Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/1993CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 18, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission Meeting of August 18, 1993, was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers by Chairman Alan Felkner. Members Present: Chairman Alan Felkner, Karen Edgeton, Marcia Gowling, and Len Miller. Members Absent: Frank Blundetto, Jim Norris, and Jeannine Churchill. 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 as submitted. Staff responded that there were no proposed changes. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Miller, to approve the agenda as submitted. The Planning Commission approved the agenda unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 4, 1993 Chairman Felkner asked staff if there were any changes or corrections to the minutes as submitted. Staff stated that there were no proposed changes. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Miller, to approve the minutes of August 4, 1993, as submitted. The Planning Commission voted to approve the minutes as submitted 3 - 0, Member Gowling abstaining. - None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no items on the public hearing agenda. Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1993 Page 2 6. LAND /USE ACTION ITEMS A. Margolis Addition City Planner Rick Kelley made a brief presentation on this proposed development. The site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of County Road 42 and Pennock Avenue. This is the site of the old Apple Valley Ford which is now relocated 1/2 mile to the east on County Road 42. The site is presently zoned for general business; however, the Comprehensive Plan indicates a preferred use of retail business. A proposed development would rezone the entire property to retail business in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The previous proposal to retain the general business zoning on one portion of the site for a Tires Plus has now been withdrawn. The development plan would subdivide the property into five lots, all of which would be served by a private driveway system intersecting with public streets surrounding the property. The southeast corner would contain a Taco Bell. The southwest corner would contain Proex Photo and Brueger's Bagel Bakery in a single building. The northeast corner had previously been proposed to contain a Dairy Queen. Due to franchise problems the Dairy Queen proposal has been temporarily withdrawn and the site may instead be used for some other fast food restaurant. The northwest corner of the site had initially been proposed to contain a Tires Plus. Since this has been withdrawn, the site will remain vacant for some time, so the site plan indicates a vacant lot. A conditional use permit must be issued for the Class II fast food restaurants. One of the criteria for a conditional use permit in the current zoning regulations is that the fast food operation must be at least 1,000 feet from either an institutional or residential use. In 1992, it had been proposed to amend the conditional use criteria by establishing a set of performance standards rather than a simple distance requirement. This proposal to amend the zoning regulations has been forwarded to the City Council, but as of this date, no action has occurred. This site is located across County Road 42 from the Grace Lutheran Church and other residential uses. The Grace Lutheran Church is about 300 feet away from the closest fast food restaurant being proposed. County Road 42 is a minor arterial and carries significant levels of traffic at all hours of the day and night. Consequently, the roadway use serves to mask the fast food impacts that might occur upon the residential and institutional uses. Primarily for this reason the staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit irrespective of the 1,000 foot criteria. Pursuant to recommendations and discussion at the previous Planning Commission meeting during the public hearing process, the portion of the site plan containing Taco Bell and Proex /Brueger's Bagel has been modified. Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1993 Page 3 The "gooseneck entry" to the Taco Bell drive - through has been reconfigured to facilitate easier vehicular entry to the drive - through. In addition, the parking stalls adjacent to County Road 42 have been reconfigured to increase their accessibility to patrons of Taco Bell. Kelley then stated that he recommended that the site plan be modified in three additional areas. 1) The handicap parking stall in the front of Brueger's Bagels should be reconfigured to maintain a 24 foot wide parking aisle adjacent to the building; in its proposed configuration a van parked in this stall would overhang and substantially diminish the driving aisle width. 2) The plan as proposed by Taco Bell provides for a double drive - through lane for its entire length. Kelley recommended that this be narrowed to a single lane just past the service pick -up window. This would allow for additional vehicular stacking at the Granada Drive intersection. 