Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/1990PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY FEBRUARY 7, 1990 1. CALL TO ORDER The February 7, 1990 meeting of the Apple Valley Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Erickson at 7:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Apple Valley City Hall. Members Present: Chairman Erickson, Members Carlson, Gowling, Weldon, and Felkner. Members Absent: Members Sterling and Kleckner. (Kleckner was a member of the audience.) Staff Present: Richard Kelley, Meg McMonigal, Scott Hickok, Linda Brinkhaus, Kurt Chatfield, and Dennis Welsch. Others Present: See sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Weldon, to amend the agenda to include Item 6A (Bloomquist Variance - PC90- 004 -V) and Item 7A (Resolution Regarding Downtown Tax Increment Amendments) to the consent agenda. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Gowling, seconded by Member Carlson, to approve the amended agenda. The motion carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 1990 MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Erickson, to approve the minutes of the January 17, 1990 meeting. The motion carried with two members voting in favor, no members voting opposed, and three members abstaining. 4. CONSENT AGENDA (One motion sends items needing no discussion on to the City Council with the staff recommendations.) MOTION: A motion was made by Member Weldon, seconded by Member Carlson, to recommend approval of a house variance addition for Vern and Cathy Bloomquist, Case No. PC90- 004 -V, located at 6236 137th Court as per the staff recommendations. The motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1990 Page 2 MOTION: A motion was made by Member Weldon, seconded by Member Carlson, to adopt the resolution which records the Planning Commission's approval of tax increment amendments consistent with the comprehensive plan and land use codes. The motion carried unanimously. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Robert Erickson opened the public hearing section of the Planning Commission Meeting and requested Community Development Director Dennis Welsch to provide a background on Cases 5A, 5B, and 5C - all of which are located in the Pennock - Cedar- Garrett Land Use Study Corridor. Welsch reviewed the history of the studies completed by the staff and the Planning Commission, as well as the approval process by the Planning Commission and City Council. He also reviewed the resident meetings and the concerns of the residents within the Pennock - Cedar - Garrett study area. Overheads were used to illustrate the current comprehensive plan designations and zoning designations for parcels known as the Hidden Ponds Site, the Domestic /Calistro Site, and the McNamara /Maurer Site. A. Hidden Ponds - Zoning & Comprehensive Plan LOCATION: North of Zoo Road and East of Cedar Avenue PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 083 -ZP) STAFF REPORT: February 7, 1990 by Planning Technician Kurt Chatfield Kurt Chatfield summarized the Planning Staff recommendations to change the comprehensive plan designations to include "SF" for existing single - family homes; "LD" for existing duplex areas; "HD" for existing apartment areas; and "HD" for lot 1, block 1 of Hidden Ponds, a vacant lot. Chatfield also summarized the staff recommendations for changes in the zoning code from "M8 -C" to "R -3" for existing single - family areas; "R -5" for existing duplex areas; and "M -7C" for lot 1, block 1 of Hidden Ponds. He noted that the existing apartment buildings would remain in an "M -8C" zone. Chairman Erickson asked for comments from the public. Pat Cropsey, 12626 Driftwood Lane, stated that he was confused over the introduction of single - family housing into a multi - family zone. Kurt Chatfield responded by noting that the description of the old zoning and the new comprehensive plan designation for "SF" single - family uses were in conflict. In the new zoning classifications, single- family homes will not be allowed to be constructed within multi - family zones. There were no further comments from the public. Chairman Erickson closed the public hearing on the Hidden Ponds rezoning and comprehensive plan request. Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1990 Page 3 B. Domestic /Calistro - Zoning and Comprehensive Plan LOCATION: West of Cedar, Between 138th & 140th Streets PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 051 -Z) STAFF REPORT: February 7, 1990 by City Planned Richard Kelley City Planner Richard Kelley provided a background report in which he described the conflict between the existing zoning and comprehensive plan. The existing "R -1" and "RCL" zones provide for only single - family uses, while comprehensive plan designation for this area is "MD ", which provides for multiple residential uses at a density of 6 to 12 units per acre. Areas adjacent to Cedar Avenue should retain the "MD" Comprehensive Plan designation and be rezoned to "M -6B ", which would allow a maximum of 12 units /acre in 3 -story buildings or 10 /units acre in 1- & 2 -story buildings. A new north -south road alignment would divide both properties and serve as a separation between different land uses. This road would collect traffic from the new development on these parcels and the future development on parcels lying north of 138th Street West. The road would be restricted to right -turn only access at 140th Street West. Where land uses are not separated by this road, the adjacent single - family homes should be buffered by changing the Comprehensive Plan designation to "LD" (3 -6 units /acre). A duplex zoning category of "R -5" (duplex) or multiple zoning category of "M -1B" (4 units /acre) is suggested in this buffer area since they provide for only low -scale (2- story) buildings at low densities. The "R -5" and "M -1B" zones also allow detached single- family units at the "R -3" (urban lot) standards; this would accommodate Ms. Calistro's intent to retain the existing house and provide building sites for her children in the future. Chairman Erickson asked for clarification regarding the need for an access permit from Dakota County to open 139th Street. Richard Kelley responded that an access permit and approval from the County would be necessary. Member Felkner asked for clarification regarding "R -5" versus "R -3" lot sizes and uses. Kelley responded that the major differences were widths and size of the lots. Member Gowling asked if the staff had worked with the owners. Kelley responded that the staff had worked with the owners on the northern site (Eaton) and on the southern site (Calistro and Leo Dohler), and also reviewed the existing topography on all of the sites to determine what the best land uses might be for these two sites. Member Felkner asked for clarification regarding the extension of 138th Street and the traffic movement problems from 138th Street onto Cedar Avenue. Tom Stuebe, 13980 Granada Court, stated that he had previously submitted a resolution from 100 residents in the area, which he reiterated at this time as follows: Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1990 Page 4 1) Residents are opposed to rezoning and site must retain its' existing zoning because other zoning will adversely affect the property values. 2) The site is rolling, is wooded and is suited for existing single - family zoning. 3) Any zoning of a higher density than single - family will compound the problems on Pennock Avenue. He asked if an additional curb cut could be made on Cedar Avenue and if this would be realistic with the County. City Planner Kelley stated that curb cuts are negotiable with the County. Gayle Jackson, 13705 Pennock, stated that the traffic flow in and out of the site makes no sense. The entire traffic flow should be re- thought because traffic can not get into and out of the site, especially with a median along 140th Street. Lee Yadrick, 7760 134th Street W., expressed concern with the median design and asked for clarification regarding the types of medians which might be installed along 140th Street to reduce traffic problems. Tom Phillips, 7880 Lower 139th Court W., stated that if the density is increased, how can traffic proceed north on Cedar Avenue in the afternoon? He noted that it may require additional traffic utilizing Pennock Avenue to the north. Leo Dehler, who represented owner Barbara Calistro, stated that he and Mrs. Calistro supported the rezoning of her property to multi - family, but would like to see the southeast corner of the Calistro property rezoned for convenience stores. He stated no residences could be built on the corner of Cedar and 140th. He noted to rezone that specific site at the corner of 140th and Cedar to multi- family would do little to improve the property value and marketability of the site. He stated that if the site were not rezoned to a convenience store zoning, the zoning may be considered a "taking." Dehler stated that by developing a buffer land use adjacent to single - family properties, such as multi - family housing, the new development may improve the marketability of the existing homes west of the Calistro site. Dehler and Calistro expressed concern about traffic in the area, noting that it has decreased the value of the site because it has reduced the possibilities for access to the site. He also expressed opposition to the design of a median on 140th Street because it reduces access to the Calistro parcel. Chairman Erickson asked City Planner Kelley to respond to the issue of commercial convenience zoning along the Cedar /140th Street corners. Kelley explained the City policy to allow commercial zoning only in the downtown areas. Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1990 Page 5 Bill Swanstrom, 13575 Pennock Avenue, stated that the proposed zoning for the Domestic and Calistro will exacerbate the traffic problem by adding 1,100 vehicles per day to the site. He stated he could not imagine more traffic being placed on Pennock Avenue, especially on Fridays and Saturdays. Chairman Erickson stated that any development will increase traffic, but that the City cannot simply deny the use of property because it might increase traffic. Member Gowling asked the City Planning Staff to explain the capacity of Pennock Avenue. City Planner Kelley explained the traffic counts on Pennock Avenue at 140th Street and the overall policy relating to residential street vehicle capacity. Connie Yalaski stated that Pennock Avenue does not have as much traffic today as it has in previous years, but noted that recently an accident on Cedar Avenue created a traffic problem on Pennock Avenue by increasing traffic by 48 vehicles. Lowell Kegley, 7790 139th Court W., stated if the rezoning occurred as requested, it would create a number of new families (127) which would force more vehicles to exit the neighborhood by using Pennock Avenue to the north. Mike Thomas, 13875 Pennock Avenue, asked for more detail in this study, especially how many cars go south on Pennock Avenue from 140th Street. He suggested the need for a left turn lane at 140th and Cedar may not be well thought out. He stated he preferred single family zoning throughout the area and asked whether the Calistro home and the Schultz home could be moved to another site. Tom Stuebe asked for clarification regarding the original staff recommendations for "M -1" and "M -2" residential development. City Planner Kelley responded by clarifying that the "M -1" and "M -2" zones known at the time of the study have been changed to a much larger scale including multi - family zoning districts from "M -1" to "M -8 11 . There were no further questions or comments. The public hearing on the Domestic / Calistro case was closed by Chairman Erickson. A seven minute break ensued. C. Maurer /McNamara /and Others - Zoning & Comprehensive Plan Amendment LOCATION: Between Cedar and Pennock, North of 138th Street PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 058 -Z) STAFF REPORT: February 7, 1990 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1990 Page 6 Associate Planner Meg McMonigal summarized the request as a change in the land use guide plan from "LD ", low density residential to a combina- tion of "LD" and "SF" single- family residential and a rezoning from "R -1 ", large lot single- family to "R -3" (single- family), "R -5" (duplex), "M -IA" (3 -4 units per acre, "M -2A ", (3 -5 units per acre) or "M -3A ", (3 -6 units per acre) or some combination thereof. She noted that the Planning Commission had indicated at previous meetings that single - family housing along Cedar Avenue at this location is not marketable and that the Planning Commission had recommended that the area between the proposed new street and Cedar Avenue be planned for and zoned for low density, multiple residential uses, while the area to the west of the new road be reserved for single - family uses. McMonigal explained the concept of a new City street running north /south connecting Granada on the north with 138th Street on the south. A connection east /west would be made between this new street and Harwell Path. The street system is recommended by the staff so that traffic generated from any new development will not use Pennock Avenue. The streets could be officially mapped for two purposes. 1) It would solidify the location of the road system and 2) it would assist in defining the land use /zoning boundaries. A survey would be needed in order to establish the location and evaluations of the future road. McMonigal also noted that a neighborhood park is needed in this area and that the Park and Recreation Committee, through the park section of the comprehensive plan, recommend the need for a four -acre neighborhood park somewhere between 138th and 134th Streets. McMonigal provided a comparison between the current recommendations and the previous recommendations included in the Pennock - Cedar - Garrett Land Use Study. She also explained the performance standards which would be attached to any new multi- family zoning. Member Weldon asked for clarification regarding the "R -1" zoning site north of the McNamara property. McMonigal explained that was a City -owned pond site and not considered buildable. Chairman Erickson read a letter from Ross Glynn, Granada Avenue dated February 4, 1990 into the record. Glynn stated he was opposed to anything but single - family housing and the existing single - family development should dictate that additional single - family development should occur in the area. He stated that Mr. Terry Maurer's proposal should have all single - family units and that the existing neighborhood surrounding this site opposes any use but single - family purposes. The