Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/1993CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 17, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission Meeting of November 17, 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: Chairman Alan Felkner, Marcia Gowling, Jeannine Churchill, Len Miller, Karen Edgeton, Frank Blundetto (arrived 9:50 p.m.). Stab Present: John Gretz, Keith Gordon, Mike Dougherty, Ken Brackee, Scott Hickok, and Richard Kelley. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Felkner asked if there were any additions or deletions to the draft agenda as submitted. There being none, he called for approval of the agenda. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Churchill, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried 5 - 0. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 3, 1993 Chair Felkner asked if there were any suggested amendments to the draft minutes as submitted. There being none, he called for approval of the minutes. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Churchill, to approve the minutes of November 17, 1993 as submitted. Motion carried 5 - 0. 4. CONSENT AGENDA - None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Huntington Ridge Garden Homes Chair Felkner reconvened the hearing with the standard remarks and requested people wishing to address the Commission to use the podium and microphone so that home television viewers could hear questions. Associate Planner Scott Hickok introduced the item. He explained the current zoning, the initial proposal for 60 townhouse dwelling units, the designation on the city's comprehensive plan for up to six units per acre multifamily, the manner in which density is computed, and noted that the development as proposed is less than six units per acre. Mr. Hickok then reviewed the public comments received at the former public hearing. In response to comments concerning our over concentration of multifamily units in this neighborhood, he presented information Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1993 Page 2 and graphics concerning the breakdown of multifamily versus single family and other uses on a square mile by square mile basis in the city. Regarding concerns over traffic generation, he noted that the revised plan does not allow through traffic, but rather d the multifamily traffic to Pilot Knob Road and Diamond Path. Mr. Hickok noted that comments on the impact on the existing wetland and pond have been reviewed by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). A small sedimentation pond meeting the standards of the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) is now being shown at the bottom of the slope to receive the runoff prior to discharge into the wetland area. Regarding the comments of too many multifamily units in one area and the aesthetics of the neighborhood, Mr. Hickok noted that some of the units have been shifted slightly east toward Pilot Knob Road, and that one 8 -unit building had been changed to two 4 -unit buildings, and that one 8 -unit building had been eliminated completely to be replaced by 3 single family lots. Regarding questions of resale values, Mr. Hickok displayed information received from MIS regarding time for resale. This information indicated that attached or townhouse units actually sold a few more days quicker than traditional single family homes. On the issue regarding landscaping, Mr. Hickok noted that the City ordinance requires that landscaping equal to or exceeding 2 -1/2 % of the construction value of the townhome units would have to be installed. This landscaping would be placed to maximize their effectiveness in screening headlights from the townhome drive areas to the rear yard areas of the existing single family homes. Regarding the question of "trust" in the developer, Mr. Hickok responded that the plan prepared by the developer appears to be made in good faith based within the perimeters identified in the city's comprehensive guide plan for this property. Regarding the question over the decline in property values, Mr. Hickok noted that real estate authorities find no such decline as long as the multifamily housing project is designed properly and has adequate off -street parking. On the question regarding density, Mr. Hickok noted that from a total of 60 dwelling units the proposal has been reduced to 55 dwelling units. On the issue regarding water pressure, Mr. Hickok noted that water pressure is not affected by the number of units in any given area, but rather by the relative elevation of a dwelling unit to the elevation of the water reservoir. On the issue regarding the degradation of the natural environment, Mr. Hickok noted that development of this or any other property for any particular use will result in a change. This issue is whether or not the change on the land meets established local, regional and state standards which serve to preserve the most significant features of the existing environment. On the question regarding access of delivery vehicles and garbage trucks on the dead end driveways, Mr. Hickok responded that adequate room exists for the delivery and garbage trucks to access the units and turn around. There would also be an opportunity for garbage pickup to occur at the end of the common driveways rather than in front of each dwelling unit. This would be up to the individual homeowners association. Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1993 Page 3 On the question regarding the size of the existing storm water holding pond and potential damage to trees around its perimeter, Mr. Hickok noted that the pond is at its established elevation at this time, based on the overflow pipe. On the issue of maintenance of townhomes, Mr. Hickok noted that the City does have an outreach program to assist associations in understanding the most cost effective manner to maintain their homes. He also stated that the City had received several telephone calls from townhouse association members who had viewed the previously televised public hearing. He stated that these association members objected to the characterization of townhomes as being improperly maintained. Commissioner Churchill asked if the MLS listings related only to existing dwelling units, or both existing and newly constructed units. She felt that if the information included new units, it would skew the actual time of sales for older units. She asked what the percentage of green space was on the site, versus the amount of land devoted to building area and paving. She asked if the individual driveways would hold up to the weight of a garbage packer. Commissioner Churchill also asked what species of trees appeared to be dying around the existing holding pond. City Forester Ken Brackee responded that these trees were made up predominantly of cottonwood and willow. Commissioner Edgeton asked a question over the "green paver system" to be constructed for the emergency vehicle turnaround. She also asked where the edge of the ponding easement was. City Engineer Keith Gordon noted that the edge of the easement actually is higher than the normal water elevation of the pond, which is controlled by the pipe outlet. Commissioner Miller asked what the sales price of the proposed Rottlund units would be. Commissioner Gowling asked if there was a rendering of the proposed townhome units. Mr. Todd Stutz, representing Rottlund Homes, attempted to answer the questions of the Commissioners. He stated that the one -story townhome units would range from 1100 to 1200 square feet and would sell from $85,000- $95,000 each. He stated that the single family homes would sell for a minimum price of between $130,000- $140,000. Mr. Stutz stated that the private roadway system would be built to City standards and could withstand the weight of a garbage packer. However, the individual driveway aprons in front of each townhouse dwelling unit would not support this much weight. He stated that specific driveway aprons could be identified as an authorized turnaround area and could be upgraded to withstand the weight. Regarding the MLS statistics, Mr. Stutz noted that the vast majority of single family and townhome builders do not participate in the MLS program. Instead, they have their own sales forces and method of recordkeeping. He stated that the numbers and statistics from the MIS service were quite accurate regarding the sales of existing dwelling units. Mr. Stutz stated that regarding the density calculations, they believe that their proposed unit designs meet all the criteria to receive density bonuses as stipulated within the city zoning ordinance. He noted that the outdoor private space bonus for the dwelling units at the end of each building would be met through the use of a minimum 4-foot high, 60% opaque picket fence. He stated that the double party wall construction between units would result in an STC rating of between 55 and 59. He stated that fireplaces are standard in all townhouse dwellings. He went on to state that the "2 x 4" wall construction discussion that occurred at the Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1993 Page 4 previous public hearing represented some confusion over construction standards between external walls and the internal walls between dwelling units. Chair Felkner then opened the public hearing to public comment. Brad Burke, 12730 Edinbrook Path, asked about the proposed plat concerning the proposed 3 single family lots; why are these recommended not to be zoned at this time. Associate Planner Hickok responded that a request to rezone this property to a single family district was not included in the original petition. Mr. Burke stated that his idea of a compatible land use would be a dwelling unit of a similar architectural style of a similar size and price. Mr. Burke asked if a display could be prepared to better indicate what the landscape screening would look like when it was initially planted, and at maturity. Mr. Burke stated that he was the member of the audience who raised the issue at the previous public hearing regarding the length of time it takes to sell a single family home versus a townhome. He felt that what he had now learned led him to believe that all M1S statistics were not accurate. Mr. Burke asked how access to the sedimentation pond would occur and who would be responsible for its maintenance. He also asked who would be responsible to replace the landscape plantings in the townhome area if they should die in the future. Keith Chapman, 12691 Edinborough Way, stated that his house had been built by the Centex Corporation, and that he was told that the Rottlund Villa Townhome area would likely be expanded to the north into this property. He stated that while he knew it was likely this area would be built with townhomes, he still felt the area would be overbuilt with multifamily and that single family uses would be more appropriate. He stated that if townhomes had to be built here, they should be more expensive. Joel Jacobs, 12687 Edgemont Curve, stated that in his opinion, Section 13 still has too many multiple dwelling units. He asked if the NURP pond would remove fertilizer from runoff and preserve the natural wetland area. Mr. Jacobs also raised the issue of screening and landscaping again. Chair Felkner called for a break at 9:08 p.m. Chair Felkner reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Mr. Felkner noted that during the break, residents had voiced the opinion that there was not adequate notice over the timing of development for this property. Mr. Felkner noted