Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/02/1992PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY December 2, 1992 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Alan Fellmer called the P lanning Commission meeting of December 2, ]992 to order at 735 pm. in the City Council Chambers. Members Present: Chairman Alan Felkner, Frank Blundetto, Marcia Gowling, Karen Edgeton, Eugene Kitzman, Tim Norris, and Jeannine Churchill. Staff Present: Richard Kelley, Lon Anne, Meg McMonigA Scott Hickok, Dennis Miranowski, and Dennis Welsch. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA With the addition of Item 7B, Palomino Drive Intersection Alignment, the agenda was approved as recommended 3. APPROVAL OF THE MPWfES OF NOVEMBER 18, 1992 The minutes of the November A 1992 meeting were approved as submitted with Members Kitzman and Norris abstaining. 4. CONSENT AGENDA (One motion sends items needing no discussion on to the City Council with staff recommendations.) None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None - 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Conditional Use Permit for Reverse Vending Machine for Beverage Can Recycling LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Cedar Avenue and 153rd Street West by Cub Food PETITIONER Super Valu, Inc and ABC Recycling WOO- 090-C) STAFF REPORT: Scott Hickok, dated December 2, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1992 Page 2 Associate Planner Scott Hickok reviewed previous actions and discussion on the ABC Recycling request He provided Mustrations of recycling machines located in Burnsville, Maplewood, Eagan, and West St Paul. He itemized the concerns the Staff had listed in previous reports, including parking and safety, cl eanliness, washing, drainage, utilities, security of the waste stream, and reporting recycled tonnage. Scott Hickok also reported that the original locations (4) were reviewed again d uring the past two week period and the Staff recommended a location at the end of the main entrance to the store on the north side of the parking lot In addition he listed ten (10) conditions which should be attached to the permit approval. The ten conditions included- 1) An 8-foot high brick enclosure on three sides of the recycling machine with a limitation of two machines and refuse containers on the site. 2) Security lighting. 3) Monthly tonnage reports. 4) Daily machine and grounds cleaning. 5) A water line installed within the enclosure. 6) A six -inch deep reinforced concrete floor. Tj A sealed concrete floor. 8) Electrical underground utilities. 9) Six parking stalls which are signed for recycling users. 10) Recycling to occur only within the enclosure. Mr. Walter Santyrz, representing ABC Recycling, stated the improvements requested by the Staff are expensive, . especially the electricity, water, and concrete pads. Such improvements have not been programmed into the project and would have to be investigated as to the cost and impact on the financial feasibility of the project. Chairman Felkner noted that the site could be used by others should ABC decide to pull off the site and therefore, water to the site is necessary for cleaning purposes. Member Kitzman asked if there was one prototype used at other stores. Mr. Santyrz stated there was no prototype and that recycling machines are considered an afterthought at all of these locations. Member Kitzman asked about the durability of the machines and whether the machines leak fluids and break down often. Mr. Samyiz stated that the machines do break down but that is because of the uneducated user. He noted that a machine typically handles 41,000 cans per day and sometimes materials which are not cans derail the machine. Member Blundetto asked Mr. Santyrz if the conditions as written by the Staff were acceptable and if they were passed by the Planning Commission, could Mr. Santyrz work with Cub to provide a list of the costs of the project and the feasibility. Mr. Santyrz stated that he would be willing to return at the next Planning Commission meeting with bids on the project. Chairman Alan Felkner stated the Planning Commission would hold this item open for an additional two weeks or until December 16. No further action was taken by the Commissi B. Setback Variance for Burows House LOCATION: 12245 Safari Pass PETfrIONER: Steve Burow (PC9 4WV) STAFF REPORT: Meg McMomgal, dated December 2, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1992 Page 3 Associate Planner Meg McMonigal provided a Staff report and background description of the Burow setback variance request which would allow for a 17 foot sideyard setback The Burow house then could be set within 3-feet of the west side property line. She noted that the building code requirements include a minimum afoot structural setback from the property line but the code does allow for a roof overhang of 1 foot in this situation. McMomgal noted that the variance request can be justified on the basis that the hardships created on this project include oak trees along the entire east side of the property thereby, encouraging the applicant to set the house as far to the west as possible in order to not destroy the root structure of the trees and another physical constraint on the site is that no structure will be built on the steep hillside to the west of this house. In addition, there was human error not attributable to the applicant. The Staff r approval of this variance request with the following conditions: 1) The applicant complete the site work and provide a performance bond to insure completion of all such work by dune 15, 1993. 