Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/1992PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY October 7, 1992 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Alan Felkner called the Planning Commission meeting of October 7, 1992 to order at 7:33 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Members Present: Chairman Felkner, Eugene Kitzman, Karen Edgeton, Frank Blundetto, and Jeannine Churchill. Members Absent- Marcia Gowling and Jim Norris. Staff Present: Richard Kelley, Scott Hickok, Lon Anne, and Dennis Welsch. Others Present: Michael O'Rourke, Tom Ruvelson, Bill Diedrich, Herb and Elaine Wensmann, Gregory and Corrine Jensen, and Quinn Hutson. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA City Planner Richard Kelley reported that Item 6C, the Burow setback variance had been withdrawn. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to approve the agenda and to withdraw Item 6C as per the applicant's wish. The motion carried unanim ously. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 16 AND SEPTEMBER 23 MEETINGS MOTION. Member Kitzman moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to approve the minutes of the September 16, 1992 meeting. The motion carried 3 - 0 with Members Churchill and Edgeton abstaining. MOTION. Member Kitzman moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to approve the minutes of the September 23 special meeting. The motion carried 4 - 0 with Member Churchill abstaining. 4. CONSENT AGENDA A. MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Edgeton, to recommend approval of the site plan building permit authorization for a house to be constructed by Donald Olson, located on the east side of Safari Pass at 121st Street West, as per the Staff report and conditions. The motion carried 5 - 0. B. MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Edgeton, to recommend approval of a new house setback variance requested by Frank and Patricia Biagi, located at 13496 Georgia Court, as per the Staff reports and conditions. The motion carried 5 - 0. Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1992 Page 2 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Public Hearing for the Use of Alternate Exterior Building Materials for Valley Olds had been withdrawn by the applicant. No action was taken. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. House Addition Setback Variance LOCATION: 13964 Holyoke Path PETITIONER Gregory and Conine Jensen (PC92- 082 -V) STAFF REPORT- Scott Hickok, October 8, 1992 Associate Planner Scott Hickok provided a background report in which he described a request by Gregory and Corrine Jensen to allow a 5 -foot variance for construction of an addition to the rear of their house. Hickok explained the need for a larger lot size and setbacks on a comer lot. He also explained the differences between the front and side lot lines on a corner lot. The Staff recommended approval of the 5 -foot variance to allow a 12 -foot by 14 -foot addition of the east side of the existing structure. The approval recommendation is based upon a hardship created by the layout of the existing structure and the limited number of alternatives due to the substandard lot size for the corner lot in an R -3 district. MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Churchill, to recommend approval of a 5 -foot variance as per the hardships stated in the Staff report. The motion carried 5 - 0. B. Body Shop Site Plan & Building Permit Authorization for Valley Olds/Pomiac /GMC LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Glenda Drive & Upper 145th Street West PETITIONER Valley Olds/Pontiac /GMC (PC92- 083 -B) STAFF REPORT- Scott Hickok, October 7, 1992 Associate Planner Scott Hickok provided a background report in which he reviewed a request for site plan review and building permit authorization by Valley Olds to construct a new body shop facility at the corner of Granada Avenue and 145th Street West. Hickok noted that the property is properly zoned general business and that the exterior materials for this building would meet or exceed the City Code conditions. The Staff recommended approval of the proposed materials but requests that the site plan, landscape plan, and fencing plans be reviewed by Staff prior to issuance of any permits. A general discussion ensued regarding the location of the building and secured parking to the north. Member Edgeton asked for details regarding the sign plans. Architect Quinn Hutson noted that the building will have one pylon sign. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to recommend approval of the site plan and building permit authorization with the Staff recommendations and the completion of a site plan and landscape plan. The motion carried 5 - 0. Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1992 Page 3 C. Garage Side Property Line Setback Variance - this item was withdrawn by the applicant Steven Burow. D. Conditional Use Permit for 2 Major Tenant /Anchor Signs at Apple Valley Square; and a Variance to the Required Sign Face Materials LOCATION: County Road 42 and Cedar Avenue South PETITIONER: Sign Consultants, Inc. (PC92 -07 8-C) STAFF REPORT: Scott Hickok, October 7, 1992 Associate Planner Scott Hickok provided a background report in which he reviewed the request by Tom Ruvelson and Michael O'Rourke of Apple Valley Square Shopping Center to construct two major anchor tenant signs and to replace two existing, pylon signs at the Apple Valley Square Shopping Center. As proposed, two variances would he required including a 20 -foot space variance between other signs to allow the sign to set 280 - feet from the adjoining signs and a second variance to allow for Lexan plastic face panels rather than individual letters or routed letters with aluminum backing. The Staff recommended approval of the variance to allow the signs to set within 280 -feet of adjoining signs at K -Mart and Godfather's. The Staff recommended denial of the request for the use of alternate materials and those specified in the code. The Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit for the major anchor tenant signs provided the sign was located at least 280 -feet from other signs and that the Lexan faces of the signs were replaced with individual back -fit letters as required by the code or an alternate aluminum face routed out to allow for letter display