3) The Proex pick -up lane as proposed places exiting vehicles in a head -on situation with vehicles coming down from the north. Kelley recommended that this drive - through lane be swung slightly to the east to avoid this situation. Kelley then discussed the developer's proposal for a common signage plan. Under the existing sign regulations, each of the four buildings would be entitled to a freestanding pylon sign in addition to building signage. The development proposal includes a single pylon sign illustrated as being 31 feet high, with 250 square feet of sign area. By way of comparison, multi- occupant shopping centers having a building area of 50,000 square feet or less are entitled to a single 24 foot high sign with a maximum of 110 square feet in area; centers exceeding 50,000 square feet in building area are entitled to two 24 foot high signs not to exceed 180 square feet in area each. The sign regulations do provide for a 25% size bonus, if binding common signage plans are prepared for all occupants of a complex. The sign initially proposed by the developer greatly exceeds this standard. Staff indicated that a single 24 foot high sign with a maximum area of 137 1/2 feet appears to be the maximum that could be recommended. This size would both meet the intent of the code, as well as continuing fair treatment to this development and all other developments throughout the downtown commercial area. Planner Kelley also noted that the covenants in deed restrictions to be filed upon all the lots should contain specific criteria relative to the ongoing maintenance of the private drive system providing vehicular access to all of the lots. This criteria would also make it clear that if this private drive system were to be tendered to the City to become a public street for public maintenance purposes, it would have to be brought up to additional City Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1993 Page 4 standards relating to pavement surface and a wide enough easement area to accommodate snow storage. Planner Kelley concluded his presentation by stating that he would recommend approval of the development proposal subject to the revisions and conditions contained within the report. Planning Commissioner Karen Edgeton expressed her concern about the unknown fast food use now proposed on the northeast lot. Planner Kelley stated that the proposed site plan represents a generic fast food site plan approach which could easily accommodate just about any fast food user. The developer Kelly Doran stated that if Dairy Queen does not locate here, the most likely tenant at this point is a franchise new to the Twin City Area known as Miami Sub and Grill. He sees no problem accommodating a submarine sandwich shop on the proposed site plan. Commissioner Edgeton then inquired what might occur on the other vacant site in the northwest corner. The developer noted that it is likely to remain vacant during the first phase of development on the site until a new user is found. The perimeter landscaping would be installed at this time, however. Commissioner Gowling then asked about pedestrian access from the surrounding sidewalks to the individual buildings. In particular, she wondered bow pedestrians traveling along the County Road 42 sidewalk might access the Taco Bell. The developer responded that the initial site plan proposals had shown a sidewalk connection from the Taco Bell to the County Road 42 sidewalk. When the latest site plan revision was prepared this sidewalk link was inadvertently left off. It is their intention to make this sidewalk link. The developer stated that he was comfortable with all of the staff recommendations concerning the project, with the exception of the pylon sign. He noted that the proposal to use a single pylon sign for this development was his idea, under the assumption that the City and the general populace would find a single sign more aesthetically pleasing than multiple pylon signs. He stated that in order to get the original tenants to agree to such a proposal, the amount of signage allocated to each tenant on such a single pylon needed to be between 40 and 50 square feet; this would be at least similar in size to the amount of signage they would be entitled to on freestanding pylons. Chairman Felkner explained the application of the sign regulations and the number of variance requests that have been turned down in the past in order to provide uniform signage throughout the commercial area. The developer stated that he understood the City's need to apply its regulations consistently and offered a possible compromise. He suggested that two 24 foot high pylon signs, each with a maximum area of 110 square feet, be Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1993 Page 5 permitted along County Road 42. The sign in front of Taco Bell would provide signage for Taco Bell and the future fast food restaurant behind it on the north. The sign in front of the Proex /Brueger's Bagel building would provide signage for those two tenants plus whatever tenant might choose to locate on the vacant lot to the north. There was a general discussion among the Commissioners concerning traffic circulation throughout the site and upon the adjacent roadways, particularly at the intersection of County Road 42 and Granada Drive. The Commission requested that staff evaluate any possible changes to this intersection to make traffic movements operate in a smoother and safer fashion. The Commission was in general agreement that the proposed development was appropriate for the site. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to approve the rezoning from general business to retail business. Motion carried 4 - 0. