th Street is broken into three areas. Area 1 is the Adelman Greenleaf 2nd Addition which will be completed in 1993. Area 2 is the north /south 42 acres to be platted in 1993, with the removal of stockpiles and equipment in 1993, and grading completed in early 1993 or 1994. Area 3 is the east /west 80 acres which will be platted in 1994 -1995. It will be platted for single family and higher density housing along Johnny Cake Ridge Road. Member Edgeton asked what is currently being done in Area 3 north of 140th Street. Duffy responded that the operators are mixing clay with sand to create a reclamation material. In the area south of 140th Street but north of 150th Street (County Road 42) there are two redevelopment areas. Area 1 is the south half of the site consisting of 155 acres, wherein mining will be completed in 1993 and restoration will begin this year. The stockpiles will be reduced in 1994 -1995 and the end use grades completed in 1996. The truck maintenance building would remain until the site is platted for additional uses. The Fischer office building would remain on the site if it is consistent with other buildings proposed for this site. In Area 2, which is the north half of the area between 140th and 150th Street, consisting of 200+ acres, the mining will be completed in 1993 with reclamation and restoration of grades in 1994. The stockpiles will be removed and reclamation completed by 1995. Mr. Duffy stated that all mining currently operated by Fischer north of County Road 42 will be done by 1995. A general discussion led by questions from Members Norris and Miller ensued regarding what the possible zoning, comprehensive plan, and end uses might be in the area between 150th and 140th Street. Chairman Alan Felkner opened the meeting for further comments from the audience. Mayor Duane Zaun of Lakeville encouraged the Planning Commission to contact the Lakeville City Staff if there are further questions regarding Lakeville's evaluation of the project or if there are some answers the Lakeville Staff can provide. Joyce Wittman, 16185 Franchise Avenue, asked for clarification regarding acceleration lanes for trucks headed north on County Road 31. She also asked for clarification regarding the designation of the central operations area and illustrations of how the central operations area would be totally contained within the Fischer property. She 5 asked for a comparison of the number of homes adjacent to the existing gravel areas and the proposed gravel areas. She also asked for clarification regarding how acreages are accounted for when new gravel areas are opened up. Does a former gravel area which currently has residential platting get counted as a previously mined area, allowing the developer to open additional new gravel pit areas? She used the Adelman Greenleaf 2nd Addition as an example. City Planner Kelley responded that the Adelman Greenleaf 2nd Addition cannot be counted as a portion of the closed gravel mining area. Chuck Tremain, 14930 Echo Way, asked for clarification regarding the portion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement wherein questions were asked regarding the answer to dust impacts that had been taken out of context by the consultant. City Planner Kelley responded that the Staff was aware of the issue and was addressing it. Joe Scharr, 16108 Fairgreen, stated that the City should enter into an agreement with other cities for fiscal impact studies of the gravel mining operation. He asked whether the task force previously discussed, which handles gravel communications, held regular meetings and whether the public was invited to the meetings. Welsch responded that the task force was not a public body and no public meetings are scheduled. There was no further comment and no action taken by the Planning Commission. A 10 minute recess ensued. 6B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning from "RB" to "GB" or "GB -P', for an Office /Warehouse Use LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Pennock Avenue & 146th Street West PETITIONER: Seeland Property Company (PC93- 013 -PZB) City Planner Richard Kelley provided a background report in which he reviewed the comments from a past public hearing to amend the comprehensive plan and provide new zoning for the 2 acre site proposed as an office warehouse use. Kelley noted that he had met with the owner of the Granada 4th Shopping Center to the south of this site. This owner felt that retail uses were best suited for the site in question, but that good design of the project is very important. Kelley will work with the adjoining property owners to reduce the visual impacts by increasing screening and landscaping. Member Gowling asked for clarification regarding the location of Granada 4th Shopping Center as it relates to the south edge of the applicants proposal for a office warehouse building. Clarification was provided regarding the planned uses along the west side of Pennock Avenue. Tom Baker, representing Seeland Properties stated that the Staff report was adequate and covered the issues. He noted that the zoning is necessary on the site in order to attract tenants and financing. Building design details will be reviewed at a later date. 11 Member Gowling asked Mr. Baker to work with the Granada 4th Center to resolve the screening issues to the south. Mr. Baker said that the design will include at least a 6 foot screen. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Gowling to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment from Retail Business to General Business for the Seeland Office Property site as per the Staff report. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Norris to recommend approval of a rezoning from Retail Business to General Business -1 as per the Staff report. The motion carried unanimously. 