was substituted. In addition, a landscape plan must be submitted and approved with the sign structures and all other code requirements of Section 6 -105G must be adhered to. Tom Ruvelson of Sign Consultants Inc., representing Apple Valley Square Shopping Center, explained the differences between the Lexan and aluminum signs. He noted that the Lexan signs would not be illuminated at night except for the location of the letters themselves. The backs of the Lexan would be silk screened to provide an opaque finish in every location except where the letters are placed. Member Edgeton asked for other locations in the Twin Cities where this might be viewed. The Summit Hill Shopping Center at County Road 42 and County Road 11 was suggested as one example. Mr. Michael O'Rourke, representing Apple Valley Shopping Center, explained that there are five tenants with over 10,000 square feet in size which creates a different type of sign than those allowed across the street at Southport Centre. He noted that the tenants will turn over more rapidly than those in the anchor buildings on the east side of Cedar Avenue. Therefore, the signs must be able to be changed in a more effective and inexpensive manner. Mr. Ruvelson noted that the change of location for the anchor tenant sign in comparison to the pylon sign would have an impact on the Apple Valley Shopping Center. He stated that in recent research, shopping center consultants have found that it takes up to five years for customers to change their buying habits and this may create confusion with customers of the Apple Valley Square Shopping Center. Mr. O'Rourke noted that the cost of moving the sign base and the electrical service is prohibitive. Mr. O'Rourke stated that the Apple Valley Square Shopping Center needs help from the City on the location of the sign on Cedar Avenue, but that this is the only major issue. The Shopping Center can work with the City regarding the back -lit letter issue and the landscaping issue. MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Kitzman, to recommend approval of a 20- foot variance to allow setting the Cedar Avenue major anchor tenant signs within 280 -feet of other signs provided the developer uses the materials approved in the code or by Staff. The motion carried 5 - 0. Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1992 Page 4 Mr. O'Rourke stated that he would meet with the Staff during the next two week period prior to the next council meeting to explain the materials and provide examples of alternate sign layouts such as the Summit Hill Shopping Center. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Townhouse Sketch Plan for Diedrich Builders LOCATION- Southeast Corner of 140th Street West and Essex Avenue PETITIONER Diedrich Builders(PC92- 081 -ZSBV) STAFF REPORT- Richard Kelley, October 7, 1992. City Planner Richard Kelley provided a background report in which he reviewed the sketch plan for townhouse development proposed by Diedrich Builders to be located at the southeast corner of 140th Street West and Essex Avenue. The development would contain 23 or 24 one level townhouse dwellings offered for sale to owner occupants. He noted that the project would require rezoning from an agriculture zone to a multi- family zone and it would require a determination by the City as to whether the exterior materials should be brick and wood or aluminum and vinyl. In addition, the setback policy in the City is to allow for a 50 -foot setback for new multi- family projects from single - family areas. In this request the developer requests a 40 -foot setback for porches. Planner Kelley noted that each unit will have two garage stalls, plus two driveway stalls, and one -half stall of clustered guest space per unit. He described the setback requirements for porches on the south side of the project and the emergency turn around requirements as well the building elevations. A general discussion ensued with Planning Commission Members asking for more details regarding exterior treatments of the building and selling price of the units. Mr. Diedrich responded that the units will sell from $85- 125,000 primarily for empty nesters with at least two bedrooms in each unit. He noted that the exterior materials are similar in cost but that vinyl siding provides for lower maintenance, no cracking, and no painting. No further action was taken by the Planning Commission. B. Wensmann Townhouse Sketch Plan Review LOCATION: East side of Gardenview Drive at 143rd Street West PETITIONER Wensmann Homes (PC92- XXX -SB) STAFF REPORT: Richard Kelley, dated October 7, 1992 City Planner Richard Kelley provided a background report on the Wensmann Homes proposal to construct 91 three level townhouse dwelling units on 11.97 acres. This project would be located at Gardenview Drive and 143rd Street. The property is currently zoned for Planned Unit Development which allows for up to 151 dwelling units in three -story buildings. Previously approved apartment buildings on the site have never been built. The exterior construction materials would meet the latest multi- family residential performance standards requiring a combination of brick and natural wood siding. Kelley noted that this was a good product as opposed to apartments in this location in that it does provide for moderate income housing sold at a price which meets the city's affordable housing goals. Mr. Herb Wensmann answered questions regarding the preliminary plat and the design of the units. He noted that the market for the 2 plus bedroom units would be $68,000 - 80,000. No action was taken by the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 1992 Page 5 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. Member Edgeton asked the Commission to consider other methods of notifying neighbors when variance requests are to be considered by the Planning Commission. A general discussion ensued regarding the methods of notifying adjoining property owners. The Staff was d to return with a proposal which could be used for the next six months in which the Staff would notify by mail all adjoining property owners of a proposed variance case. B. Member Edgeton asked the Staff to prepare a sign plan at the same time that a site plan is reviewed for each new structure. The Staff and the Commission concurred with this concept. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.