that it is the right of the developer and land owner to proceed with the development proposal when they feel that market conditions are appropriate for construction. He stated that the application for development begins the formal public hearing process, which is the notice period. Debra Smith, 12661 Durango Place, thanked Chair Felkner for his explanation regarding the process. She stated that while the Planning Commission is concerned over development issues concerning the entire city, their concern is mostly for development issues in their neighborhood. She asked if the city's comprehensive plan included any type of mission statement regarding the continued maintenance of a rural atmosphere in Apple Valley. She also asked if there was any reason why single family uses on this property could not be looked into at this time. She felt that if townhomes were to be built, there should be more green space. The units' appearance should be improved and the price or value of the units should be raised. Tom Bublitz, 5155 127th Street West, stated that in neighborhood discussions the area of greatest concern was that of traffic. He stated that the development as proposed, with a closed cul -de -sac on the 127th Street side, was more desirable than if the property were used for all single family but had a through connection of 127th Street to Pilot Knob Road. He stated that the land use maps show a large concentration of multifamily Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1993 Page 5 uses along the major road corridors. He stated that while this may or may not be the most appropriate land use, he thought the City should re- evaluate it. Chair Felkner asked Staff to prepare information at the next meeting regarding the traffic generation for single family units versus townhome units, and how this related to the land use determinations on the comprehensive plan. Brenda Bublitz, 5155 127th Street West, asked what the difference was between a restrictive access easement and a scenic easement. She also had a question on the actual height of the proposed berm along the boundary with the single family lots. She stated that the cul -de -sac on the 127th Street side adequately addresses the neighborhood's concern over traffic. She stated that any neighborhood has a transition line between uses. She asked if this transition area could be improved to work better. She suggested such things as requiring the end townhome units to be more expensive or to increase the setbacks or landscape requirements. Chair Felkner closed the public hearing at this time with the standard closing remarks and noted that no decision would be made this evening. Commissioner Gowling asked Staff what the setback distance to a single family lot was from the A, B or C multifamily zoning categories. Staff responded that the A setback was 75 feet, the B setback was 50 feet, and the C setback was 40 feet. Commissioner Gowling then asked the developer why they requested the C category. Mr. Stutz responded that he believed that the land use on the parcel and the proposed townhome product were in accordance with city development policies. Commissioner Miller stated that he felt that the section by section density analysis would be more meaningful if all unbuildable land were subtracted from each section. He stated that he also believes that the value of adjacent housing units should also be similar. Chair Felkner noted that while the proposal falls within the 3-6 units per acre guide of the comprehensive plan, it is near the top of that range. If the density were reduced somewhat, he felt that the neighborhood would be more accepting of the proposal. Commissioner Edgeton asked if City Forester Brackee could provide more information regarding landscape requirements in multifamily areas versus single family lots. Commissioner Churchill stated that she believed the units in the southwest corner adjacent to the existing single family lots should be "upscaled" to be more compatible with those single family homes. 5B. Centex - Fischer Development Chair Felkner opened the public hearing with the standard remarks. City Planner Richard Kelley presented the item. This development includes an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan land use guide map, a rezoning, and a preliminary plat for 150 single family lots. Mr. Kelley noted that the only unresolved issues at this time involve whether or not an extension of existing sidewalks on the stub streets surrounding the development should occur, the extent of landscaping necessary along the western trailway connection to 140th Street by the city well house, the most appropriate location to tie in the sanitary sewer trunk, and the relocation of the existing Williams Brothers Pipeline and City water trunk line on the east side of the property. Chair Felkner asked that an analysis be done regarding the impact that this proposed development would have on the City's goal of achieving a mix of different housing types. He also noted that the plan showed a total of five cul -de -sacs and questioned whether this number was excessive for the amount of acreage being developed. Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1993 Page 6 Mr. Dan Blake of Centex Homes noted that this layout represented a refinement of a working layout that had more cul -de -sacs. He also stated that the types of homes to be constructed on these lots come from their "designer' series which would be very similar to the types of homes that they constructed in the Westchester neighborhood on the east side of the city. These homes would sell in a range from $130,000 to $200,000. He stated that he would supply the city with a copy of the brochure and floor plans for these homes. Chair Felkner then opened the hearing for public comment. Ray Current, 6440137th Street West, expressed concern over the manner in which the Williams Brothers Pipeline would be reconstructed on the east side of the property. He also stated that his property abuts the proposed development and does not wish to have the land next to his lot leveled off. Mike Drobek, 13645 Findley Avenue, stated that he is in favor of this area being developed for single family homes as proposed, rather than the current comprehensive plan designation for low density multiple. Karen Roed -Rich, 13535 Flint Lane, asked about the lot sizes in this development, and whether they would be compatible with the existing Greenleaf Park Estates neighborhood. She asked if there would be any "transition" lot sizes between neighborhoods. She also stated that the current condition of the undeveloped property adjacent to the lots in Greenleaf Park Estates II had some drainage problems and hoped that the development of the land would correct this situation. She said that she would like to see sidewalks constructed on Flint Lane and on the through street connection to 14011 Street. She asked who would be responsible for maintaining the ponds and planting areas at the entry point onto 140th Street, as well as the plantings on the berms along 140th Street. She asked why City well sites proposed to be located within the development couldn't be moved elsewhere in the City. Finally, she asked if the City had a minimum square footage requirement for single family homes. City Engineer Keith Gordon stated that the City's water treatment plant at the central maintenance facility on the opposite side of 140th Street needed to receive its water supply from a system of pump houses in relatively close proximity. For this reason, the well houses could not be scattered throughout the entire city. He also noted that the current type of pump being used is known as a submersible pump. This type of pump does not require a well house, but rather an above ground control box and access enclosure which looks similar to a garbage can. Landscaping would be installed adjacent to these physical improvements. There being no other comments, Chair Felkner closed the public hearing, noting that there would be no action on this item this evening. 5C. Avsur Acres Chair Felkner opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Scott Hickok presented the request which entails a rezoning and preliminary plat with six lots. Two of these lots would be occupied by existing single family homes. The center most of these lots would have access to Pennock Avenue over a private driveway easement. Four lots would be constructed on the east side of the property, adjacent to Cedar Avenue, and would be served by a street connection from the Hall-wood Highlands neighborhood on the south to the Highpoint neighborhood on the north. Mr. Hickok noted that there is no alternative manner of providing a street access to the existing single family home located in the middle of the property, which is why a private easement is being considered. He also noted that it is the City's policy to require installation of municipal utilities and street improvements to serve lots at the time that they are finally platted and subdivided. Commissioner Churchill asked if the old driveway would be closed off and removed when the new private driveway easement is filed. Mr. Hickok stated that it is unknown at this time. Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1993 Page 7 Commissioner Edgeton asked if there was anything that would prevent a further subdivision of Lot 1, adjacent to Pennock Avenue, which would be the largest of the lots in the plat. She asked if it could be left as an R -1 zone to preclude further subdivision. Commissioner Churchill stated that she felt the location of the proposed private driveway easement would have an adverse impact on the rearyard area of the lots in the Hallwood Highland neighborhood located to the south. She said that she would prefer a more central location for this driveway easement. At this time Chair Felkner opened the public hearing for public comment. Ron Pendzimas, 15016 Peteler Lane, Minnetonka, stated that he was representing the owner of the property, Andrew Adelman. He stated that he was very surprised to hear that the installation of utilities and road on the east side of the property would be required at the time of final platting. He stated that the sale of the property did not anticipate construction of these improvements, and he objected to the imposition of the requirement. Don Moran, 7609 133rd Street West, stated that he was the individual that wished to buy the east portion of this property in order to preserve it in its undeveloped state. He stated that he was opposed to extending the roadway through the property at this time. Mike Thelen, 7665133rd Street West, stated that he did not believe the roadway extension was necessary at this time to serve the neighborhood. There being no further public comment on this issue, Chair Felkner closed the hearing with the standard remarks, stating that there would be no recommendation or action on the item this evening. 