Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/1993PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY May 19, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting of May 19, 1993 was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Members Present: Chairman Alan Felkner, Marcia Gowling, Jeannine Churchill and Karen Edgeton. Staff Present: Dennis Miranowski, Keith Gordon, Meg McMonigal and Scott Hickok. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MOTION: Marcia Gowling moved, seconded by Jeannine Churchill, to approve the agenda as written. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 12, 1993 MOTION: Karen Edgeton moved, seconded by Jeannine Churchill, to approve the minutes of May 12, 1993. 4. CONSENT AGENDA - None - 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Schwartz Property - Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning from "A" to "RCL ", and Preliminary Plat for 128 Single Family Lots LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Pilot Knob Road & 140th Street PETITIONER: Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. and Marvin & Janice Schwanz (PC93- 025 -PZS) 1 Associate Planner Meg McMonigal made a brief presentation regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the Zoning Amendment that would provide for additional housing diversity and an opportunity for the "move up" market. Further discussion included the connection of Elkhart Road and Dublin Road and access points at Pilot Knob and at 140th Street. The Pilot Knob and 140th Street access points would serve as the primary accesses to this development. The development includes 128 lots and would allow the Schwanz home to exist as an exception to the plat. The preliminary plat has been drawn to show how the Schwan property could be divided at the time they decide to do so. Discussion of the topography at the north end of this development was included in the presentation. Because of the mature, heavy vegetation and steep topography, cul -de -sacs were necessary to minimize the impact on both the trees and the future home sites. Also, 50 foot right -of -ways rather than 60 foot right -of -ways were requested to minimize the number of trees that would be affected and to maximize the potential for roadways in these areas of steep slopes. Furthermore, reduced setbacks of 25 feet (as opposed to 30 feet) were requested. The request for residential cluster zoning was explained. Under this zoning the lot widths and setbacks can vary, allowing homes to be developed with the topography. The developer stated that he worked with the Parks Department to determine how much land would be required. The Staff stated that the Parks Department would like to connect the existing neighborhoods with this neighborhood and link these areas with a path to the existing Savanik Trail and Summerfield Park along the eastern side of this future development. The Staff also stated that the developer is interested in a private park within the development and concluded the park discussion by stating that 10% of the land area is required for park and pond dedication and in this particular development, dedication would be through both land and cash dedication. Member Edgeton asked for clarification of a map used to demonstrate the development layout, and the Staff clarified this. Keith Gordon, City Engineer, presented information regarding the two locations for sanitary sewer line installations and explained bow these installations would be made with a short delay or detour of traffic routes. Gordon stated that the installation of the sewer system would require a one -day delay on both Elkwood and Pilot Knob. In both cases these delays or closures would be mitigated by detours that would allow traffic to continue with minimal disturbance of neighborhoods and traffic patterns. Gordon also stated that the water mains connect in three different places: Elkhart, Essex and Pilot Knob Road. Gordon commented on the nature of the existing pond and stated that he did not feel that amenity would have to be altered at all for the storm water purposes. Chairman Felkner asked for clarification on the street closures. Gordon explained that Elkwood is looped in a manner that would allow traffic to go either direction during the short period that the road would be closed, a period of approximately one day. Gordon 2 stated that Pilot Knob would be disturbed for a short period, but Everest would allow traffic to go either direction during the delay. Member Edgeton asked about the number of outlots and their purpose. Associate Planner McMonigal stated that these would be used for entrance monuments, including a brick feature denoting the development name, and landscaping. Member Edgeton asked who will be responsible for maintenance of these outlots and how could the City make sure that these were maintained properly. Brian Olson of Lundgren Bros. explained the purpose and maintenance plan for the outlots. Olson stated that the outlots are typical of the Lundgren developments, and that a homeowners association in another Lundgren development has successfully taken on the responsibility of maintenance. Olson also stated that signage and monuments were an important part of the outlots at the entrance points to the development. The Developer was hoping for major signs at the entrance off 140th Street and Pilot Knob. Olson stated that on outlots J and K from existing neighborhoods a small sign would be used to identify the development as you enter. Member Edgeton asked for clarification of how many signs the code requires. Associate Planner McMonigal stated that one sign per development is what is allowed. Brian Olson stated that he thought signs at the main entrance points were necessary, and that they could give up the sign from the neighborhoods