Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/16/1992PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY September 16, 1992 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Alan Felkner called the September 16, 1992 meeting of the City of Apple Valley Planning Commission to order at 7.35 pm. Members Present- Chairman Alan Felkner, Frank Blundetto, Marcia Gowling, and Jim Norris. Members Absent: Jeannine Churchill, Karen Edgeton, and Eugene Kitzman. Staff Present: Richard Kelley, Scott Hickok, Meg McMonigal, LonAune, and Dennis Welsch. Others Present: Mayor Bill Holton, Captain Terry Cook, and others as per the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The agenda was approved as written. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 2, 1992 MEETING The minutes of the September 2, 1992 meeting were approved 4 - 0. 4. CONSENT AGENDA - None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Conditional Use Permit for 2 Major Tenant /Anchor Signs at Apple Valley Square; Variance to Required Sign Face Materials LOCATION: County Road 42 and Cedar Avenue South PETITIONER Sign Consultants, Inc. (PC92- 078 -C) STAFF REPORT: Scott Hickok, dated September 16, 1992 Associate Planner Scott Hickok provided a background report in which he described the request for a conditional use permit to allow 2 major anchor /center signs and to replace an existing pylon sign at Apple Valley Square Shopping Center located at Cedar Avenue and County Road 42. He noted that two variances would be required: a 20 -foot variance from the 300 -foot minimum spacing between free - standing signs and a variance to allow for the use of Lexan face panels rather than individual back -fit letters within the sign Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 1992 Page 2 Associate Planner Hickok illustrated the comparisons between the Target Greatland major anchor tenant sign and pylon signs throughout the downtown. He described the need and incentives for such large signs and the differences between the major anchor tenant sign and a normal pylon sign which merely requires a sign permit. The Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit to allow for major anchor tenant sign provided: 1) The sign location is such that the spacing between signs is 280 feet. 2) The Lexan faces are replaced with individual back -lit letters or aluminum faced routered letters. 3) A landscape plan is submitted and approved for the base of the signs. 4) All other provisions of City Code Section 6- 105(g) are complied with. In addition the Staff recommended denial of the request for the variance to the sign spacing and to the sign face materials. Member Gowling asked for clarification regarding the landscape plans and landscaping within the downtown. A general discussion ensued regarding the need for a landscape plan and the trees planted along the City right -of -ways. Member Blundetto asked for clarification regarding the design of Lexan signs as compared to other signs in the downtown. He asked if there was any consideration for the design of the building or age of the building when considering new signs. Mr. Michael O'Rourke, representing Apple Valley Shopping Center, stated that the shopping center owners intend to modernize the signage throughout the shopping center site. They have concerns with the Staff report relating to location and the use of Lexan signs. The shopping center owners are concerned about the movement of the location for the major anchor tenant sign to a location further south on the site. The sign location would require new electrical extensions and would create confusion about the main entrance to the shopping center. Mr. O'Rourke stated the Lexan face signs would be used for five tenants which are larger than 10,000 square feet in size. Each individual letter was used on a brick background, as the tenants changed the lettering would have to change, thereby creating many holes where the new and old lettering would be interchanged on the brick face. He stated that the tenants prefer the Lexan pan faces. However, the shopping center management is not adverse to using an aluminum face with Lexan letters. O'Rourke noted that the current sign is 28 -feet tall and that the shopping center needs a sign of this size in order to be visible from the street and through the street trees planted by the City. He stated that the signs will cost between $40,000 - $50,000 each without the Lexan pan faces added. Member Blundetto asked for clarification regarding the reasons for modernizing the signs. Mr. O'Rourke responded that the signs were being modernized at the request of tenants, but that the existing signs could last at least another 15 years. Chairman Felkner asked the applicants to review the Staff recommendations and comply with the landscape requirements prior to sending the issue to the City Council. Mr. O'Rourke stated that the shopping center is renovating its landscape plan to eliminate tall shrubs, thereby allowing for better visibility of the center. Mr. Blundetto asked for clarification regarding the use of 2- square foot directional signage at the entrances to the shopping center. Associate Planner Hickok described the allowable entry and directional signage. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 Page 3 A general discussion ensued regarding tree heights and line of sight to the buildings. Member Blundetto asked for clarification regarding the use of the existing sign. Associate Planner Hickok explained that if the existing sign was to be completely rebuilt, it would have to meet the current standards of the code which requires a 24-foot maximum height and a reduced square footage from what is currently on the pylon sign. Chairman Felkner asked for comment from the public. There was no comment. Chairman Felkner closed the public hearing, no action was taken. 5B. Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Building Permit Setbacks and Site Design in the Downtown Area LOCATION: City of Apple Valley PETITIONER City of Apple Valley (PC92- 073 -0) STAFF REPORT: Richard Kelley, dated September 16, 1992 Chairman Alan Felkner opened the public hearing and asked City Planner Richard Kelley to provide a background report regarding proposed ordinance amendments. Kelley stated that the amendments proposed would reduce the minimum building setback to public streets for commercial and institutional uses in the downtown area. These amendments would establish new design standards to require the setback area between a street and a building to contain pedestrian sidewalks and plazas as well as landscaping. As an alternate building placement with parking lots between the building and the street, a pedestrian sidewalk or plaza adjacent to the front of the building would have to be constructed to allow pedestrians to get to the building without crossing a parking lot. Kelley described each proposed amendment to the code and answered questions regarding the correlation of the proposed amendment to the downtown design standards. He stated that the overall goal of providing a reduced setback is to create a more pedestrian - friendly human scale downtown streetscape. A general discussion ensued among Planning Commission members. The Commission asked for more detail and graphic illustrations of the proposed setback amendments. No public comment was offered. Chairman Alan Felkner closed the public hearing. Staff was directed to provide more detail at succeeding meetings. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Park Hill - Comprehensive Plan Change from "LD" to "SF, Rezoning from "M -6C" to "R -3" and Preliminary Plat for 8 Lots LOCATION- Northeast Corner of Pilot Knob & Elkwood Drive PETITIONER George Houston (PC92- 069 -Z) STAFF REPORT: Meg McMonigal, dated September 16, 1992 Associate Planner Meg McMonigal presented background information regarding the proposed change of a 5.25 acre multi- family area to a single -family housing site, located on the south side of Farquar Park. McMonigal reviewed the site conditions and answered questions that had been asked at the public hearing held on September 2, 1992. She noted that the City Park and Recreation Committee had reviewed the site and does not have the funds to acquire the additional land. The Park Plan illustrates that the existing Farquar Park adequately serves the neighborhood without the additional space. The Park Department has also reviewed the Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 1992 Page 4 playground equipment and will be moving the playground equipment approximately 30 yards to the north later in the Fall of 1992. Property lines, which exist between the park and the proposed 8 lot subdivision, are clearly staked now. The Park Department had inadvertently mowed more land and grass than was within the Park boundaries in the past few years. The Park Commission, after reviewing the plat on September 15, noted that the lot plans and grading plan should clearly identify how large of a slope will occur between the park and the new homes on the south edge of the site. The Park Department responded to the need for fences along the park boundary by stating that in most cases fences are too expensive, they are not aesthetically pleasing, and they require maintenance. Therefore the Park Department rarely installs fences along the edge of parks. Meg McMonigal presented information regarding the need for a 30 -foot wide utility easement along the front of each of the 8 lots in order to extend sewer and water properly into these sites and to convert the sewer and water stubs from use for townhouses to use for single -family homes. In addition, she reported on the need to remove the existing 4-foot sidewalk along the front of each of the lots and to replace it after all construction is done with a 5 -foot wide sidewalk. Member Norris asked for clarification regarding the utility lines for townhouses in comparison to single - family homes. Project Engineer Lon Anne explained the utility layouts and the need for different locations for sewer and water lines because of poor soils and deep pipes. Meg McMonigal recommended changing the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density Multi- Family to Single Family; changing the City's Zoning Map from "M6-C" to "R -T; and recommended approval of the preliminary plat with the following conditions: 1) A 30 -foot wide utility easement be created along the front of each lot. 2) The 4 -foot existing sidewalk be replaced with a 5 -foot sidewalk. 3) The housing pads, first floor elevations, and grading plan be completed prior to submission of the final plat. 4) Lot 1 must be adjusted to meet the size requirements stipulated by the Department of Natural Resources. Myron Partington,13415 Elkwood, asked for consideration of safety problems along the south property line of the park. He expressed concern with the 15 -foot distance between the park path and the steep edge of the lots. McMonigal responded that the park users in that area generally use the picnic shelter. The homes placed adjacent to the park will have to live with the added noise and activity adjacent to their backyards. MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend approval of a Comprehensive Plan change from "LD" to "SF". The motion carried 4 - 0. MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend changing the zoning designation on the site from "M -6C" to 'R -3 ". The motion carried 4 - 0. MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the Staff conditions as stipulated by McMonigal. The motion carried 4 - 0. Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 1992 Page 5 6B. LOCATION: PET TIONEM STAFF REPORT: Burnet Realty Site Plan and Building Permit Authorization 14420 Glenda Drive Bruce W. Schmitt and Assoc., PA. (PC92 -077 -B) Richard Kelley, dated September 16, 1992 Richard Kelley provided a background report in which he described the site landscaping and building elevations for the proposed Burnet Realty building. The building would be constructed of brick and would be approximately 16, 000 square feet in size, m a two-story design. Kelley noted that some additional planting should be installed along Cedar Avenue to buffer the parking lot and a cash escrow or assessment agreement should be provided to pay for future City installation of Cedar Avenue pathway and Glenda Drive sidewalks. The site plan should show a sidewalk connection to a future pathway and sidewalk along both Cedar Avenue and Glenda Drive. In addition, the Commission should consider the differences between the proposed signage plan with ground sign and one building sign. The petitioner would prefer to substitute a second ground sign for all permitted building signs. Kelley noted that this request appears reasonable for double frontage lots and for buildings with unique design details in which signage on the building would reduce the impact of the architectural design. City Planner Kelley recommended approval of the site plan and building permit authorization, in accordance with the submitted site, landscape, grading, and elevation plans subject to: 1) Documentation of landscape cost equal to or greater than 2 -1/2% of the building construction. 