Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1993CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 20, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission Meeting of October 20, 1993, was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chairman Alan Felkner in the Council Chambers of the Apple Valley City Hall. Members Present: Chair Alan Felkner, Frank Blundetto, Karen Edgeton, Len Miller, and Jeannine Churchill. Members Absent: Marcia Gowling. Staff Present: John Gretz, Rick Kelley, Scott Hickok, and Keith Gordon. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Felkner asked if there were any changes to the agenda as submitted. Staff responded that Item 4B should be removed from the agenda at the request of the petitioner. Chairman Felkner noted that under Item 8, Other Business, he would like to add an Item A concerning filling of the current commission vacancy. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to approve the agenda as amended. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the amended agenda. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 6, 1993 Chair Felkner asked the Staff if there were any proposed corrections to the minutes as submitted in the packet. Staff responded that there were no corrections. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to approve the minutes as submitted. The minutes were approved 3 - 0, with one abstention (Chairman Felkner). 4. CONSENT AGENDA Chair Felkner noted that consent items were non - controversial issues for which Staff has recommended approval. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1993 Page 2 MOTION: Member Miller moved, seconded by Member Edgeton, to approve the consent agenda. The Planning Commission moved 4 - 0 to approve all items on the consent agenda. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Huntington Ridge Garden Homes Chair Felkner opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. Associate Planner Scott Hickok presented the item, displaying a series of overhead transparencies that illustrated the development proposal. The subject property is located on the west side of Pilot Knob Road between County Road 38 and Dorchester Trail. This area is designated on the City's Comprehensive Plan for low density multi - family housing. It consists of two parcels of land, one of which is zoned agriculture and the other being zoned R -3 Single Family. It is proposed to rezone the properties to an M3 -C category which would allow up to 6 units per acre; this is in general conformity to the low density designation which stipulates a range of 3 -6 units per acre. The development proposal also includes a preliminary plat to subdivide the property into a series of lots which would contain a total of 60 dwelling units in 9 one -story buildings. Mr. Hickok explained the manner in which density is calculated, and how it relates to the comprehensive plan. He stated that copies of the plans had been forwarded to the Department of Natural Resources regarding the existing wetland area to the north, but that a response has not yet been received. Hickok also noted that currently the City has a collector roadway study underway which includes Diamond Path, a roadway located approximately 1/8 mile to the south. He stated that since much of the information regarding these issues will not be available for some time, Staff is suggesting the Public Hearing be held open for at least an additional two weeks. Member Edgeton asked if the differences between the setbacks between the A, B, and C categories would leave the density unchanged. Mr. Hickok noted that while Staff had not attempted to calculate changes, the increased setbacks more than likely would require the size of the buildings to be reduced, resulting in fewer dwelling units. Member Edgeton also asked about the proposed berm adjacent to the single family lots and whether there were any emergency vehicle turnarounds. Mr. Hickok noted that a landscape berm area was illustrated adjacent to the single family homes along the west boundary of the proposed development. He also noted one emergency vehicle turnaround, Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1993 Page 3 identified on the longest private drive system. This turnaround would be constructed with a paving material that allows grass to grow up through it; it would be plowed in winter. Todd Stotz of Rottlund Homes and Wayne Tauer of Pioneer Engineering provided further information about the development proposal. They explained the difference in building elevations and heights, and the proposed landscape materials, and presented a colored rendering of the proposed buildings. Keith Gordon, the City Engineer, explained how the storm sewer in the area was designed. He noted that the master storm sewer plan anticipated surface drainage from the developed properties into the low area and into the adjacent pond on the west. This pond has a pipe outlet to Farquar lake. The pipe outlet is set at an elevation and sized to accommodate all the expected runoff from properties in this drainage shed as they develop. Member Miller asked what the expected price range of the townhouse units would be. Todd Stotz stated that depending on options and whether they were a corner or interior unit, the units would sell from between $80- 90,000 each. He noted that the buildings were in both 8 and 4 unit configurations. Six of the buildings would contain 8 units, and 3 of the buildings would contain 4 units. The end units are approximately 1,200 square feet in size, while the interior units are approximately 1,100 square feet in size. The end units would have two -car garages, and the interior units would have single -car garages. The exterior of the building would be faced with a combination of brick and aluminum siding. There would also be an underground landscape