Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/16/1991PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY October 16, 1991 1. CALL TO ORDER The October 16, 1991 meeting of the Apple Valley Planning Commission was called to order at 7:34 by Chairperson Alan Felkner. Members Present: Karen Edgeton, Alan Felkner, Marcia Gowling, Eugene Kitzman, Jeannine Churchill, and James Norris. Member Absent: Joe Nordlund. Staff Present: Richard Kelley, 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. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 2, 1991 The minutes of the October 2, 1991 meeting were approved as submitted. 4. CONSENT AGENDA (One motion sends items needing no discussion on to the City Council with the staff recommendations.) None. 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. Apple Valley Commercial Addition /Frank's Nursery Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Display & Sales LOCATION: South Side of 153rd Street Across From Target Greatland PETITIONER: Ryan Construction Company of MN, Inc. (PC91- 051 -CBV) STAFF REPORT: Richard Kelley, October 16, 1991 Chairman Alan Felkner opened the public hearing. City Planner Richard Kelley provided a background report in which he described the location and the sales operation proposed by Frank's Nursery and Ryan Construction of Minnesota. He described the request for a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit for outdoor display. He noted the common driveways and entrances. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1991 Page 2 The staff suggested that more detail would be necessary on the entry drives to correct traffic flow problems. The staff suggested that the building wall facing west should be treated with some type of temporary finished product prior to the expansion of this building at a later date. Kelley also recommended that cross parking easements be required and that a maintenance agreement for the open space between the Frank's Nursery building and the Cub Store be required. The staff requested that pedestrian sidewalks or linkages to 153rd Street be provided on the east and west sides of the lot. Kelley noted that the project is consistent with the zoning in the area. He suggested that the area to the east of the Frank's property should be addressed at this time because of the potential for these buildings to have exposed loading and trash pick up areas facing the Frank's parking lot. Kelley described the landscape plan and architectural elevations in detail. Kelley and the staff expressed concern over the reduced number of parking places shown for the entire project. While there may be enough spaces in the entire lot to serve Frank's, there are not enough spaces to serve all three of the proposed buildings at the size currently shown. Two alternatives are readily available: 1. Provide more parking on the site, or add additional property to the site. 2. Reduce the size of the future phases of the buildings adjacent to Frank's. Member Edgeton asked for clarification regarding the amount of parking that would be developed at the same time as the Frank's building is constructed. Kelley responded that slightly less than the number of parking spaces required by code would be constructed at that time under the current proposal. The staff is working with the developer to correct these def iciencies. Vince Driessen, representing Ryan Construction, will work with the staff during the next few weeks to correct any deficiencies in the site plan. He noted that originally, Ryan Construction had hoped to be under construction in the Fall of 1991. They have now rearranged their schedule to begin construction in the Spring of 1992. Driessen stated that he will work with the staff to provide color samples of the brick and provide cross parking easements, as well as reduce the size of the future buildings. The parking for the outdoor display area will be discussed with the staff and the driveway alignments and sidewalks will be corrected. The architect proposes a fenced -in area for outdoor nursery sales. The fencing material will be similar to the City's red fencing along the Ring Route. The developer will also provide a detailed list of materials and landscape costs and correct turning movements into the main parking lot. He asked the Commission to consider an 18 month temporary west wall after which a finished coat would be placed on the wall if no additional project has been built. Driessen asked for clarification regarding sidewalks to the front of the building and improvements along the streetscape of 153rd Street. He noted that in previous proposals tax increment financing had paid for these street improvements. Driessen explained the parking calculations and the maintenance procedure that will be undertaken on the undeveloped property, which will include grading the entire parcel and seeding down the areas not paved. Member Edgeton asked for clarification regarding the truck driveways and entrance into the garden center outdoor areas. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1991 Page 3 Member Felkner asked for clarification regarding the landscape improvements and when they would be installed across the front of the building and within the parking lot. He expressed concern that the landscape plan be installed at one time, prior to the completion of the Frank's building. Chairman Felkner asked for public comment. There was none. Chairman Felkner closed the public hearing. 