2) A cash escrow or assessment agreement to pay for the cost of future pathway and sidewalk along Cedar Avenue and Glenda Drive. 3) Site plans amended to accommodate internal sidewalk connections to future pathways and sidewalks along Cedar Avenue and Glenda Drive. Kelley also requested that the Commission provide some direction regarding the issues of ground sign versus building signs. Mr. Bruce Schmitt, architect for the project, stated that the clients preferred an agreement for future assessments for sidewalks and pathways. He noted that he will contact Williams Pipeline regarding potential plantings along the east edge of the parking area. Williams' approval is necessary in order to plant within the pipeline easement. He requested the Planning Commission to consider the ground sign for the entrance to the parking lot along Glenda Drive. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to recommend approval of the site plan and building permit authorization as per the Staff conditions and recommendations. The motion carried 4 -0. MOTION: Member Gowling moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to recommend changing the sign code to allow for ground signage in lieu of building face signs in locations were there is distinctive architecture or potential for visual identity on a double faced lot. The Staff was directed to prepare language for such an amendment and to present it to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. The motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 1992 Page 6 6C. Police Facility Site Plan and Building Permit Authorization LOCATION: SW Corner Galaxie Avenue and 147th Street West PETITIONER City of Apple Valley (PC92- 071 -B) STAFF REPORT- Dennis Welsch, dated September 9, 1992 Community Development Director Dennis Welsch provided a background report in which he discussed the City Police Facility proposal to construct a two -story, 9,000 square foot per floor, building to be located on the SW comer of 147th Street and Galaxie Avenue. The first phase of this project would include construction of a police facility and parking for 156 vehicles, which is enough to meet the City Code if and when a new City Hall is built on this site. The construction time for a second phase of the project is indefinite at this time. A driveway connection from City Hall parking lot to the county parking lot and circulation system would be constructed in the future when the County expands its system. Welsch explained that the project meets or exceeds all site planning, building materials, landscape and parking codes of the City with the exception of the front yard setback. The current codes in the downtown require a 40 -foot setback from 147th Street. The proposed site plan allows for a 20 -foot setback from the front (147th Street) property line. Therefore, a 20 -foot variance or other type of approval would be necessary. Welsch noted that other buildings in the area have reduced setbacks, such as the Apple Valley Theatre, the VenStar Building, the Sports Clinic and, the Natwick Building. Welsch recommended approval of the site plan and the building permit authorization for phase I of the City facility with a front setback minimum of 20 -feet from the sidewalk easement or the property line. A signage plan meeting the City Code must still be submitted. A general discussion ensued regarding the design issues related to the building and the setbacks of the police building in comparison to the setbacks of other buildings along, 147th Street. Members of the Commission felt there were other ways of redesigning the building to meet the sidewalk setbacks and provide a front face of the building on 147th Street. Mayor Holton suggested putting the building on the site as per the City Codes or the current allowable setbacks. He noted that the south half of the site is occupied by a second phase called the City Administration wing, which has not been designed to as great of detail or tolerance as the police facility. Therefore, the south portion of the design called phase II of the City Facility, could be redesigned to meet setbacks. Captain Terry Cook stated that the site is very small but the Commission should consider how this site will work in the future. He noted that the project could be designed as one -story building but would be ineffective on this site. Member Gowling asked for clarification regarding the materials on the garage side of the building. Captain Cook explained the materials to be a pre -cast concrete material. A general discussion ensued regarding the location of the building on one side of the site (west side) versus placing the building on the east side of the site at the comer of Galaxie and 147th Street. Captain Cook explained that a concern of the designers and the police department is to conceal or provide secure space for police vehicles entering the building at the garage and evidence level. Member Blundetto asked for further clarification regarding the reasons for a one -story building versus a two -story building. Mayor Holton explained the differences between the Commons 11 site, the existing City Hall site, and the proposed police facility site. Planning Commission Minutes September 16, 1992 Page 7 The Planning Commission reviewed a video illustration of the City Police Facility Project that was prepared by City Video Consultant, Macromedia. After a general discussion, Chairman Alan Felkner called a special meeting of the Planning Commission for 7.30 p.m. on September 23 at City Hall. At which time the following items will be discussed: 1) The site plan for the police facility and the setbacks for the proposed building. 2) A discussion with the architects of the project. 3) Staking of the building on the site by the City Project Engineers for a reconfiguration of the video in order to correct the view from 147th Street. 4) A review of the proposed ordinance allowing for setbacks up to 20 feet. No further action was taken. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:12 p.m.