Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/19/1992PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY August 19, 1992 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Alan Felkner called the August 19, 1992 meeting of the City of Apple Valley Planning Commission to order at 7:35 p.m. Members Present: Chairman Alan Felkner, Jim Norris, Frank Blundetto, Marcia Gowling, and Karen Edgeton. Members Absent: Eugene Kitzman and Jeannine Churchill Staff Present: Zane Bail, Richard Kelley, and Scott Hickok Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The agenda was approved as amended by Staff. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 5, 1992 The Planning Commission made a motion to approve the minutes, four members supported and one abstained. 4. CONSENT AGENDA There were no consent agenda items for this meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Comprehensive Plan /Zoning Change from "RB" to "GB" LOCATION: NW Corner Granada Drive & 146th Street West PETITIONER: Valley Development Partnership (PC92- 068 -PZ) Richard Kelley presented materials regarding Lots 14, 15 & lb, Valley Commercial 2nd Addition. The proposal asks for a zoning change from the current "RB" (Retail Business) Zone to a "GB" (General Business) Zone. Kelley continued by stating that Granada Avenue divides the existing general business on the east from the existing retail business on the west. He further explained that one year ago the land uses were changed to reflect general business in this area due to the existing Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1992 Page 2 general business nature at that time and the City's perceived need for additional general business land in this area. Karen Edgeton asked what Lot 1 on the map is zoned. Lot 1 is the land south of 146th Street and Richard Kelley responded that it is a RB, Retail Business Zone. Member Gowling asked for an explanation of the general business district permitted uses. Kelley explained. Member Blundetto asked specifically which lots were included in the rezoning from retail business to general business last year. Rick Kelley responded by pointing to the lots east of Granada and indicated which of those lots had been changed to general business classification. Member Norris asked about Lot 8 on the map. Lot 8 is the vacant land south of the Mermaid and west of the existing Valley Olds operation. Tom Baker, representing Valley Olds, stated that there have been discussions regarding the purchase of that property but at this time, it appears that the Mermaid is not interested in selling that parcel. Baker continued by stating that there have been attempts to exchange parcels 1, 2, and 3 with lots 14, 15, and 16. Parcels 1, 2 and 3 are owned by the American Legion and hold the general business zoning classification. They are east of Granada across from the American Legion. Lots 14, 15, and 16 the subject of the rezoning request, are west of Granada south of the American Legion. Baker felt that the proximity of these lots would work better for both parties. The third point that Baker made was that with winter coming a building must be started. Valley Development Partnership is looking for land to build a body shop for the Valley Olds operation and in order to satisfactorily service their customers a new building must be constructed. Member Blundetto asked if this body shop will be open to all body work or just that associated with Valley Olds. Bernie Wagnild, representing Valley Olds, stated that the body shop would be the same as their existing body shop operation except for being off -site. They do their own body work associated with the Valley Olds business and also body work for individuals who come in looking for body work. Wagnild continued by stating that their current site does not allow them to expand the operation and at this time they feel that additional technology is necessary to be incorporated into the new body shop, including a drivability and electronic component department. Chairman Felkner asked how much outdoor storage would be required for vehicles that are being repaired on site. Bernie Wagnild indicated that he would be willing to work with Staff as he is not interested in developing a building that would have damaged vehicles and unsightly storage conditions surrounding it. Tom Baker indicated that the design details of the building have not been finalized and many of these questions will be answered when they finalize the design of the building. Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1992 Page 3 Member Edgeton stated that she does not feel that this building will have a detrimental impact on the area in which it is proposed. Karen did have a question about the buffering of this proposal from the three vacant lots adjacent to Pennock Avenue. Bernie Wagnild indicated that it would behoove Valley Olds to have appropriate screening from those parcels so that development could occur without unsightly conditions. Richard Kelley stated that outdoor storage requires a conditional use permit and issues of outdoor storage would come back through the conditional use permit process for the commissions approval. Kelley also stated that to the north of this proposed development is the American Legion and pointed out that the American Legion service area is immediately adjacent to the north property line of this proposed development, therefore the impacts of storage may not be great if it designed properly. Tom Baker stated that the property for the American Legion is owned by ABL Partnership and at this time the negotiations between ABL Partnership and Valley Olds have made a land swap unworkable. Baker did state that they would continue to work with them on the possibility. Bernie Wagnild stated that there are two separate components of this proposal. To have the three parcels east of Granada, currently owned by ABL Partnership, would be of some benefit due to its proximity to the existing Valley Olds operation. However the second aspect of this is that Valley Olds may be interested in the three undeveloped parcels between this proposal and Pennock Avenue for future development. Wagnild concluded by stating that in either case there is positive attributes to the locations. Wagnild does not feel that whether the body shop is one lot away or across this general business district would have a detrimental effect on whether or not clients would use the body shop. Karen Edgeton commented on the rezoning and she felt that the impacts would not be detrimental to this area. Tom Baker discussed other building proposals for this area and stated that the proposal will be compatible with some of the other proposals that he has heard being discussed. Edgeton asked for clarification as to whether the buildings to the north are retail business zoning. Richard Kelley responded that to the north there are some retail business parcels. Chairman Felkner asked for other public comment to which there was no response. Karen Edgeton asked the developers if time is a factor. Mr. Wagnild responded that Valley Olds architects are working on the drawings for the body shop and they hope to have those done by next week, in which case they would like to move ahead as quickly as possible to get the building in the ground before winter. Edgeton asked if they would like the Commission to act on the item tonight, both Baker and Wagnild responded that it would be preferable. MOTION: Karen Edgcton made a motion that the "RB" Retail Business District be rezoned to "GB" General Business on Lots 14, 15, and 16, Valley Commercial 2nd Addition. The motion was seconded and passed 5 - 0. Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1992 Page 4 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS Item 6A was withdrawn at the developers request. B. Sideyard Setback Variance for Porch Addition LOCATION: 14885 Echo Way PETITIONER: Betty Jane Westerman (PC92- 065 -V) Scott Hickok explained the proposal and stated that the conditions within the planned development 163, do not support a variance for a 3- season porch in this location. Hickok continued by stating that the 50' setback is typical throughout the development and there is no hardship unique to this site that other homeowners would not have on their site. Hickok did mention the letters from the medical experts indicating that the Westerman's do have a physical hardship related to health conditions that make it necessary to get sunlight and fresh air without having to exert a great deal of effort. Hickok concluded that although this hardship is real and a physical hardship, the hardship is to the individual and is not related to the land, therefore Staff recommends denial of the variance request. MOTION: Member Blundetto made a motion that due to the medical conditions of the owners of this property, a variance be approved for the screened porch addition. The motion was seconded and passed 5 - 0. C. Sideyard Setback Variance for Screened Porch LOCATION: 12045 Gantry Lane PETITIONER: William P. Gunckel (PC92- 064 -V) Scott Hickok presented the information regarding the setback proposal. The variance request would allow an encroachment into the sideyard of 2 feet for a screened porch. Hickok continued by stating the contractor that built this addition had told the homeowners that he would acquire the necessary building permits prior to construction. This did not happen and consequently the contractor built the screened porch in the sideyard setback area and completed construction without the benefit of inspection from the city's building staff. Hickok stated that the staff must review variances based on a physical hardship of land and that this screened porch dad not meet the criteria necessary for a recommendation of approval by staff, therefore staff recommends denial of the 2 foot encroachment in the sideyard of 12045 Gantry Lane. Mr. Gunckel, the homeowner at 12045 Gantry Lane, introduced himself and stated that his neighbors adjacent to this addition are fully in favor of the addition. Gunckel stated that their home is designed so that the garage faces the screened porch addition and the dwelling or living space is setback quite a distance from the addition. Gunckel handed out a packet of information including letters from neighbors that support the variance of this screened porch addition. This packet was received and accepted by the Planning Commission and is available in the original file for the Planning Commission meeting of August 19, 1992. Mr. Gunckel concluded by stating that he could demonstrate a hardship on his site due to an incident which left a close relative handicapped. The Gunckel family has specially designed their home with wider doorways, wider hallways, etc., and those modifications to their floor plan meant that their home was much wider than originally anticipated. Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1992 Page 5 MOTION: Commissioner Norris made a motion that due to the manner in which the homes are laid out adjacent to this proposal, and due to the lack of impact on neighbors and lack of resistance of the neighbors, that the 2 foot variance for this screened porch be approved. The motion was seconded and the recommendation of approval passed 5 - 0. D. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - To Allow Free - standing Auto Repair as a Conditional Use Permit in an "RB" Zone LOCATION: City of Apple Valley PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC92- 063 -0) Richard Kelley presented the information regarding auto repair facilities and the current zoning standards. Chairman Alan Felkner stated that this amendment would address concerns that Amoco expressed related to the Amoco Certicare in Apple Valley. A general discussion ensued. MOTION: Member Gowling motioned that we change the zoning ordinance to allow commercial auto repair in a retail business zone in accordance with the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded and passed 4 - 1. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS Richard Kelley presented the information regarding the police facility concept plan for downtown Apple Valley and stated that within the next month the landscape architects and construction manager will be preparing more specific plans for the Planning Commission and Council to review. Kelley pointed out that the front yard setback may become a variance request. He continued by stating that the current code requiresa 40 foot setback from 147th and Galaxie. Kelley continued by stating that downtown design guidelines encourage property owners to bring their front elevations closer to the pedestrian walkways and access points. The objective of this is to reduce the parking lot barrier area and to create a more pedestrian friendly downtown environment. Kelley pointed out that the Apple Valley theater was originally placed within 20 feet of the right -of -way. However, with the installation of walkways, trees, etc., the building is as close as 10 feet to those improvements. Kelley concluded by stating that the Commission may want to consider a downtown zoning amendment that allows buildings to be set closer if the scale and design of the building is appropriate. The staff expects that a site plan and variance request may be submitted to the Planning Commission in September of 1992. A general discussion ensued regarding the police facility proposal. Chairman Alan Felkner stated that he felt we should hold the line on our downtown setback requirements. Felkner continued by stating that we should be adhering to the same standards that a private developer would be required to adhere to. Member Edgeton asked why this is appropriate, and could the building be redesigned to provide a 40 foot setback. Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 1992 Page 6 Member Norris stated that he felt the City should sharpen its pencils and come back with a proposal that meets the 40 foot setback. A general discussion ensued. No recommendation was necessary. 8. OTHER BUSINESS - None - 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.