Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/04/1993i- CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 4, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission Meeting of August 4, 1993, was called to order at 7:39 p.m. in the City Council Chambers by Chairman Alan Felkner. Members Present: Chairman Alan Felkner, Karen Edgeton, Jeannine Churchill, and Len Miller. Members Absent: Frank Blundetto, Marcia Gowling, and Jim Norris. Staff Present: Rick Kelley, Scott Hickok, and Dennis Miranowski. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Felkner asked Staff if there were any changes, additions, or deletions to the agenda. Staff responded that there were none. MOTION: Member Churchill moved, seconded by Member Miller, to approve the agenda as submitted. The Planning Commission approved the agenda unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 21, 1993 Chairman Felkner asked Staff if there were any proposed changes or corrections to the minutes. Staff responded that there were none. MOTION: Member Churchill moved, seconded by Member Edgeton, to approve the minutes of July 21, 1993. The Planning Commission approved the minutes unanimously. 4. CONSENT AGENDA - None - 1 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Margolis Addition (Apple Valley Ford Redevelopment Site) LOCATION: Northeast Corner of C.R. #42 and Pennock Avenue PETITIONER: Pennock Avenue Investors and John D. Natwick, et. al. (PC93- 039-BZ) City Planner Kelley presented the issue by reviewing the highlights of the staff report. The Margolis Addition represents the redevelopment of the Apple Valley Ford site, located on the northeast comer of County Road 42 and Pennock Avenue. Kelley noted that the site is designated on the Comprehensive Plan for retail business use. The proposal is to rezone the majority of the site to retail business, but to leave the northwesterly corner zoned for general business. The proposal also entails approval of conditional use permits for Class H fast food restaurants on the site, as well as a preliminary plat to subdivide the property into five lots. The site plan indicates a total of four buildings which would share a common driveway system. The common drive system would mimic the downtown street design standards, incorporating sidewalks, landscaping, and red light poles along the link. All of the new businesses would have driveway access to this common drive system with no direct driveway access to any of the surrounding streets. The project as proposed would include in the retail area a Dairy Queen and Taco Bell, both as freestanding uses, and a joint use building containing Brueger's Bagels and Proex Photo. The general business area would contain a single freestanding building which would house a Tires Plus facility. Kelley noted that the developer is proposing to visually unify the development by requiring all buildings to be constructed of the same color red brick. This red brick would match the colors used on the Apple Valley fence bollards and entrance monuments. The buildings are proposed to have heightened architectural interest on otherwise blank walls by constructing brick surrounds that would create the appearance of windows. There would also be a series of canopies along several of the buildings to add more life and color to them. All of the restaurant uses would have outdoor dining patios. Drive- thru's are proposed for the Dairy Queen and the Taco Bell, as well as a drive -thru pickup window for the Proex Photo. Staff continues to have some concern over potential traffic congestion that may occur on the Taco Bell site. It is Staffs opinion that Taco Bell restaurants have a higher rate of utilization of the drive -thin other than fast food restaurants. Consequently, there is potential of queuing up into the parking area, creating traffic congestion. The developer and Taco Bell architects have indicated a willingness to continue to work with City Staff to arrive at a better site plan solution to this issue. At this point City Planner Kelley concluded his presentation. Chairman Felkner asked if there were any questions of Mr. Kelley by the Commissioners. Commissioner 2 Miller noted that at the sketch plan some discussion had been made over signing 'No Parking" along Granada Drive to minimize traffic conflicts with the other fast food traffic being generated from Pizza Hut and McDonalds. Mr. Kelley noted that designation of "No Parking" on Granada Drive is at the discretion of the City Council since it is a public street. Chairman Felkner then asked the petitioner if he wished to add anything to the presentation. The developer Kelly Doran stated that he would support the concept of no parking along Granada, even to the point of adding a median along its length to control turning movements. The developer noted that they are also proposing an oversized joint use pylon sign, rather than having each freestanding use construct its own pylon sign. He reiterated that he will continue to work with Staff in arriving at the best site plan solution to the Taco Bell situation. Chairman Felkner then opened the public hearing to the audience for comments. There were no comments from the audience on this item. Chairman Felkner then closed the public hearing, noting that is would reappear on the August 18, 1993 Planning Commission agenda. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Utility Corridor and Substation LOCATION: County Road 38 and 130th Street by Germane Avenue PETITIONER: Dakota Electric /Cooperative Power (PC93- 027 -S) Chairman Felkner introduced this item and noted that at the last Planning Commission meeting a recommendation had been made to the City Council that an outside consultant be hired to evaluate the information that had been submitted by Dakota Electric, Cooperative Power, and their consultant Dames & Moore. The City Council did authorize City Staff to engage an outside consultant. Consequently, the Planning Commission will not be taking any action on this issue until a consultant has been hired and has submitted a report. Dakota Electric has also submitted additional information regarding questions raised at several of the past Planning Commission meetings. This information has been distributed in a Planning Commission packet, but Dakota Electric has also requested the opportunity to present it verbally. Chairman Felkner asked if City Staff had anything to add on this issue. Staff responded that it did not. Randy Poulson from Dakota Electric thanked the Commission for the opportunity to clarify some of the questions that had been raised at the past two meetings. He gave a brief overview of the history of Dakota Electric's planning in this area. He noted that in 1988, the short term plan prepared by Dakota Electric identified the need for a transformer facility in this general vicinity, but not a certain date or tentative location for it. He noted that in 1991, Dakota Electric appeared before the Planning Commission requesting approval 3 for a proposed substation location on 130th Street, just west of Galaxie Avenue. He stated that Dakota Electric had conversations with Dakota County Staff, as well as City Staff, regarding the use of County Road 38 for an electric transmission line corridor during the initial stages of the design of drawings for the construction of that road. In response to the question concerning long -term needs and expansion of the substation and /or transmission line, he noted that it is their intent at some time after the year 2004 to extend this line southerly to connect two facilities to be constructed in Lakeville. A precise route for this southerly extension has not been identified at this time. He stated that the link to be constructed along County Road 38 would not have to have new lines or an increase in voltage as part of these expansions, although the current demand on these lines would increase as growth occurs in the vicinity. It is the increase in current demand that results in an increase in the EMF figures which were contained within the Dames & Moore Report. The substation site is designed to accommodate an additional transformer, but again, this additional transformer would not require the construction of any more overhead transmission lines. Mr. Poulson displayed a copy of the July 19, 1993, letter from the Dakota County Highway Engineer, indicating that preliminary engineering that has now been done, showing tentative transmission pole locations, leads the County to believe that it can be accommodated within the right -of -way for County Road 38. Mr. Poulson stated that the guidelines for pole placement allow them to be located between 1 and 1 -1/2 feet from the curb line on roads which have speed limits between 40 and 45 miles per hour. The location of poles in this case would all be outside of the pathway. Mr. Poulson then displayed an overhead, illustrating how costs would be allocated among the 13,500 electrical accounts currently existing within the City of Apple Valley for the proposed project. The overhead also indicated how costs would be allocated for two alternatives which were raised during the public hearing process. The project as proposed by Dakota Electric would cost around one million dollars, which equates to a $74 capital charge against all accounts within Apple Valley. If the transmission line were to be buried along County Road 38, the total cost would rise to $7 -1/2 million. This would equate to $555 of capital expense per Apple Valley account. If the line were then to be extended southerly to Lakeville and also needed to be constructed underground, the total project cost would rise to about $15 million. This would equate to $1,111 of capital expense per Apple Valley account. Mr. Poulson stated that it has been Dakota Electric's policy that the cost of constructing new facilities to standards that exceed those existing elsewhere within their service area are charged back to those who benefit from them. He does not feel that it would be appropriate to charge all of Dakota Electric's members the additional costs entailed from constructing facilities to a higher standard than is required elsewhere. Mr. Poulson then addressed the question regarding why the proposed substation would be at 80% capacity once it is constructed. He stated that substations usually are running at 55 -65% of their design capacity immediately upon construction. The reason this substation would be at 80% is because it has already been delayed one to two years from when they expected to have it operational. 12 Don Sodersten of Dames & Moore made a brief presentation with some updated numbers on their routing study. He again explained the process by which the study occurred. He emphasized that it continues to be their position that the use of aerial photography to do resident counts remains the most accurate and fair way of approaching the issue. He stated that GIS maps are not necessarily accurate and displayed a sample map which he said indicated the existence of buildings which had not yet been constructed. He noted that even recounting the number of residences to include those which had been most recently constructed does not change the reports conclusion, which is that the County Road 38 corridor is the preferred route. Randy Poulson returned to the podium to address two other issues that had been raised during the hearing process. He noted that statements had been made concerning the New Horizon Day Care not being counted as an impacted site as part of the County Road 38 route. He stated that a careful reading of the report notes that this day care is listed within the raw data sheets as a site potentially impacted if a transmission line were to be extended along Cedar or Pennock Avenue, between County Road 38 and Palomino Drive. However, none of the alternate routes