Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/07/1991PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY August 7, 1991 1. CALL TO ORDER The August 7, 1991 meeting of the Apple Valley Planning Commission was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairperson Protem Karen Edgeton. Members Present: Chairperson Edgeton, Members James Norris, Joe Nordlund, and Jeannine Churchill. Members Absent: Marcia Gowling, Alan Felkner, and Eugene Kitzman. Staff Present: Richard Kelley, Meg McMonigal, Scott Hickok, Lon Anne, and Dennis Welsch. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The agenda was approved as submitted with the additions of Item 7B (Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process) on the proposed agenda being shifted to consent items and the addition of Item 8A, Transportation Policy Public Hearing Process. The motion to approve the agenda carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 17, 1991 MEETING MOTION: A motion was made by Member Nordlund, seconded by Member Norris, to approve the minutes of the July 17, 1991 meeting. The motion carried unanimously. 4. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: A motion was made by Member Nordlund, seconded by Member Norris, to recommend approval of a driveway access to Palamino Drive located on Lot 11, Block 1 of Palamino Hills 6th addition as per the Staff Report PC91- 040 -V. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Nordlund, seconded by Member Norris, to approve the Planning Commission Amendment Process for the Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 1991 Page 2 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS None 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Waterpark Townhomes Building Permit Authorization LOCATION: Southwest Corner of County Road #I1 and 140th Street West PETITIONER: Waterpark Townhomes Partnership (PC91- 037 -B) STAFF REPORT: By City Planner Richard Kelley, August 7, 1991 City Planner Richard Kelley provided a background report, illustrating the past history of the Waterpark Townhouses zoning and site planning issues. He listed nine issues that had previously been of concern to the Planning Commission and adjoining neighbors. They included: 1) Lake Water Quality. Consultants have reviewed the Lake Water Quality Study and have noted that phosphorus loading of 12 pounds per year would be added to the lake if this project were approved without amendments to the design of the storm water pond, or other phosphorus collecting devises. The recommendation from the consultant was to increase the depth of the existing pond by at least two feet to allow for better collection of phosphorus. I£ such a correction was done, the impact of phosphorus on the lake would actually decline from the current situation without development. 2) Environmental Assessment Worksheets. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet in effect at the time that the 72 unit H&Z project was proposed for this site is still in effect. It was a discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet done by the City and determined that the project could be built with minimal environmental intrusion. No new Environmental Assessment Worksheet was recommended. 3) Traffic and Street Access. The access to this site would line up with 134th Street. Anticipated traffic movement from the site would be 428 vehicle trips per day, which is the same as the 72 unit project previously proposed. The location of the driveway in relation to 140th Street and the stoplight at 140th and County Road #38 will cause no problem, because the new stoplight will allow spacing between traffic movements. 4) Lake side Path and Well Capping. The well capping and the construction of the path along the lake side would be done at the time the development is completed for this project by the developer. 5) Construction Standards. The steep slopes along the pond edge would be controlled with the use of grading, berms, and soil erosion fencing. The steep Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 1991 Page 3 slopes within the pond are deliberate in order to create deep enough deposits space for phosphorus. Shelves created in the pond are not advisable because the phosphorus loading on the shelves creates heavy vegetation. 6) Building Appearance and Setbacks. The developer will be adding shutters, windows, trim, and color to the back of the buildings. The developer deleted two units on the east end of the project. The setback from the east side of the project will be 65 feet. A sprinkler system is not required under the Minnesota Building Code which states that a building under 20,000 square feet in size is not required to have sprinkler systems. 7) Landscaping. The natural vegetation will be created along the pond edge to create a transition from the slope of the project to the park land. Additional plantings will be placed along the east side of the project to create a more pleasing winter color. 8) Dock and Pier - and East Side Pathway. There will be no dock or pier on the shoreline. The pathway along the east side of the building is needed to serve the neighbors to the north of 140th Street. The Park Staff has reviewed this project and recommended retention of the path way system. 9) Overall Landscape Plan. With a 65 foot setback along the east side of the building, plus a 20 foot city easement, the actual area for plantings along the east side of the building is extremely large. The developer has agreed to add more conifers and winter colored plant materials along the east side of the building as well as plant more natural vegetation along the pond and the south side of the slope of the development. Kelley explained the differences in the building elevations including the better use of low maintenance vinyl siding, a better design along the rear view of the building with shutters, more windows and decks. The Staff recommended approval of the Building Permit Authorization subject to the revised site landscaping and building elevation plans and the installation of path ways, documentation prior to permit issuance of the landscape cost meeting 2 -1/2 % of the minimum construction cost, and deepening of the pond to a mean depth of 4 feet. Developer Jack Brandt and his Architect explained the design of the buildings as well as the information received from adjoining neighbors and meetings with Ed Holmes. He noted that the density has been reduced by an additional two units and that the landscaping along the east side of the building will assist in screening the project from the single family area. Mr. Brandt and his Architect explained the new additions to the architecture along the rear or south sides of the building. Mr. Brandt asked that the path way to 140th Street be eliminated because there are already three points of access to the site and the access to the park from the proposed pathway Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 1991 Page 4 could be gained at another point less than 500 feet away. In addition, by creating a pathway, it reduced the subtle transition from the single family development to the apartments and required the paving of a very steep grade on the path. Member Churchill asked for clarification regarding the pathway along the east side of the building, the ownership, and the maintenance of the path way system. She asked if the 20 foot wide strip owned by the City would become a cut - through to the park by residents living north of 140th Street regardless of whether a path