2) The budding be modified to meet the State building code requirements for setbacks from property lines. 3) The slope retention, driveway, yard seeding, and sodding all be completed as per the City Code requirements. Member Churchill asked how many oaks would be removed if the garage were moved from the site Building Official Dennis Miranowski stated that no oaks would be removed if the garage itself was moved. Chairman Felkner asked if the cost of a new garage was considered prohibitive. Miranowski responded that bids appear to be in line with good bids. Mr. Burows state that he had nothing further to add to the presentation except that the variance would be grimy appreciated Member Blundetto asked if someone was living in the house. Mr. Burows responded that yes, he was and that water was turned on to the site Miranowski noted that no temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy has been issued for this site at this time and that no occupancy should be occurring. Member Churchill stated she was concerned with granting a variance based upon economics. Member Blnndetto stated that he was concerned about who was at fault. Dennis Welsch responded that the City is not attempting to find fault with the applicant or the contractors but merely attempting to resolve the situation Meg McMomgal stated that the normal setback from the mobile home park units adjacent to the Burows property would be 50 -feet and that if single family homes replaced the mobile homes, the rearyard setback would be a minimum of 30 -feet Member Edgeton asked if there were other problems or hardships on the site. Rich Hocking, representing the applicant, stated that the adjacent owners of the Cedar Knolls Mobile Home Park were cooperative in assisting Mr. Burows until they found that granting an easement or selling property would cause mortgage problems for their project. He noted that the Cedar Knolls managers felt regrading the site and relandscaping would not be a problem. Hockings best estimate at this time is that the house was inaccurately surveyed for the location Chairman Felkner stated he was concerned about the site and tree problems and noted that this was not simply a financial problem. He also noted that this was clearly unique from other projects within the community. He expressed concern about the fairness issue, in that if the applicant is granted a variance, the applicant should not pursue Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1992 Page 4 a monetary settlement with the surveyors or contractors. Mr. Hocking stated that there will be additional costs which will be incurred by the applicant and others to include remodeling the corner of the garage, excavating to reshape the hill, and landscaping. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Blundetto, to recommend approval of a variance as per the Staff recommendations and conditions; a performance bond will be required to insure that all site work is completed by June 15, 1992, as part of the certificate of occupancy. The motion carried 5 - 2. City Project Engineer Lon Anne estimated that the performance bond would not exceed $4,000 and that the performance bond would be required prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Taco Bell - Sketch Plan Review for Proposed Rezoning and 2 Lot Subdivision LOCATION: Southeast Corner of County Road 42 & Gleason Avenue PETITIONER Dovolis Johnson & Ruggieri, Inc. STAFF REPORT: Richard Kelley, dated December 2, 1992 City Planner Richard Kelley provided a background report regarding a request to rezone a portion of a planned unit development to allow Class II fast food restaurant with a drive -tbru window on property located at the southeast corner of County Road 42 and Gleason Avenue. He noted that the current planned development zoning does not allow Class 11 restaurants in this portion of the Southport Centre complex either as a free standing use or as a multi- tenant building. The planned unit development zoning in this case attempts to consolidate retail uses into larger multi- tenant buildings to offer more employment and property tax base on the same land area than individually constructed buildings. Such a multi-tenant building also encourages an architectural design consistent with colors and themes of the overall Southport Centre concept. He provided examples such as the Blockbuster/Wendys complex. Mr. Joe Christensen, an attorney representing Midway Bank; Mr. Jim Simons, a Midway Bank Manager; Mr. Jim Farrell, Commercial Real Estate Broker from Welsch Properties; and Mr. John Ruggieri, an architect representing Taco Bell, provided background information regarding a proposed Taco Bell restaurant on the site. Mr. Christensen noted that the Bank's interest is to sell the property and that Taco Bell has entered into an agreement with the bank to purchase the property conditioned upon the City approval of a rezoning. He noted that nothing in the City's planned unit development ordinance requires a multi -tenant building