sprinkler system. For height comparison purposes, he noted that the proposed buildings would be 23 feet high. A typical two -story single family dwelling is 26 feet high, while the adjacent two -story villa houses to the south are 31 feet high. He also noted that the buildings themselves were oriented so that the short or narrow side was oriented to the west facing the existing single family neighborhood in order to minimize the appearance of bulk. He stated that it was their belief that the proposed buildings met the density bonus criteria in the City Zoning Ordinance that allowed them to approach the 6 unit per acre figure stipulated in the code. The special design features included a 4 -season porch with an adjacent outdoor patio for each dwelling unit, 13/4 bathrooms in each unit as a standard feature, a fireplace in each unit as a standard feature, and extra sound suppression between dwelling units provided by party wall construction. Member Edgeton questioned whether the patio area had sufficient screening in order to provide the outdoor privacy area bonus. Member Miller asked if the units were handicap accessible. Todd Stutz noted that he believed the units met all of the criteria. Member Miller noted that in the presentation Mr. Stotz stated that it was the intent to sell these units for owner occupancy. Mr. Stotz stated that Rottlund Homes is a "for sale" Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1993 Page 4 builder, although they could not control what might happen to the units after they are initially built. Chair Felkner then opened the public hearing for comments from the audience. He asked that individuals wishing to speak come to the podium and state their name and address, and that they speak into the microphone so that the television viewing audience could also hear their comments. He also requested that speakers try not to repeat comments. Tom Bublitz, 5155 - 127th Street, noted that a large number of residents had contacted City Staff concerning this proposal. He stated that the residents appreciated the accessibility of Staff to discuss this issue, and particularly Scott Hickok, who had been very open to discuss this proposal and the approval process. Mr. Bublitz noted that on October 18th they held a neighborhood informational meeting concerning this proposal. On October 13th the developer held a neighborhood informational meeting as well. He stated that the calculated density of 5.8 units per acre represents the m of the site's use relative to the comprehensive plan guided density of 3 -6 units per acre. Mr. Bublitz went on to reference several portions of the comprehensive plan land use section relative to the City's housing policy. He stated that the neighborhood feels that the Huntington Area currently has its share of multi - family use and that this proposed development would result in an over concentration of multi - family units in a single neighborhood. Mr. Bublitz also noted that the traffic projections anticipate between 7 and 7 1/2 average trips per day per dwelling unit from a multi- family use. He again referenced portions of the comprehensive plan, which lead him to believe that the total amount of traffic expected on the local street network would exceed the residents' comfort level, although he acknowledged that it would not exceed the engineered capacity of the roadways. He went on to state that he believed that it was not accepted practice to direct traffic from multi- family areas onto streets which had a predominate single - family use. Mr. Bublitz also questioned the impact of the development oft the adjacent wetland and pond. He noted that the level of water in the existing pond had risen over the past year and that trees at the edge were now standing in water. He asked what the proper elevation of the pond was, and whether there was any additional hydrological data that was relevant. He questioned whether there would be any applicable water quality issues and what the phosphorus content of the pond water was. He also asked if this project might be subject to an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1993 Page 5 He went on to state that the comprehensive plan includes a degree of flexibility on the part of the City to either approve or deny projects based on changing conditions. He felt that conditions have changed in this neighborhood over the past several years to warrant a re- evaluation of the multi- family use on this particular parcel. He does not believe that this development proposal truly serves the public purpose. Mr. Bublitz closed by asking for both a citywide and neighborhood breakdown of the existing single family and multi- family mix. He stated that the issue of traffic in the neighborhood is a concern regardless of the particular use to which this property might be put. Debra Smith, 12661 Durango Place, noted that multi - family designations existed on several other surrounding properties near the Huntington neighborhoods. She felt that all of this would add up to be too much multi - family in one area. Ms. Smith also stated that the development proposal was, in her opinion, not creative in its design or oriented to take advantage of the existing natural features of the site. She did not feel that the proposed townhomes added anything to the neighborhood aesthetics, basing her opinion on the minimum proposed setbacks, the building appearance and exterior construction materials, and the amount of landscaping being proposed. She stated that only 32% of the City was planned to be used for single family use and felt that this should be increased. Member Edgeton asked Staff to come back with information on both the current and future percentage of single family and other land uses in the City. Brenda Bublitz, 5155 127th Street, stated that the level of traffic was a large concern to her. The safety of