Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/1992PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY October 21, 1992 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Alan Felkner called the Planning Commission meeting of October 21, 1992 to order at 7:33 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Members Present: Members Absent- Staff Present: Others Present: 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Chairman Alan Felkner, Jeannine Churchill, Frank Blundetto, and Marcia Gowling. Eugene Kitzman, Jim Norris, and Karen Edgeton. Lon Anne, Scott Hickok, Richard Kelley, and Dennis Welsch. See the sign -in sheet. City Planner Richard Kelley recommended that Item 7B, the Burow s setback situation, would be added as a sketch plan to the agenda if approved and Item 8B, variance notification process, would also be added if the agenda were approved. The agenda was approved with the changes recommended by City Planner Kelley. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 7,1992 MOTION: Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Churchill, to approve the minutes of October 7 as submitted. The motion carried 3 - 0 with Member Gowling abstaining. 4. CONSENT AGENDA - None - 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Summerfield Townhomes - Rezoning from "A" to "M -313" or "M -3C" and Preliminary Plat for 23 Townhomes LOCATION- Southeast Corner of 140th Street West & Essex Avenue PETITIONER: Diedrich Builders, Inc. (PC92- 081 -ZSBV) STAFF REPORT: Richard Kelley, dated October 21, 1992 Chairman Alan Felkner opened the public hearing and requested City Planner Richard Kelley to provide a background report. Kelley reviewed the zoning request which would require a change from agriculture zoning to multi- family "M -313" or "M -3C" to be consistent with the comprehensive guide plan designation of low density multi- family. The 23 unit preliminary plat for the townhouse project could either be designated as a "B" zoning Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1992 Page 2 category requiring a 50 -foot building setback or a "C" category requiring a 40 -foot setback. In addition, the "B" and "C" requirements have different exterior building material combinations and minimum setbacks. Kelley described the private drive entrances to Essex, the pathway and sidewalks along Essex and 140th Street. He noted that each dwelling unit will have a two car garage and two spaces in front of the garage within the driveway as well as one -half additional space for guest parking. Kelley described the emergency turnaround and the requirements for setbacks that differ between the "B" and "C" zoning category. In addition, he compared the exterior vinyl siding request by the applicant versus the wood and brick required within the "A" and "B" zoning categories. Kelley described a revised landscape plan that had been provided with the assistance of the City Forester. Chairman Felkner asked for clarification regarding the setbacks and the zoning categories; and, how they relate to adjacent structures. Kelley responded that the setback would either be 50 feet or 40 feet from the rear property line depending on the classification. He also noted that adjacent homes have a 30 foot rearyard setback. Bill Diedrich of Diedrich Builders stated that he had met with the neighbors and there have been very few problems with the proposal. He said that some neighbors had wished that thew house had been clad with vinyl instead of cedar. Some of the neighbors told Diedrich that a fence was needed along the rear property line because too many kids cut through the area to walk to the west toward the shopping center and school. No further comment was offered by Diedrich. Ed Perkins, 14111 Ensley Court, stated that the site is at the high point of a hill and that Ensley Court storm sewers could not handle the additional load of this subdivision. In addition, there has been standing water along the south side of 140th Street from the run off of this site. He expressed concern for the safety of pedestrians and drivers with the water and ice created by this run off. He stated he preferred a single family zoning district similar to the homes adjacent to the site. He noted that condominiums are being built all over this neighborhood He stated that vinyl or aluminum siding would be acceptable to him. Chairman Alan Felkner explained the rationale for zoning in graduated uses from commercial to multi- family to single family units as a long standing city policy. Chairman Felkner asked City Project Engineer Lon Anne to explain the storm sewer system that the developer would construct. Lon Anne stated that the storm sewer will extend into the site and catch the water from all paved surfaces within the site and not allow water to run toward Ensley Court. The water would be confined to catch basins and curb lines. Fred Poppert,14099 Elmira Court, stated that he would have fifteen of the townhouse units within easy visual access of his backyard. He expressed concern about bikes and students crossing the property. He recommended that a 4-foot high chainlink fence be constructed along the rear property line to prohibit snowmobiles, bikes and kids from passing through the rear yards of the adjacent single family homes. Tom Madeira, 14121 Elgin Court, stated that he opposed the multi- family zoning in the area because it would create more traffic, and there are already enough condominiums in the neighborhood. He stated that the neighborhood would be overpopulated with this additional density. Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1992 Page 3 Bill Diedrich stated that the units are one -story in height and look more like a single family house than do the Wensmann Townhouse project. Marcy Anderson, 14137 Elgin Court, asked for details regarding the trees and shrubs to be planted along the rear property line. She asked that the landscape plan be amended to include conifers in the backyard. She also asked for clarification regarding the storm sewer lines that exist on the site and asked Project Engineer Lon Anne to check to see that they are currently open. There was no further public comment. Chairman Alan Felkner closed the public hearing. A discussion ensued regarding the exterior materials to be used on the proposed townhouses. City Planner Kelley asked the developer to consider utilizing brick for one -half of the building exterior and vinyl for the other half of the exterior. The brick would be used as a base course up to the window sills on all four sides of the building, Bill Diedrich stated that he could not afford to place brick on all four sides of the building, but would be willing to place brick on the front of the building (as currently proposed). Chairman Felkner stated that the consensus of the Planning Commission members was to clarify the issues presented at the public hearing and to present further details at the November 4 meeting of the Planning Commission. No further action was taken. 