on the site. He also noted that there is no plan for a building to be located on the southern part of the site at this time. Mr. Jim Simons provided a historical background of the acquisition of the site by the bank. Mr. Jim Farrell provided background regarding the marketing of the site for the past 14 months. Member Blundetto asked if Mr. Farrell had recruited restaurants from outside the Twin Cities area. Mr. Farrell responded that many restaurants had been recruited but none were interested in presenting an offer for this site. He noted that most restaurants today (75 %) buy existing buildings and renovate them. Mr. Jim Ruggieri stated that he was unaware of other sites within the downtown and noted that if there were other sites available, none would have the same access or visibility that this site has. Planning Commission Minutes December 2, 1942 Page 5 Chairman Felkner noted that the only reason that the bank has illustrated a need for rezoning is financial. He noted that in the past, a restaurant located at the landmark comer was a failure (Skippers). Jim Ruggien stated that Taco Bell needs to place its restaurants on highly visible and accessible corners or sites. He illustrated alternative layouts on the site and noted that the most practical use of the site is for 8-10,000 square feet of building area with approximately 75 parking stalls He stated that a Taco Bell or other fast food restaurant was the highest and best use for this site Ruggied stated that Taco Bell will work with the City to provided materials, design, lighting berming, landscaping, and sign details which will be consistent with downtown standards. Member Gowling stated that a major problem for her would be the appearance from County Road 42 and that a major emphasis should be placed on good landscaping and architecture as viewed from the comer of County Road 42 and Gleason Mr. Christensen stated that the City will have more control over the uses which would be allowed through a rezoning than through uses which are currently permitted on the site He stated that the bank and Taco Bell will complete an application and submit a proposal to the Planning Commission within the next month. Mr. Ruggieri asked the Planning Commission if this was a workable project. Member Norris stated that this was a tough project to review but that it does fit in with surrounding buildings, the use of the land, and the economics over time. He noted that the market in this area has a great deal to say about what should be placed on the site. Member Bhmdetto stated that Apple Valley should have a Taco Bell, but he was concerned that this may be one of the few sites available for a Class I restaurant Member Churchill stated that the property is primed for other uses, not just a Class H fast food restaurant She stated that if a Class I restaurant is placed on this site it should be placed on the north side instead of the south side of the site. She also asked for pictures and details of other Taco Bell buildings. Member Gowling stated she was not sure this was a good site for a Class I restaurant. She encouraged the developers to provide something that was well designed and landscaped heavily. Member Edgeton expressed concern with the landscaping and the materials on the budding should be pleasing. She stated that a Class II restaurant would be fine addition for this site. Chairman Felkner stated that he would like to see a Taco Bell in Apple Valley but expressed concern about this site. He expressed concern especially about the placement of a building on the south side of the site. Taco Bell and the bank have no commitment for any proposal Member famian stated that the applicants may be looking for something well beyond what the site will bear. No action was taken by the Commission Pl ante Commission Minutes December 2, 1992 Page 6 B. Palomino Intersection Realignment STAFF REPORT: Richard Kelley, dated December 2, 1992 City Planner Richard Kelley provided a verbal report in which he described the realignment of the Palomino Drive intersection with County Road 11. In the past the Minnesota Department of Transportation had acquired additional right of way to provide for a switchback intersection from Palomino Drive onto County Road 11. The Department of Transportation is ready to construct the new intersection and to do away with the existing intersection for safety reasons. The Staff requested the Commission to provide direction regarding the realignment and the necessity for a traffic study on the existing intersection. A general discussion ensued regarding the City transportation goals and the alignment of the roadway as it would affect a proposed SuperAmerica station on the site. MOTION: Member Edgeton moved, seconded by Member Blundetto to endorse the realignment of the Palomino Drive intersection with County Road 11 into a switchback alignment that would allow for a new intersection approximately 300 feet to the south of the existing intersection. The motion carried unanim ously, S. OTHER BUSINESS A. 1993 Meeting Schedule City Planner Richard Kelley provided a proposed 1993 Planning Commission meeting schedule and asked for comment from the Commission. The Commission adopted the 1993 proposed meeting schedule unanimously. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:35 pm.