the children playing in the street was important. She also stated that resale of existing single family homes might become difficult because only buyers who did not object to close proximity of multi - family use would be interested in purchasing the houses. She stated that the development proposal violates what she feels is a "metropolitan standard" that prevents vehicles from multi - family areas to have access onto single family streets. Steve Lewis, 12770 Edinbrook Path, stated that his house backs up to the existing townhomes. He said he obviously knew about those townhomes, but was not aware that this parcel was to be used for townhomes as well. He stated that during the Spring of 1993, he put his house up for sale, but he was unable to sell it. He stated that he had received some comments from potential buyers that they did not want a house that backed up to townhomes. Mr. Lewis also stated that when he bought his house, the salesperson promised him that there would be a substantial tree line planted between his house and the townhome area. He stated that the extensive landscaping promised by the salesperson never materialized. He stated that he simply does not trust the developer. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1993 Page 6 Member Miller asked Staff to find out the average price of the single family homes around the proposed project. Brad Burke, 12730 Edinbrook Path, stated that he objected to the proposed project based on a potential decline in property values in the neighborhood and the general density of the proposal. He stated that he had received information from a realtor that the average days on the market for a single family home was 90 days, but that the average days on the market for a townhome was 426 days. He stated that this indicated that there was more demand for single family units than townhome units. He also expressed a concern that townhomes would be more likely to be rented if their owner could not sell them when they found that they would have to move. Mr. Burke also stated that he had heard there was a problem with the level of water pressure in the adjacent Hunter's Ridge neighborhood. He stated that construction of denser multi- family units would create more demand on the water system, resulting in more water pressure problems. Member Edgeton inquired whether the majority of the people in the audience were from the single family neighborhoods or from the Hunter's Run Villa Townhomes to the south. It appeared that all members from the audience were from single family homes; no one from a townhome identified themselves. Member Edgeton then asked if the people in the townhomes had been notified of this public hearing. Staff responded that all property owners within 350 feet of the boundary did receive mailed notice. Member Miller stated that many times a developer will come in with an initial proposal but also have a backup plan. He asked Staff if there was any backup plan for this proposal. Scott Hickok responded that only one plan had been submitted or discussed with Staff. Jeff King, 5160127th Street, noted that County Road 38 had recently been completed and that the construction of that roadway removed a substantial amount of vegetation and resulted in a partial filling of the pond to the north. He felt that development of this property would result in a further degradation of the natural environment. He presented two aerial photos that illustrated both the water level of the pond and the water level of Farquar Lake. He also stated that the height of the buildings being discussed needed to be adjusted to reflect the existing grade elevations, not just the absolute height of the buildings. Dan McGuinley, 12520 Dorchester Trail, stated that the design of the townhomes provide for a series of dead end private driveways. He felt that this would create problems for delivery vehicles and garbage collection vehicles. Chair Felkner called a recess at 9:15 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1993 Page 7 Chair Felkner reconvened the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Jack Ferguson, 5125 127th Street, stated that he lived at the current dead end of 127th Street which immediately abuts the proposed development area. He stated that the pond had already been reduced in size by County Road 38, and asked if this had been taken into account in planning the master storm water plan. He stated that they had placed pine tree plantings adjacent to the high water mark of the pond. He was afraid that if the pond level comes up any further, they will be flooded out. He also stated that the private driveway system would create problems of shining headlights into the windows of the adjacent single family homes. Member Edgeton asked about the water elevation of the existing pond and the storm sewer outlets. City Engineer Keith Gordon will address this at the following Planning Commission Meeting. Bill Brassa, 12580 Driftwood Lane, questioned issues of storm water runoff from the proposed development. He also raised some questions about the "green paver" to be installed at the emergency vehicle turnaround. He stated that the runoff from this type of paving system is in his experience not the same as a grassed area. Mr. Brassa also questioned the building construction standards for these buildings. He said that in his experience, 2 x 6 construction is being used for new single family homes, but the developer had indicated at the neighborhood meeting that 2 x 4 construction with a one inch air gap would be utilized. Chair Felkner asked Staff to discuss this issue with the City Building Official. Stacy Atneosen, 12787 Edinbrook Path, noted that the developer stated that at their Eagan and Woodbury developments the townhomes were being targeted to the empty nester market. She questioned whether there were any sales figures