Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/1991PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY November 6, 1991 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:36 by Chairman Alan Felkner. Members Present: Karen Edgeton, Alan Felkner, Marcia Gowling, Eugene Kitzman, and Joe Nordlund. Members Absent: Jeannine Churchill. Staff Present: Meg McMonigal and Scott Hickok. Others Present: None. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Member Edgeton asked that we add an Item 7C, which is an update to the Ceminsky variance request that was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the October 16, 1991 meeting. Staff recommended placing Items 7A, 7B, and 7C on the agenda prior to the Land /Use Action Item 6D. Item 6A, Apple Valley Commercial Addition /Frank's Nursery Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Display & Sales, was removed from the agenda at the request of the Petitioner, Ryan Construction Company. MOTION: Motion carried unanimously to approve the agenda with the above changes and additions. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16, 1991 Member Gowling added that on page 3, when referring to the Valley Meadows Fourth Addition, Bill Diedrich noted that the backs of some of the units will be broken up architecturally by the use of decks or porches. Gowling suggested that the statement that Richard Kelley made in response to Bill Diedrich's statement, that decks and porches may not fit due to the setbacks on many of those units. Gowling felt this should be added to the minutes. With the one modification to page 3, Valley Meadows Fourth Addition. MOTION: Member Kitzman recommended approval of the minutes, seconded by Member Gowling. 4. CONSENT ITEMS None. Planning Commission Minutes November 6, 1991 Page 2 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS 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) Removed from the agenda at the request of the Petitioner, Ryan Construction Company. B. Comprehensive Plan - Revised Transportation Chapter LOCATION: City of Apple Valley PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC91- 047 -P) Item presented after Discussion Items. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Discussion of Apple Valley Mobile Home Park Developments Scott Hickok provided background information regarding the permit process in Eaton's Mobile Home Park and briefly discussed Cedar Knolls as well. Hickok continued by explaining the agreement that had been entered into by the City of Apple Valley and Eland Corp. Eland is the management /owners of the Eaton Development. The agreement provided a one year grace period which would allow the owners of the Eaton's Development to assemble a plan for elimination of setback deficiencies within the development. Currently, the lots within the Eaton's Development are of a size that will not accommodate newer mobile homes on the market. Hickok continued by stating that the agreement termination date is December 31, 1991. At that time, the owners of the development are to provide a plan for correction of deficiencies. Member Edgeton asked if the purpose of this study and enforcement is aimed at moving people around in the development or out of the development. Hickok clarified that this is no way an attempt to eliminate the development or move people to other developments. It is an attempt to bring the development in compliance with standards set in 1959 in the Mobile Home Ordinance. Member Kitzman asked for further clarification. A general discussion ensued. B. Draft of Business Park Zoning District and Informal Study Meeting Planner Scott Hickok explained the process of assembling a draft document to allow a business park zoning district to occur at the northwest corner of Pilot Knob and County Road #42. Hickok explained that the business park zoning discussion originated as a zoning consistency report which was reviewed by the Planning Commission in April. At that time, the Planning Commission Minutes November 6, 1991 Page 3 Commission directed Staff to draft an ordinance that would set standards for the business park zoning district. Member Nordlund asked if this business park zoning amendment would allow retail business outside of our current retail business area. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal responded that some retail activity will be allowed under this zoning. Member Edgeton explained in further detail elements of earlier discussions regarding a business park zoning as a compromise to industry, or multi - family residential. McMonigal continued by explaining the zoning for the business park district as being a combination of general business, limited industry, etc. McMonigal also stated that with potential change in land use designation and other regions of the city are in need for a Corporate office park - land use may be necessary. Member Nordlund asked if there is a need or if there have been formal requests for this land and it was at that point that she decided to modify zoning in this region. Member Kitzman stated that people in his area have discussed this issue with him and feel that the item is being ram rodded through the process. Member Edgeton stated that this BP -1, business park zoning district is an end product of many discussions where it concerned citizens surrounding the development and serves as a compromise. The zoning on this 80 -acre parcel will also allow for a multi- family residential development. McMonigal added that the impacts of 80 -acres of multi- family residential, may be greater than the impacts of a business park or light industrial zoning. However, the impacts may be different. A general discussion ensued regarding the demand for business park land and impacts on the surrounding development. Hickok reiterated that a meeting will be held on November 13, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room. All members of the Planning Commission are invited to attend. C. Update on the Ceminsky Trucking Variance Request Scott Hickok explained that the Council chose not to act on the variance request and instead directed staff to conduct a discovery as an illegal home occupation and give the resident 90 days to find a new location for that business. The idea is that 90 days would allow this business to relocate without putting the business operator out of work. The Ceminsky trucking firm has no other location than 14625 Hallmark Drive, Apple Valley. Because evidence of that home occupation is visible from the street, it is clearly a violation of the home occupation section of the code. LAND USE /ACTION ITEM 6B. Comprehensive Plan Revised Transportation Chapter Planner McMonigal explained the additions to the Transportation Chapter. On page 23, McMonigal pointed out that there is a list of improvements for 1991; including the County Road 38 project, the upgrade of Pilot Knob, County Road 31, the upgrade of County Road 46, the widening of Galaxie Avenue from 140th to 147th Street and the construction of Galaxie Avenue from 157th Street to County Road 46. McMonigal also stated that the Planning Commission had not had an opportunity to see the traffic section, and went into detail on the information contained within that traffic section. McMonigal explained the details of the traffic management plan. The staff has reviewed these items, but McMonigal invited all Commissioners to make comments or modifications as necessary. Planning Commission Minutes November 6, 1991 Page 4 A discussion of the travel demand management and transit systems ensued. McMonigal explained the relationship between Apple Valley and the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority and further explained the state funding cutbacks and the effects on the transportation system. A discussion of the Dakota County Signalized Traffic System ensued. Discussion of signalization through demand rather than timing ensued. McMonigal concluded by saying that she is convinced the system is responsible for the lack of a traffic problem on Cedar Avenue to date. Member Norris questioned, when staff perceives, we will have problems on Cedar Avenue and asked about the impacts of an airport on our traffic plan. Member Nordlund commented on the County Road 42 traffic and signalization and the amount of time necessary to travel from Apple Valley to 35W on County Road 42. Member Norris questioned, who controls the exit south on Cedar at the Zoo Road. Norris continued by stating that he feels this area is dangerous and that people exiting from Cedar Avenue are making left turns at an inappropriate location. A "No Left Turn" sign was suggested. A general discussion ensued regarding traffic management. 8. OTHER BUSINESS None. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.