and also a sign that Lundgren Bros. had hoped to put at the comer of 140th and Pilot Knob. McMonigal stated that to allow two signs for this development, one of the signs would require a variance. Brian stated that their entry signs are very subtle and tastefully designed. Chairman Felkner suggested that Lundgren Bros. work with the Apple Valley Planning Staff to design and provide better information about what type of sign package is being proposed for this development. Brian Olson stated that the 25 -foot setbacks mentioned earlier in the discussion were also something that he would like to expand on, and stated that after further review and discussion with his surveyor, additional setback variances would be required. Olson utilized the development map to indicate the lot numbers where he thought other setback variances would be required, The necessity of the variances is due to topography and vegetation, which dictated the alignment of the roadways and would crowd the homes on the rear lot lines if no variances were requested. Olson continued by stating that the average lot size is 18,000 square feet, which is less than two units per acre. In every case the lots exceed 11,000 square feet, the typical single family lot size in Apple Valley. Member Gowling asked what the price and size of these homes would be. Brian explained that in the wooded areas the homes would exceed $200,000. In the southwest corner, the homes would be less than $200,000. 3 Member Edgeton asked about the triangular- shaped lots in the development and questioned whether or not these lots would pose problems for homeowners who wanted to add decks, porches, etc. in their rear yards in the future . Olson (through use of the map on the overhead projector) explained the home orientation that they would suggest for these lots to allow homeowners to later expand in the rear yard areas. Olson also explained that one of the triangular- shaped lots has a berm across the rear yard along Pilot Knob. This berm would limit the owner's ability to build in that rear yard triangular area, and therefore may eliminate the potential for a problem on that lot. Chairman Felkner asked Associate Planner McMonigal to look at the foot print options of the homes and consider alternatives for decks, porches, and other additions prior to the next Planning Commission meeting. Member Churchill suggested that the builder furnish the buyer with the setbacks and also help establish a building area so that they understand before they purchase the home what their building options are. Member Edgeton concurred with Churchill and stated that this problem generally does not come up until the owner or a new owner is in the home, 5 or 6 years after the development has been completed. Chairman Felkner asked if the Developer has agreed to the public park in the upper right hand corner of the development through park dedication, and also whether or not the private park would serve as a portion of the development's park dedication requirements. McMonigal explained that the Developer has agreed to the public park and that the private park is not considered part of the park dedication requirements. Brian Olson introduced Marvin and Janice Schwartz and Peter Mullenaro. The Schwanz' are the property owners. Peter Mullenaro is the Engineer who has worked with the Developer to establish the layout of this development. Brent Mueller, who lives at the corner of Elkwood Drive and Elkhart Road in the Farqhuar Hills Development, stated that he was concerned about the construction traffic and asked that the developer minimize the construction traffic that uses Elkwood. Mueller continued by stating that there are a number of small children in the Elkwood area, and he felt that the truck traffic could be very hazardous to these children. Olson responded that he would see what he could do to limit the traffic in the Farqhuar Development and also stated that the best route for the construction traffic would be through the primary entrance that will be opened with the initial phase of development off of 140th Street. This access point would make it much easier than going through the Farqhuar Development. Mueller also stated that he would prefer that they keep as much vegetation as possible between his home and the path to the park. As his lot exists today, they look out into an open undeveloped area. Chairman Felkner asked if the possibility of keeping this vegetation is real. Olson responded that they would see what they could do in that area. C! Member Gowling asked if the Developer would be replacing the trees that were taken out with new trees in that area to provide a buffer for these existing residences. Olson explained the existing vegetation and the course of the path. Chairman Felkner asked the Developer to talk to the Park Advisory Committee to suggest that the path be laid out in a manner that would minimize its effect on the existing residential area. Felkner also asked the Developer to consider methods of keeping the development traffic out of the Elkwood area. Again, Brian Olson stated that he will do what he can to keep the traffic out of that neighborhood. Associate Planner McMonigal stated that the public streets were designed for this traffic and that the city would not be able to limit traffic through the neighborhood. Jeff Rasmussen, 13638 Elkwood Drive, stated that he is the first home past the vacant lot north of this development. He is concerned about the traffic in Elkwood neighborhood. Like Mueller, Rasmussen is concerned about the heavy equipment and the sharp turn where Elkhart meets Elkwood. Rasmussen explained that the development at the north end of Farqhuar Hills Development has led to 2 inches of mud on the streets, and he is concerned about this condition throughout their