6C. Building Permit and Site Plan Authorization for Best Buy Store LOCATION: 15300 Cedar Avenue PETITIONER: Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. (PC93- 018 -B) Community Development Director Dennis Welsch provided a background report regarding the Best Buy proposal to construct a 36,000 square foot building with 205 parking spaces on a portion of lot 6, block 1, of the Southport Centre plat. He noted that the project meets all criteria of the zoning ordinance regarding setbacks and parking requirements. A landscape plan has been provided and a complete sign package application is available. The sign package does not include freestanding signs. He also described a request by the applicant to allow for a two year period in which portions of the south wall would be left as painted concrete block matching the brick exterior on other walls. The purpose of the painted wall would be to conserve brick when another building is constructed adjacent to Best Buy in the future. If after the two year period no building is built, the applicant would be required to install a finished brick material. Welsch also noted that the Staff has reviewed the extension of 152nd Street and Garrett Avenue with the applicant and found that there is no need for extensions at this time, but the applicant will review options for future buildings. The applicant has also provided a 6' wide pedestrian path from 153rd Street to the entrance sidewalk of the Best Buy site. Welsch also explained that the Best Buy building will require a replatting of land within the Southport Centre plat to accommodate the changes in ownership. The Planning Staff recommends that the Commission accept the concept for a preliminary plat showing lots 1, 2, and 3 of Southport Centre 2nd Addition and set a hearing for May 12, 1993. Member Edgeton asked for architectural details of the front of the building. Member Gowling asked for clarification regarding the sidewalk width. Mr. Bill McHale, representing Ryan Construction and Best Buy, explained the architectural details as have been refined to date. He stated that the building will be all brick and include file accents similar to the Target building. He explained the heights of the front walls and the signage on the front and the east side. Mr. McHale described the 7 dilemma over whether to place brick on the south wall of the structure or wait for two years and do it at a later date. The brick to be used will be the same batch brick as Target. The Commission discussed the alternate materials that could be utilized along the south wall of the structure. Member Edgeton asked for confirmation that the areas south of the building will be reseeded in all disturbed areas. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Edgeton to recommend approval of the building permit and the site plan authorization as per the Staff conditions. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Edgeton to recommend approval of the 10 -foot common wall setback variance as per the Staff conditions. The motion carried unanimously. Welsch noted that cross parking easements have been distributed by Mr. McHale and will be incorporated into the approval process. Cross parking easements will be required prior to issuance of the actual building permit. The Planning Staff will schedule a preliminary plat hearing for the proposed Southport Centre 2nd Addition, three lot replat for May 12, 1993. No further action was necessary. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Utility Corridor Study Results Associate Planner Meg McMonigal described the Utility Corridor Study Process and the current study areas. She noted that the purpose of the discussion this evening is to determine the corridors for public hearings and to determine what notification procedure should be utilized, including: newspaper publication with a map, a mailed notice, or cable T.V. broadcast. She provided some background history. In May of 1991, the City changed its zoning text to require that utility substations may be located in an institutional zone but would require a conditional use permit. In addition, the substation must be in or adjacent to a utility corridor. If no utility corridor exists, the utility corridor must be identified in the utility section of the comprehensive plan. In July of 1991, the Planning Commission tabled further discussion of the substation location issue because no corridor had been identified or was available to serve any of the sites. El In January of 1993 the applicants, Dakota Electric and Cooperative Power, met with the City Council and the Planning Commission to suggest a study which would help solve the question of routing of the electrical lines. In March of 1993 the applicants met with the Planning Commission and the City Council to discuss preliminary results of the study. Randy Paulson of Dakota Electric introduced consultants and board members from Dakota Electric and Cooperative Power in attendance at the meeting. He provided a review of the planning approach for the corridor right -of -way study. Don Sodersten, consultant from Dames & Moore, presented a review of the corridor study report and the conclusions. The conclusions of the study at this time are that County Road 38 from the Burnsville border to an area east of Cedar Avenue and south of 130th Street represents the best corridor. The study also recommends the use of a site east of Cedar Avenue, south of 130th Street and north of County Road 38 as the location for a substation. The Planning Commission asked the following questions: 1. What is transferrable vs. non - transferrable electricity? Explain switching. 2. Risk for brown out -- when? 3. Can DEA /CP hook into NSP lines? 4. What else is planned in Apple Valley? Plan future corridors now. 5. What are costs on various alternatives? 6. Will you replant trees? 7. Check wetlands map; some ponds are missing. 