actually used this potential segment. Consequently, the New Horizon Day Care site is not listed in either the Palomino or the County Road 38 calculations. He also noted that the Rodeo Hills Townhome project will have substantially more units constructed than currently exists. However, because the Rodeo Hills site is between Palomino Drive and County Road 38, the units would be equally impacted by either of those routes. Consequently, County Road 38 would still be their number one preferred route. Mr. Poulson concluded by stating that he understands why the City would wish to engage an independent consultant to review the data, but emphasized that a continued delay in this project could affect the reliability of electric power delivery to Apple Valley residents in the vicinity. He stated that it is the City, not Dakota Electric, which would bear the responsibility for these service interruptions if they should occur. Chairman Felkner then reiterated that there would be no action on the issue this evening. He inquired of Staff how the public can be kept informed of the status of this project. Staff responded that it would continue to appear on all future Planning Commission agendas, with a notation that the item was being continually tabled until the independent consultant report is complete. Staff also stated that they may also do a supplemental mailing to those individuals first notified of the public hearing. Chairman Felkner called a ten minute recess of the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m. 5 6B. Beckman Garage Variance LOCATION: 4875 West 120th Street PETITIONER: Tom Beckman (PC93- 041 -V) Associate Planner Hickok presented a summary of the staff report on this issue. Mr. Beckman, 4875 West 120th Street, has requested a variance for an oversized garage. The proposed garage is 1,285 square feet in area, while city code allows for a detached accessory garage with a maximum of 750 square feet in area. Mr. Beckman's property lies in an R1 zoning district and is 7 acres in size. Regulations stipulate a detached garage maximum area of 750 square feet based on the fact that the majority of the City is developed under R3 single family zoning standards which provide for lots of 11,000 square feet in area. The 750 square foot maximum was chosen based on this 11,000 square foot typical lot size. During 1992 the Planning Commission recommended a change to the zoning regulations to allow up to 1,200 square feet of detached garage area on large lots in R1 zoning districts. The City Council received this recommendation, but did not adopt an ordinance amendment. The Council stated that they would prefer to deal with oversize garages on a case by case basis rather than amending the ordinance. Mr. Hickok stated that while a strict hardship test was not met, the size of this lot is atypical. Consequently, he felt that an oversize garage would not be inappropriate. He has recommended that a garage not to exceed the 1,200 foot maximum discussed before the Planning Commission last year be allowed, subject to the stipulation that the garage not be used for living space. Member Edgeton asked whether there was a significant difference between the 1,200 square feet being recommended and the 1,258 square feet initially requested. Mr. Hickok stated that he was simply trying to be consistent with the Planning Commission's previous position concerning the 1,200 square foot maximum. The petitioner, Mr. Beckman, stated that the difference between 1,200 and 1,258 square feet was of no consequence to him. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Miller, seconded by Member Edgeton, that a variance to allow a 1,258 square foot garage be approved, subject to the stipulation that it not be used for living space. The motion passed 4 - 0. 6C. Brown Garage Variance LOCATION: 12936 Galaxie Avenue PETITIONER: Robert Brown (PC93- 040 -V) City Planner Kelley presented a summary of a variance request at 12936 Galaxie Avenue. The request is to replace an existing barn with a detached garage. Mr. Kelley noted that the ordinances in the Apple Valley zoning district allow for two detached accessory buildings, one of which is not to exceed 750 square feet, and the other of which is not to exceed 144 square feet. This lot contains two accessory buildings, both in excess N of 144 square feet. The petitioner wishes to remove the existing barn, which is not in good shape, and replace it with a modern garage for storage. According to code, in order to replace the barn he would also have to either remove the existing accessory building or downsize it to meet the 144 square foot maximum. Because the existing barn predated Apple Valley's size restrictions for accessory buildings it is entitled to grandfather status. This means that it could remain on the site and be repaired. It is the Staffs opinion, however, that it would be an improvement to the neighborhood if the old structure were removed and replaced with a modern garage. The petitioner, Mr. Brown, stated that he had spoken with his neighbors, and that they were all in agreement that they would prefer to see the barn removed and a replacement garage constructed. Chairman Felkner asked for clarification regarding the proposed 616 square foot garage and the 750 square foot limitation as stipulated in the ordinance. Mr. Kelley stated that while the proposed garage is less than the 750 square foot ordinance maximum, the conflict arises from the fact that the other utility building exceeds 144 square feet. The variance is essentially to allow two structures, both of which exceed 144 square feet. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Churchill to approve the variance as requested. The motion passed unanimously. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None - 8. OTHER BUSINESS - None - 9. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Felkner adjourned the meeting at 9:04 p.m. 7