development. Rasmussen also stated that he would like to see a stop sign at the corner of Elkwood Drive and Elkhart. Associate Planner McMonigal stated that this had been discussed by the Public Works Staff and was thought to be an appropriate location for a stop sign. Brian Olson stated that he felt it would be a good solution. He also reiterated that 140th Street would be the first entrance constructed, and they would encourage truck traffic to use that entrance to the development. Planner McMonigal asked Brian Olson to explain the phasing of the 128 lots. Olson responded by stating that the development would be completed in four phases, and these phases would be based on the balance of the earth work. The first phase would include a portion of the new entrance created at 140th. Without knowing exact phasing, Olson stated that the last phase of the development would be at the corner of 140th and Pilot Knob Road. Member Gowling asked if the Developer would clear the lots initially or wait for a home buyer for clearing trees. Olson explained that they are interested in clearing only the right -of -ways initially and in working with the homeowners and the city forester to allow a placement of each home that would minimize the impacts on existing vegetation. Member Edgeton asked what would happen if the Developer could not buy a portion of the Tighes property at the northwest corner of this proposed development. Olson stated that they hope to work out an agreement with the Tighes. He would like to purchase just enough right -of -way to allow the street to be installed. In the event that no agreement can be reached, the Commission asked Staff what would be the next step. Keith Gordon stated that in a situation where a right -of -way is needed to complete an intersection and the property owners are not in agreement, the City may have to exercise its condemnation 5 authority. In this event the costs of that condemnation would be borne by the Developer, not the City. The public hearing was closed at this point. 5B. Schuller Addition - Preliminary Plat to Split an Existing Duplex LOCATION: 8601 -03 - 135th Street West PETITIONER: Richard Schuller (PC93- 027 -5) Associate Planner Scott Hickok presented a report on the Schuller lot split which would allow separate ownership of individual units in a duplex on 135th Street West in Apple Valley. The City Code allows lot splits such as this with two conditions. First, each unit must have its own sewer and water services. If this building does not have separate sewer and water service, modifications would have to be made to meet the code requirements. Second, and possibly more difficult to meet, is that of a one -hour fire wall separation for each unit. Between the two separately owned units two one -hour fire walls are required. Hickok stated that if these walls are not already separated and two one -hour fire walls in place, this may be a very difficult structural modification to make. Hickok concluded by stating that the petitioner is in the audience to answer any questions. The petitioner requested action on this item if the Planning Commission was able to do so. Chairman Felkner asked why we don't know if the fire walls exist. Scott Hickok explained that it is very difficult in a finished structure to know what the construction inside of the walls is. The two one -hour fire walls would go from the foundation to the attic. At this point there was not an opening in the walls to allow the building staff to verify construction details. Chairman Felkner asked if the builder would have that information. Dennis Miranowski responded that the builder most likely would. He also stated that he assumes that this structure was built with a single wall until otherwise proven. Dick Schuller, who has owned this property since 1987, stated that he was unaware of the separation wall requirement and that he would work with the Staff to determine whether or not that separation existed. He also stated that separating the utilities would not be difficult if necessary. The public hearing was closed. MOTION Jeannine Churchill moved, seconded by Marcia Gowling to approve the preliminary plat, conditioned on separation of the utilities if necessary, and also the appropriate fire wall separation between the units. The motion passed unanimously. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Naverud - Rearyard Setback Variance for Porch Addition LOCATION 15682 Heywood Court PETITIONER Jay & Jan Naverud (PC93- 028 -V) 0 Scott Hickok presented the Staff report which indicated a rearyard setback variance was being requested at 15682 Heywood Court. This variance would allow a 12 -foot deviation from the 30 -foot rearyard setback requirement. Hickok indicated that the Staff looked for unique characteristics of the site that could be considered a hardship if the owners were asked to build according to the prescribed setback. Hickok stated that the site conditions were not unlike other sites, and that alternatives did exist which would allow the screen porch to be built on the side of this residence as opposed to the rear of the residence. Built on the side, this addition would not require a variance to the side or rear yard. Due to the existence of this alternative, Hickok indicated that Staff was recommending denial of a variance on this site. Chairman Felkner asked if the deck was currently in place. Jay Naverud responded that the deck is in place, although the deck is in need of repair and is being replaced by a new deck and screened porch combination. Jay Naverud of 15682 Heywood Court introduced himself and continued by stating that the code is difficult to understand. He felt that the existence of a deck in the setback area should not be considered different than the proposal of a screened porch which included