6A. Valley Meadows Replat - Townhouse Units LOCATION: East Side of Garden View Drive at Heywood Path PETITIONER: Diedrich Builders, Inc. (PC91- 049 -S) STAFF REPORT: Richard Kelley, October 16, 1991 City Planner Richard Kelley reviewed the issues brought up at the October 2, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. He explained again the density proposal for this project would be less than what had been previously proposed on the site. He noted that the replatting would allow for a density of 3 to 6 units per acre in an M -3C zoning district. Kelley noted that the developers have deleted the portion of the project which was on land owned by the Palamino Townhouse to the north. A general discussion of the units and the architecture ensued. Variances would be required for setbacks of the row houses within the project and are consistent with the original plan. Kelley noted the hardships in this case are the gas and oil line easements which restrict where construction can occur. He noted that overflow parking will be required on the pipeline easement areas. A berm line will be constructed along the south boundary of the project to a height of 3 to 3 -1/2 feet that will create no drainage problems. The staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat and approval of the building permit authorization for the project, as per the staff report of October 16, 1991. The staff also recommended denial of a request to construct a duplex along Garden View Drive. Bill Diedrich of Diedrich Builders, indicated that he his working with Williams Pipeline to get written confirmation that parking may occur on the Williams Pipeline easement. He also noted that the structures will have new front elevations, which he will supply at a future meeting. The backs of some of the units will be broken up architecturally, by the use of decks or porches. Rs6,� Ke%AeA mslzrn" -tVc& 69- QkS -pclWs +o t�vE s �bac4� oei +s 0^1 04 +wt. ur -As. Member Gowling asked if evergreens could be planted on the berm lines along the south property line. She noted that the view from the second story windows of the adjacent homes will be directly into the townhouse project. MOTION: Member Kitzman moved, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat, deleting the attached single family Lots 1 -8, Block 1 for future consideration and subject to deletion of the townhouse Lots 14 -16 and duplex lots 25 and 26 on Garden View Drive. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Diedrich appealed to the Commission to reconsider the duplex lot. The Commission decided to take no further action. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1991 Page 4 MOTION: A motion was made by Member Gowling, seconded by Member Kitzman, to recommend approval of the building permit authorization for 21 townhouse units in accordance with the site, landscape, and grading plans, subject to construction of a 3 -foot high landscape berm along the south lot line, adjacent to townhouse Lots 18 -24, modifying building elevations having front bay windows on all units and having rear window shutters or other architectural relief for townhouse Lots 18 -24, and the developer providing written permission from the pipeline company for parking stalls to be constructed upon the easement, and documentation of landscape costs equalling or exceeding 2 -1/2% of the townhouse construction cost. The motion carried 6 - 0. 6B. Ceminsky Parking Variance i LOCATION: 14625 Hallmark Drive PETITIONER: Mark Ceminsky (PC91- 055 -V) STAFF REPORT: Scott Hickok, October 16, 1991 Associate Planner Scott Hickok explained the variance request to allow a semi - tractor and at times a trailer to be placed or parked within the driveway of Mark Ceminsky, located at 14626 Hallmark Drive. Hickok noted that no commercial vehicle in excess of one ton capacity and no commercial trailer may be parked or stored in a residential district, except when loading, unloading, or rendering service. He explained that this proposal is in effect, a request to change the permitted uses in a residential district since commercial vehicles are currently not permitted in a residential district. He also explained that in Minnesota, a use variance is not allowed under state law. The Planning Staff recommended denial of the request since there was no hardship. Alternatives are available, and the staff found that this was a request for a use variance which cannot be issued in the State of Minnesota. Member Kitzman asked for clarification regarding the Federal Law, which Ceminsky stated would allow him to park his vehicle at any location. Kitzman noted that this was not appropriate in the Ceminsky case. Member Edgeton asked the staff to explain the similarities between the O'Hanlan and Ceminsky case. Hickok explained the cases. Mark Ceminsky, 14625 Hallmark Drive, stated that his truck does not run in the driveway for 24 hours and is currently plugged in to be warmed up immediately. He stated that the neighbors have signed a petition in which they do not oppose the parking of the truck on the street or in the driveway. He distributed pictures of trucks in truck parking within his neighborhood and within the City of Apple Valley to the Planning Commission members. He also distributed to the Planning Commission members a letter from his wife, supporting the use of the site for truck parking. Mr. Ceminsky's father noted that the truck had been parked there long before other homes were built in the area. Mark Ceminsky noted other trucks parked in the Apple Valley area. Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1991 Page 5 MOTION: Member Norris moved, seconded by Member Kitzman, that the Planning Commission recognizes that truck parking is a "use variance" and therefore, cannot recommend a "use variance" because of the State definitions of a variance. Therefore, the Planning Commission cannot recommend a variance in this case. The motion carried 6 - 0. Member Gowling asked if the decision can be delayed until the issue could take of itself. Member Kitzman asked if the truck was for sale. Ceminsky said it has been for sale for one year. Ceminsky noted that he hopes that the truck will be sold by the Spring of 1992. No further action was taken on this issue. 6C. Southport Centre Comprehensive Building Sign Variance LOCATION: Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Southport Centre PETITIONER: Ryan Construction Company of MN, Inc. (PC91- 053 -VO STAFF REPORT: Scott Hickok, October 16, 1991 Associate Planner Scott Hickok presented a background report regarding the Southport Plaza Comprehensive Sign Variance. He listed the downtown goals as: 1. A clean, crisp street appearance. 2. Clear signage. 3. Four sided buildings that are all finished equally with the same materials. 4. Good site selection and planning to include landscaping, lighting, parking, sidewalks and loading areas. 5. Street life that provides an active street with color and movement. Hickok then provided a list of amendments which are being considered to the City's Sign Code by the City Staff. They include: 1. Signage should be allowed on any finished face of a building. 2. Signage should be permitted by signed band permit only 3. Signed band should define the sign size within the limits of the City code. 4. The building owner should administer portions of the sign placement and approval process. Hickok noted that the staff recommends approval of the variance for Southport Plaza to allow for signage on all four sides of the building. This approval would apply only to those buildings where three or more finished exterior walls have street exposure but are not adjacent to single family or any residential district. The staff also recommended that this approval for Southport Plaza include additional canopies along the County Road 42 and Gleason Avenue sides of Southport Plaza building and on the north elevation of the Walgreen's building. The staff also recommended that the sign code be modified to allow a third business sign for those tenants who have more than two finished exterior walls, or to relate total signage to the approved sign band area with a looser requirement for tenant space signage adjacent to their building space. Member Edgeton asked if a building could have more than two signs. The staff responded that, yes, they could. Member Edgeton asked if there was a requirement that Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1991 Page 6 businesses must have two or more signs and, no there is not. Edgeton expressed concern that the business owners are at the mercy of the landlord sign band requirements. Member Felkner asked the Commission and Staff whether approving a variance before changing the code is putting the "cart before the horse." He asked if it would make more sense to have the codes revised, then ask for a variance. MOTION: A motion was made by Edgeton, seconded by Norris, to recommend a sign variance for Southport Plaza and Ryan Construction as per the staff recommendations, but not requiring awnings on buildings, with the signage to look as per the drawings distributed by Ryan. The motion carried 4 in favor, 1 opposed, and 1 abstention. Vince Driessen asked if the current variance would allow for signage on all four sides of the building. The staff responded, yes, it would. Driessen noted that in other cities, the requirements call for no more than 8% of the front building wall to be covered with signage. He noted that his understanding of the variance was that the variance was permanent, but the ordinance was currently in a amendment process, therefore, the term "temporary" is being used. The Planning Commission concurred. Driessen noted that there will be some new canopies on the Walgreen's building and the Southport building because the developer feels there is more need to add architectural interest to the building. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Churchill, seconded by Member Edgeton, to direct the Planning Staff to prepare an amendment to the sign code to incorporate changes similar to those granted to Ryan in the form of a variance. The motion carried 4 - 0, with 2 abstentions. DISCUSSION ITEMS None S. OTHER BUSINESS A. Community Development Director Dennis Welsch provided a synopsis of the Steinert Handicapped Access Variance, noting that the City Council approved the variance without controversy. B. Member Gowling asked for inclusion of Council Minutes in the Planning Commission packets. Welsch noted that this had not been stopped, but merely that their timing had been difficult. C. The Commission expressed its' thanks to Dennis Miranowski for the charts distributed monthly regarding building permits and evaluation. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.