or data to verify that is in fact who are buying the townhomes. She stated that she felt that anyone who is retiring in Minnesota would wish to move to a warmer climate rather than buy a townhome here. Chair Felkner asked if there were any other people wishing to address the Commission on this item. There being none, he stated that the public hearing would be held open until all questions had been answered. He noted that because many of these questions involved response from other agencies, the item will not automatically appear on the next Planning Commission agenda of November 3, 1993. He stated it would reappear when all questions had been answered. He said that for this reason, he would suggest that neighborhood representatives be designated who could be contacted by City Staff of when the item will appear on a Planning Commission agenda. He stated that the agendas are available at City Hall for review by the general public prior to the meeting. They are also broadcast on the public access channel, but they are not published in the newspaper. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1993 Page 8 A member of the audience asked if the neighborhood representatives would also be kept apprised of proposed modifications or changes to the plan on an ongoing basis. Chair Felkner stated that this would not be the case, although Staff would respond to any questions concerning changes if the information was available. Tom Bublitz asked to address the Commission one last time. He stated that he wished to make it clear that the residents were not objecting to the proposed development simply because they did not like townhomes for the "type of people" that lived in townhomes. He stated that he lived in a townhome for many years and was in fact president of an association for some time. He did suggest that Staff review townhomes 10 or more years older in age as he has noted that some associations do an inadequate job of long -term budgeting for costly maintenance repair and replacement. He stated that the residents are not saying "no" to townhomes, but rather "how much is too much" in each neighborhood. Chair Felkner then noted that the public hearing would be continued and called for a 5 minute break at 9:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:50 p.m. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Sideyard Setback Variance for Carport at 1066 Lowell Drive Associate Planner Scott Hickok presented the item. He noted that the variance request was somewhat sketchy from the petitioner and stated that no detailed graphics suitable for reproduction had been submitted. The purpose of the variance is to allow a carport or garage addition to come within 3 feet of the side property line rather than 5 feet as required by ordinance. The area on the side of the existing garage where the addition is proposed is currently paved and used for storage of an automobile, a trailer and woodpile. The petitioner has requested the variance because he does not wish to install a freestanding garage in his backyard. The petitioner had also discussed with Staff the possibility of receiving a variance to construct within one foot of the property line in order to maximize the size of the addition. Staff has noted that a setback to a property line of less than 3 feet creates additional problems relative to the Minnesota State Building Code regarding fire resistant structures and discouraged the petitioner from even making a request for a one foot setback. The petitioner, Mr. David Shepherd, addressed the Commission and stated his reasons for requesting the variance. Chair Felkner asked what Mr. Shepherd felt the hardship was for this variance. Mr. Shepherd stated that he needed the area for storage and did not want to give up any of his rear yard. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 1993 Page 9 A general discussion ensued among the Commissioners regarding how much space was available on the side of the garage and what other options might exist for construction. The Commission asked if the adjacent property owner was aware of the proposed variance. It was noted that the adjacent property owner has not been notified. The Commission asked the petitioner to discuss this situation with his neighbor to determine his feelings about it. Council Member Humphrey, who was in the audience, approached the Commission. He stated that he felt the neighborhood would be more comfortable with variances to allow garage additions on the side of the homes rather than to see freestanding garages in back yard areas. He suggested that this item might be tabled to allow Mr. Shepherd to speak to his neighbor. Mr. Shepherd stated that he would be willing to speak to his neighbor. The Planning Commission then tabled the item to reappear on the November 3rd agenda. B. Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Sales /Storage for Construction Materials Chair Felkner noted that during the break the petitioner for this item, Lamperts Lumber, indicated to Staff that they had another meeting which they had to attend and would be unable to remain for the conclusion of this evening's meeting. Lamperts therefore requested that this item be carried over to the November 3rd meeting for consideration. C. Utility Corridor and Substation This item is tabled until the report is prepared by Dakota Electric. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS - None - 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. Filling of Commission Vacancy Chair Felkner asked what the status was of the filling of Jim Norris' vacant position. Staff responded that there was at this time no documentation in the form of a letter from Mr. Norris actually tendering his resignation. Chair Felkner said that he would try to contact Mr. Norris to see what the delay was. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.