51). Woodwinds Second Addition Chair Felkner opened the public hearing. City Planner Richard Kelley reviewed the request which involves a rezoning from R -1 to R -CL and a preliminary plat to reconfigure four existing single family lots into five single family lots which would be served by a new public street access. Mr. Kelley stated that the reason this property is being considered for redevelopment and replatting is to facilitate the construction of the 138th Street access into the 80 acre Woodwind project directly to the south. It was noted that under the R -CL category the minimum front setback would be 25 feet, and a few of the lots would be allowed to have a narrower than usual width at the front yard line adjacent to the new cul -de -sac. This was also the case in the Woodwinds First Addition, which was also zoned R -CL with these types of performance standards. Commissioner Blundetto asked if the location of the new cul -de -sac on 138th Street provided enough distance to allow motor vehicle stacking prior to them entering Pilot Knob Road. Planner Kelley stated that the distance between the cul -de -sac and Pilot Knob Road was sufficient to accommodate vehicle stacking. Frank Dc ueden,13644 Prot Knob Road, stated that he was concerned over the impact the development of this property might have on the low area on the north property line. This north property line is adjacent to his property on Pilot Knob Road. It was noted that the proposed development would direct the majority of the drainage on the cul -de -sac to the south, which would then be picked up by future storm sewer improvements to be installed as part of the subsequent Woodwind Additions. The net effect is that no additional drainage should be directed to this low area between the properties. There being no further public comment, Chair Felkner then closed the hearing. Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1993 Page S Brian Olsen, representing the developer Lundgren Bros. Homes, stated that if it was possible they would like to have the Commission take action on the item this evening. The Commission felt that this minor project did not have any unresolved issues and could be acted on. MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to approve the rezoning from R -1 to R -CL. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to approve the preliminary plat of the Woodwinds Second Addition as submitted. The motion carried unanim ously. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Site Plan and Building Permit for Hansen Veterinary Clinic Associate Planner Hickok presented the proposed development. A similar site plan and building permit authorization had occurred some time ago at the end of 1990, but the approval for that project has lapsed. The petitioner is now re- requesting approval for the veterinary clinic project. Mr. Hickok noted that some of the City's ordinances and design guidelines have changed since the initial review. This development, therefore, must be revised to conform to those requirements. The proposed building elevation shows a combination of brick and stucco; the current standards require all brick. Current development standards also encourage pedestrian connections from commercial buildings to public street sidewalks. Staff is therefore recommending that a sidewalk be constructed along the western boundary of the property between County Road 42 and Garrett Avenue. Mr. Hickok also noted that because the veterinary clinic use requires only a limited number of parking stalls, if the building were converted to a different limited business office use, there would not be sufficient parking to allow 100% occupancy of the building. Therefore, it is suggested that some type of covenant or notice be filed on the land to notify a future owner of this situation. Kurt Walter- Hansen, the veterinarian proposing this project, made a brief presentation to the Commission. He noted that he understood that the building would have to be revised to have a complete brick surface, but stated that he did not feel that a sidewalk connection was necessary. He stated that he could not imagine any of his potential customers coming to his office without the use of an automobile. Consequently, he felt that the sidewalk would likely serve the general public rather than his paying customers. Mr. Hansen also stated that he was uncomfortable with the requirement of filing a covenant against the property regarding the parking issue. He stated that if the building were to be sold, he believed it would be the responsibility of the purchaser to determine whether or not there were enough parking stalls for the use that they would like to place in the building. Finally, he stated that he wished to modify the northeast comer of the building to eliminate the outside trash enclosure wall by expanding the size of the building. He stated that his use generates very little trash, which could be kept inside the building rather than placed outside. There was a general discussion among the Commission regarding the possible tabling of this item in order that revised plans could be prepared for their review. Mr. Hansen stated that due to the onset of winter, he would like this project to receive consideration and approval as quickly as possible in order to facilitate its construction. The Commission agreed to pass the item on, but cautioned that unless detailed revised plans were available for the City Council, this item might simply be tabled at the Council level. Mr. Hansen questioned why all brick would be necessary at this time, if a prior approval had been made that showed only partial brick. It was explained to Mr. Hansen that there is a time limit on approvals so that projects that do not go forward do not have an indefinite approval period. Planning Commission Minutes November 17, 1993 Page 9 MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to approve the building permit request subject to an all brick exterior and a covenant or restriction filed regarding the parking on the property, but deleting the requirement for the sidewalk installation. The motion was approved unanimously. S. OTHER BUSINESS A. Adopt 1994 Meeting Calendar MOTION: Member Churchill moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to adopt the 1994 meeting calendar and application deadline list. The motion carried unanimously. 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 11:56 p.m.