a roof. Naverud also stated that he has the smallest lot in the neighborhood and that by moving the patio door to the side, as Staff suggested, for the side yard screen porch construction, he would have an expensive set of modifications required on the interior of the home. Naverud stated that the interior design is such that a large china cabinet would have to be moved to another location, and that he did not have a location near the dining area where it is needed. Marcia Gowling asked if the applicant could move the deck. Paul Leland of Leland Construction responded that this porch is being proposed at the gable end of the home, which is not a bearing wall. If it were moved to the side, it would be a bearing wall and would require additional structural modifications. Member Edgeton stated that builders and buyers need to know where they can expand porches and where they can build on a lot, and asked if there was a way of indicating that when the lot is on the market. Paul Leland stated that in this neighborhood, one neighbor has 35 feet for a rear yard and the others have 40 feet or more. Leland felt that this condition is unique to the Naverud site, and therefore justifies a variance. Dennis Miranowski asked if they had considered a single door on the side of this structure, going into the screened porch. Jay Naverud stated again that this would interfere with the interior design of this home. 7 Chairman Felkner reiterated the need for a hardship statement and asked Staff to clarify why this is different than a deck in a rear or side yard. Scott Hickok stated that the roof adds mass and makes the addition part of the principle living area of the structure. Karen Edgeton asked if that is Apple Valley or State law. Scott Hickok responded that in Apple Valley the setbacks are determined for additions by whether or not the addition has a roof. He deferred to Dennis Miranowski for information on the State law. Miranowski responded that the State building code says that an addition becomes part of the living area of the structure when it includes a roof. Chairman Felkner asked about a detached accessory building or porch. Scott Hickok responded that a detached structure would be required to be 10' from the house, 5' from the side or rear yard; if the structure exceeded 120 square feet, then 10' from the rear yard and 5' from the side yard. Marcia Gowling asked if this structure was a walkout. Jay Naverud responded affirmatively. Gowling asked for clarification as to whether this portion of the home would be flat across or whether it is up off the ground at this point. Naverud explained that the proposed addition would come off from the walkout level, above grade. Paul Leland stated once again that he felt there was a hardship created by the original design of this lot. Jeannine Churchill stated that there is ample space for other options on this site. Jay Naverud stated that there are physical limitations on his lot and he feels a real shortage of space. Alan Felkner stated that these type of requests are very difficult when there is not a clear hardship to justify a variance. Jay Naverud asked if he could screen in a walkway and asked for a smaller variance; for example, a 5 foot variance as opposed to the original 12 foot variance request. Alan Felkner suggested that the applicant take time and table this issue to discuss alternatives that would require no variance, or at least a smaller variance than the original request. The applicant agreed that would be a good solution. The item was tabled until the applicant can come back with alternative porch designs. 6B. Wachter - Sideyard Accessory Building Variance LOCATION: 7250 - 132nd Street West PETITIONER: Steven L. Wachter (PC93- 030 -V) Associate Planner Scott Hickok began by explaining the difference between this accessory building variance request and the request just reviewed by the Planning Commission. In the Wachter proposal, a greenhouse addition was proposed. This addition functions much like a freestanding accessory building, although it has a covered walkway from the existing garage to the accessory building. The dimension of the building itself is 432 square feet. The City Code requires that a building of this type be 10 feet from the principle dwelling unit and 10 feet from the sideyard. The applicant has indicated that this accessory building will be 10 feet from the sideyard and 10 feet from the home. Initially Staff suggested rearyard locations and then reviewed the physical characteristics while visiting the site. It was the Staff's opinion after walking the site that there is indeed a hardship caused by existing native vegetation such as large trees along the south, east and west lot lines of the home, and also much landscape that had been planted by the owners over the past years. Because of this landscape there is not an open area appropriate for a building of this size that would allow sunlight for a greenhouse to function properly. Member Edgeton asked the purpose of the covered walkway. Steven Wachter, owner of the property, responded that this cover would allow for moving plants back and forth between the garage and the accessory building with a cover overhead, and would also allow the building to work aesthetically with the existing roof lines. Wachter pointed out that the greenhouse has a steeper pitched roof, but also pointed to the elevation of the home and proposed greenhouse to show that the roof lines are very similar and that the design works well aesthetically. MOTION: Marcia Gowling moved, seconded by Karen Edgeton, for approval. The motion passed unanimously. 8. OTHER BUSINESS - None - 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Jeannine Churchill stated that she would not be able to attend the June 2nd Planning Commission meeting. 0