8. How is criteria weighted? 9. Is distance important? Explain location criteria of substation. 10. What is a dangerous level of EMF? 11. What do units of milliGauss (measuring EMF) relate to? 12. Why is EMF range so broad? 13. Explain noise /sound logarithms to relate to common sounds. 14. Why not beef up the Fischer Substation? 15. Why is supply needed in Northern Apple Valley? 16. What is average usage of electricity by household? 17. Where would line to Dodd Park Substation extend from Fischer Substation? The Planning Commission agreed to hold the public hearing on an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan for a 115 kilovolt electric power line to be placed on County Road 38 between the Burnsville city line and an area east of Cedar Avenue. They also agreed by consensus to notify by mail prior to the meeting all property owners within 350' of the proposed alignment of the electrical line. The Planning Commission also indicated a public hearing for the rezoning and CUP for the substation be held at the same time as the Comprehensive Plan hearing. 0 7B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Schwanz Property Associate Planner Meg McMonigal and Brian Olson, representing Lundgren Brothers Homes (who is purchasing the Schwanz property at 140th Street and Pilot Knob Road), presented a review of issues related to the change in the comprehensive plan from low and moderate density housing to single family homes. Meg McMonigal noted that there is less than a one year supply of single family lots available as of April 15, 1993 (270 lots). She also displayed charts illustrating that approximately 10% of the housing units in Apple Valley are valued at $150,000 or more. McMonigal noted that a change in the Comprehensive Plan mix will amount to a 1% change in all of the residential use categories. She recommended that the Schwan parcel should be used as a single family site since it is one of the last wooded sloping topography sites in the community. McMonigal recommended that the Planning Commission set a public hearing for May 19, 1993 to change the comprehensive plan on the Schwan property from low and moderate density residential uses to single family uses to allow for approximately 135 single family detached housing units. Chairman Felkner expressed concern with the loss of approximately 475 multi - family medium density starter homes which are in demand by young families in Apple Valley. McMonigal responded that the City has seen a dramatic growth in the number of new entry level townhouse units in the last few years to help absorb a portion of that demand. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Edgeton to set a Comprehensive Plan amendment public hearing on the Schwan property to consider changes from Low Density and Moderate Density residential to Single Family residential uses for May 19, 1993. The motion carried unanimously. 10 Current Revised Difference Single Family 9,654 9,851 +135 Low Density 5,370 5,145 -225 Medium Density 8,407 8,157 -250 High Density 3,816 3,816 0 Meg McMonigal noted that there is less than a one year supply of single family lots available as of April 15, 1993 (270 lots). She also displayed charts illustrating that approximately 10% of the housing units in Apple Valley are valued at $150,000 or more. McMonigal noted that a change in the Comprehensive Plan mix will amount to a 1% change in all of the residential use categories. She recommended that the Schwan parcel should be used as a single family site since it is one of the last wooded sloping topography sites in the community. McMonigal recommended that the Planning Commission set a public hearing for May 19, 1993 to change the comprehensive plan on the Schwan property from low and moderate density residential uses to single family uses to allow for approximately 135 single family detached housing units. Chairman Felkner expressed concern with the loss of approximately 475 multi - family medium density starter homes which are in demand by young families in Apple Valley. McMonigal responded that the City has seen a dramatic growth in the number of new entry level townhouse units in the last few years to help absorb a portion of that demand. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Edgeton to set a Comprehensive Plan amendment public hearing on the Schwan property to consider changes from Low Density and Moderate Density residential to Single Family residential uses for May 19, 1993. The motion carried unanimously. 10 8. OTHER BUSINESS 8A. Annual Business Meeting 1993 Chairman Alan Felkner opened the 1993 City of Apple Valley Business Meeting. MOTION: Member Churchill moved, seconded by Member Norris to readopt the Planning Commission Bylaws as presented in the Planning Commission packet. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Edgeton to nominate Alan Felkner as 1993 -1994 Planning Commission Chairperson. No other nominations were received. The motion carried 6 - 0, with Member Felkner abstaining. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Miller to nominate Karen Edgeton as the 1993 -1994 Planning Commission Chairperson Pro Tem. There were no other nominations offered. The motion carried 6 - 0, with Member Edgeton abstaining. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Blundetto to nominate Marcia Gowling as the Planning Commission Secretary for 1993 -1994. No other nominations were offered. The motion carried 6 - 0, with Member Gowling abstaining. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal thanked the Planning Commission for all their volunteer efforts and noted that this week is Volunteer Appreciation Week. 8B. Other Business Member Norris summarized the City Council study meeting he attended regarding reorganization of Staff. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m. 11