6. ACTION ITEMS A. New Duplex Setback Variance LOCATION: Southwest Comer of Gardenview Drive and Walnut Lane PETITIONER Ken Smith (PC92-086 -V) STAFF REPORT: Scott Hickok, dated October 21, 1992 Associate Planner Scott Hickok provided a background report in which he reviewed an application for a 10 -foot sideyard variance to allow the construction of a duplex on a vacant parcel of land located at Gardenview Drive and Walnut Lane. Because this was a corner lot, it was possible to place the front of the building either on Gardenview or Walnut. The Staff recommended turning the building to provide frontage on Walnut and to grant a 10 -foot sideyard variance to allow the building to set within 20 -feet of the Gardenview Drive property line. MOTION Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Churchill, to recommend approval of a 10- foot variance along the east side of the site to allow the structure to set within 20 -feet of the Gardenview Drive property line as per the Staff report. The motion carried 4 - 0. MOTION. Member Blundetto moved, seconded by Member Churchill, to recommend approval of a reorientation of the frontage to allow the building to face Walnut Lane rather than Gardenview Drive as per the Staff report. The motion carried 4 - 0. Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1992 Page 4 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Sign Ordinance Amendment - Second Ground Sign Substitution for Double Frontage Lots PETITIONER City of Apple Valley (PC92- 087 -0) STAFF REPORT: Richard Kelley, dated October 21, 1992 City Planner Richard Kelley provided a report in which he reviewed an amendment to the sign regulations allowing a ground sign to be substituted for all building signage where the architecture of the structure does not allow for signage to be placed on the building. He cited the Burnet Realty building along Cedar Avenue as an example of such a structure which is best suited to provide two ground signs instead of any signage on the building. A general discussion among the Planning Commission members ensued. MOTION. Member Churchill moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to recommend changes to the sign code allowing for a second ground sign for double frontage lots wherein building signage is clearly inappropriate to the architectural design. The Staff will prepare appropriate language and submit it to the City Council. The motion carried 4 - 0. B. Burows Sketch Plan Review LOCATION: Southwest Comer of Galaxie Avenue and Safari Path PETITIONER: Steven Burow and Attorney Richard Hocking STAFF REPORT: - None - Since this was alate addition to the Planning Commission agenda, City Planner Richard Kelley provided a verbal presentation in which he described the need for either a variance or a rezoning to clarify setbacks along the west side of the Burows house. He noted that a 20 -foot setback is required along the side lot line. This house had been moved onto the site and constructed at a 3 -foot setback from the west property line. A 17 -foot variance would be required. Kelley suggested that one solution would be to change the zoning on the site from "R -1" to "R -3" thus allowing a 5 -foot sideyard setback for the garage side of the house. The Staff did not recommend the rezoning since the Public Hearings necessary for this purpose would be more cumbersome than worthwhile. Richard Hocking, attorney representing Mr. Burow, explained the history of the house and the work to move the house to the site. He explained that Mr. Burow had attempted to gain a title or an easement for the additional land west of his property line in order to eliminate the need for a setback variance. Mr. Hocking noted that Mr. Burow had hired licensed surveyors and house movers to place the house on the site correctly and they had made an error. The house can exist on the site with excavation and reshaping of the hill west of the property line. The owners of the property west of Mr. Burows property have agreed to allow further regrading. Placing the house within 3 -feet of the property line does not meet the building code requirements for fire separation, nor does it meet the City zoning and land use requ for 20 -foot setback. Member Churchill stated that granting such a variance places the corrective responsibility on the City and relieves the responsibility of the contractors to correct their own erroneous work. A general discussion ensued regarding the message that would be created if the Planning Commission were to recommend the granting of a variance, thereby excusing the contractor of inferior work and eliminating the need for the surveyor and excavator to correct their faulty work. Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 1992 Page 5 Chairman Felkner asked whether it would be practical to move the garage from the west side of the building to the northwest corner of the site, attached to the building. Lon Anne, City Project Engineer stated that the garage could be moved to the north at least 17 -feet and this would allow the building to come into compliance with the majority of the setback problems. A smaller variance may still be necessary. The Planning Commission offered the following direction: Chairman Felkner stated that he could not support a variance of 17 -feet. Member Churchill stated that she could not support a variance of 17 -feet. Member Blundetto stated that he recognized the hardship to the property owner and would recommend granting the variance. Member Growling stated that she would like to see more design alternatives, especially the rearrangement of the garage. No further action was taken. 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. Tax Increment Resolution LOCATION- Minnehaha Nursery Site, Northwest Corner of 147th Street and Cedar Avenue PETITIONER City of Apple Valley STAFF REPORT; Dennis Welsch, dated October 21, 1992 Community Development Director Dennis Welsch provided a report in which he reviewed the request by Minnehaha Nursery to approve a boundary amendment to Tax Increment Redevelopment District 7 within the downtown portion of Apple Valley. The purpose of the amendment would be to allow for the use of Tax Increment Financing on two parcels adjacent to Cedar Avenue and 147th Street, wherein a dilapidated nursery building currently exists. He explained the general purposes of tax increment financing and how the funding is derived Welsch explained that the Planning Commission's role is to consider whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning code. A general discussion ensued regarding the tax increment districts within Apple Valley and the proposed use of the site. Commission Members agreed that recommending approval of this tax increment district boundary amendment does not reduce their responsibility to hold public hearings on rezoning or other land use issues at a future time. MOTION: Member Churchill moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to offer Resolution 1992- 10/21/a approving the amendment as being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and applicable city land use codes as attached. The motion to adopt the resolution carried 4 - 0. B. Variance Notification Process present. This issue and discussion were tabled until a future meeting at which time Member Edgeton could be 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.