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report, including additional language in the deed restriction and covenants concerning the private roadway system. Motion carried 4 - 0. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend approval of a conditional use permit for Class II restaurants on the site. Motion carried 4 -0. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend approval of building permit authorization and site plans subject to the three staff revisions in the report, plus a sidewalk link from County Road 42 to Taco Bell, subject to future Planning Commission review of the "fast food" site on the northeast corner. Motion was approved 4 - 0. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend approval of two 110 square foot pylon signs to be located along County Road 42 to be shared by all tenants of the development complex. Motion was approved 4 - 0. 613. Eagle Hills 3rd, Setback Variance Associate Planner Scott Hickok made a brief presentation to the Commission concerning a rearyard setback variance at 13544 Gardenia Path to reduce the setback from 30 feet to 25 feet. The purpose of the variance is to accommodate an existing deck and four season porch. A brief discussion ensued concerning how the deck could have been constructed without anyone realizing that they were in violation of the 30 foot rearyard Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1993 Page 6 setback. The surveyor who prepared a building survey for this lot admitted responsibility for this error. Ray Brandt of Brandt Engineering was present to explain the mistake. He stated that because the porch and deck had freestanding frost footings, rather than a complete foundation, he neglected to indicate their existence on the site survey when the building permit was first applied for. A letter has been submitted from the adjacent property owner stating that they do not object to the variance request. Associate Planner Hickok stated that because it is staff's responsibility to review variance requests under the most narrow interpretation provided by the state statute, he was unable to recommend approval of the variance request. A general discussion ensued concerning the statutory requirements for finding sufficient hardship to approve a variance. City Planner Kelley stated that in this particular case, there was clearly erroneous data supplied by the surveyor, upon which the City and the builder relied. Staff has satisfied itself that there was no attempt to defraud or mislead any of the parties involved; it was in fact the surveyor that brought the discrepancy to the attention of the City prior to the certificate of occupancy for the deck. He stated that this situation represents a gray area in which the Planning Commission and City Council as the policy makers of the City have some discretion in defining the erroneous data as a sufficient hardship. MOTION. Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Miller, to approve the variance as requested. The motion carried unanimously. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None - 8. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Felkner asked Dennis Miranowski, Assistant Director of Public Works, to provide a brief update concerning the consultant contract for the proposed electrical transmission line and substation. Mr. Miranowski noted that at the previous City Council Meeting, staff had been authorized to expend up to $10,000 to engage a consultant to review the data submitted by Dakota Electric, Cooperative Power, and Dames & Moore. The City has selected the firm of Burns & McDonnell to perform this study for Apple Valley and has entered into a contract with them. Representatives of Burns & McDonnell will be in the City at the end of August to meet with City Staff, members of Dakota Electric, and Cooperative Power, as well as to physically view the proposed transmission line corridor and substation site. They will issue their findings during the first part of September. Chairman Felkner then inquired of staff what the possible scheduling arrangements could be for the City and the Commission to review this report and then return to their deliberations on the Dakota Electric proposal. He also took this opportunity to respond to Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 1993 Page 7 allegations made at the previous Planning Commission meeting that further delays in the approval of Dakota Electric's proposal might lead to power outages throughout the community for which the City would be responsible. He stated that at the previous two meetings, action had been delayed based upon the request of Dakota Electric in order to give them more time to respond to comments or questions that had been raised by the Commission and the public. He felt that any assessment that the Commission was unduly delaying the project was an unfair one. Commissioner Miller echoed those remarks and stated that he did not feel it was appropriate that the Commission was being accused of unduly delaying the project. Commissioner Edgeton stated she did not feel the Commission was being accused of anything, but rather that the petitioner was expressing frustration over the time involved in the review process. 9. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Felkner then adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.