is installed or not. She asked for clarification regarding the amount of erosion or water washing down the hill that would be recreated by the construction of the path. Member Edgeton asked for clarification regarding the service area for the park and the signage necessary on 140th Street to direct potential users to the access on Holyoke. Lynn Buri requested the Planning Commission and City to compromise on the issue of the park path. Steve Branlieb asked for additional natural grasses along the slope of the development project and asked whether additional space will be available for games on the existing park site. Ed Holmes expressed concern about the pathway construction. He stated that the pathway disrupts the transition between the apartments and the townhouses, the pathway would take away a "beautiful site from the adjoining homeowners, the pathway would be too dangerous and too steep allowing bikers to speed into the park and create a dangerous situation. John Miller stated that snowmobiles will use all of the parks pathway system. He asked that instead of a pathway system, better signage be placed for the Sunset Park, access is already in existence. Don Romaine asked the Planning Commission to consider the need for two car garages on each apartment unit. He expressed concern over the trail along the shoreline, runoff from the apartments, and the design of the buildings which have one roof for six units. He asked if the roof could be ascetically broken up by using dormers on the roof. The Architect representing Mr. Brandt said that use of dormers would require extensive re- engineering of the roof structural system. Brad Blackett expressed concern about the disregard for the ordinary high water mark on Lake Alimagnet and asked if the flood plain would be filled from 958 to 962. He also expressed concern about the mature trees along the shoreline and the screening of the project from the lake. It appears that removal of the trees along the shoreline would allow the building to be clearly visible from the lake. He also expressed concern about the setback from the lakeshore and the well heads that need to be capped at the existing pond site. Mr. Blackett asked that construction berming be used instead of construction soil erosion fencing in order to reduce the amount of sediment that enters the lake during the construction project. Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 1991 Page 5 John Vector asked if drainage into Lake Alimagnet could be rerouted to use the existing storm sewer system and a sway to the drainage pond rather than the lake. Jim Moser commented that children loading on the bus on 140th Street would be in an unsafe location. He expressed current concern that children would drown in the lake from this apartment project. He asked the Planning Commission to cap the wells that exist adjacent to the existing pond. He expressed concern about oil and water pollution into the lake. Don Romaine asked the Commission to consider the use of brick and wood as in the 72 unit building. Chuck Hanson expressed concern about the east side pathway because of the steep slope that the pathway would have to follow north to 140th Street. The pathway at such a steep slope would increase the speeding of the bikes into the park. He also expressed concern regarding security for the neighborhood and the park by allowing a entrance to the park on 140th Street where, according to Mr. Hanson, there is significant transient foot traffic. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Churchill, seconded by Member Norris, to recommend to the City Council not to construct the pathway along the east side of the project from Sunset Park to 140th Street. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Nordlund, seconded by Member Norris, to recommend Building Permit Authorization in accordance with the revised site, landscape and building elevation plans subject to the installation of pathways except for the east pathway, documentation to permit issuance of a landscape cost meeting 2 -1/2 % of the minimum construction cost, and deepening of the pond or other method to retain phosphorus on the site rather than allowing it to drain into the lake. The motion carried unanimously. City Planner Kelley noted that the Staff will be working with the Department of Natural Resources to review the flood plain grading concerns. The Department of Natural Resources will be required to approve the grading plan prior to any permit issuance by the City of Apple Valley. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Comprehensive Plan Revisions - Survey & Analysis Chapter Community Development Director Dennis Welsch provided a brief overview of the Survey & Analysis Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. He distributed copies of the Survey & Analysis section to the members of the Commission and asked them to review and comment at future meetings as necessary. He noted that in Apple Valley, household size is declining, the age of residents is increasing, the amount of available developable land is also declining. In addition the ability to house young residents is declining because few apartment units have been built. He expressed concern about the timing of development because the sites available for development are the most difficult remaining sites in the community. He also expressed Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 1991 Page 6 concern about the direction the development industry and the market are taking. It is difficult to project the amount of development that will occur over the next five year period. In response to a question by Member Churchill regarding the population projections for the City through the year 200, he estimated that the population will be between 42,000 and 45,000. Beyond the year 2005 it is difficult to prepare an accurate population estimate because of the amount of land that will be involved in gravel mining after 2005. Estimates vary from an ultimate size of the community of 50,000 people to 70,000 people. The staff believes that the ultimate size will be closer to 50,000 people. 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. Transportation Policy Plan & Procedure Associate Planner Meg McMonigal provided a review of the draft Transportation Policy Plan. Each of the goals and policies of the transportation elements were discussed. Charts were used to illustrate the differences between the carrying capacity of the various street classifications. The thresholds of various streets and the methods of measuring thresholds were discussed in detail. The Commission also reviewed the County Road system which passes through Apple Valley and asked for clarification whether County Road #42 or County Road #46 should be the cross county highway. MOTION; A motion was made by Member Norris, seconded by Member Churchill, to establish a tentative schedule for adopting the Transportation Policy Plan as follows: August 7 - Planning Commission review & discuss the plan. August 7 - Planning Commission sets Public Hearing for September 4th. August 15 - City Council reviews and discusses the plan. August 21 - Planning Commission completes review and discussion. September 4 - Planning Commission holds the public hearing. September 18 - Planning Commission adopts plan and sends recommendation to City Council. September 25 - City Council adopts policy plan and sends plan to the Metropolitan Council for approval. The motion carried unanimously. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.