official copy of the letter is attached to the back of the minutes. Bill Swanstrom, 13575 Pennock Avenue, stated that he spoke on behalf of the Maurer plan, but objected to the Park Committee decision on the Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1990 Page 7 park in the area and did not understand the compelling need to make the zoning and comprehensive plan consistent. He is very supportive of new parks in the area, but noted it may be too early to rezone when Mr. Maurer may re -enter the site with another single- family development. Bob White, 7970 Gurney Court, asked if the property had been zoned single - family previously why would the Planning Commission want to change that zoning currently. Chairman Erickson explained that the comprehensive plan is a legal document and that the zoning is the tool used to implement the comprehensive plan. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal clarified densities of the comprehen- sive plan and zoning code. She noted that the Maurer proposal only included one -third of the total site. Some of the other owners within this site requested a higher density of development. Bill Swanstrom stated that he had called the staff when his home was built and was assured that single - family homes would be built in the area. He stated that the Planning Commission must be careful to build in some type of buffer between multi - family and single - family homes. Bob Berkabec, 12637 Driftwood Lane, asked for clarification regarding whether the comprehensive plan supercedes the zoning code or vis versa. Chairman Erickson explained the policy and State law. Tom Kern asked how a citizen may change the comprehensive plan. Chairman Erickson explained the process. Lee Yadrich, 7760 134th Street W., discussed the inconsistencies in the zoning and comprehensive plan and the reasons for the update. A general discussion ensued with the Planning Commission Members. Mike Thomas, 13875 Pennock Avenue, stated that eight trips per day from each of the new households would create a significant change in the traffic loads. He stated that residents living west of Cedar are becoming prisoners of the traffic on Cedar Avenue. He asked if a stoplight could be installed at 138th and Cedar Avenue. Chairman Erickson asked City Planner Kelley to respond. Kelley noted that the County will not install a stoplight at 138th and Cedar because it would cause more accidents than it would prevent. A general discussion of traffic flows ensued in which Mr. Thomas asked whether a parallel road to Cedar Avenue was being proposed and requested the Planning Commission to prepare a workable road plan before land uses are decided. Dallas Karl, 13985 Granada Court, also requested that the Planning Commission address the entire traffic issues prior to further land use decisions. Tom Grazzini, 8020 134th Street, stated that there is a traffic problem in the Timberwick area and that the expansion of Garret Avenue Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1990 Page 8 compounds the traffic problem by increasing the number of families and the number of vehicle trips. This would counteract the improvements made by the construction of Guild Avenue. He stated the entire proposal compounds the traffic problems. He asked the Commission to consider designating the area adjacent to the freeway for single - family homes, similar to the area that was constructed east of Cedar Avenue in the Eagle Ridge Development. He expressed concern over the heavy congestion of traffic along 138th Street on the east side of Cedar Avenue. Grazzini recommended the Commission make no changes without further study. Don and Mary Erickson, 13660 Pennock Avenue, requested better communication from the staff, especially from Dennis Welsch. Mrs. Erickson noted that she had six developers interested in her four -acre site, none of which wanted to build anything but single- family homes. She noted that multi - family development may not be desirable on her property. Mr. Erickson stated that he has tried to market the parcels and the value of their parcel is declining. Homes on the site are less than 15 years old; they are not part of the marketing problem. Erickson stated that the proposed park may be an obstruction to development. If the site were left for single- family homes, it would be easier to sell by the various property owners. He requested the Commission to provide more freedom to the owners and the developers. A general discussion ensued regarding the park design adjacent to the Erickson site as originally proposed in 1989. John Banker, 13785 Guild Avenue, asked if it would be possible to allow the existing zoning to remain and amend the comprehensive plan. He stated he had no support for changing the zoning. Dave Penn, 13760 Guild Avenue, stated that it appeared that the Planning Commission was not working with the neighbors or the homeowners, as well as not working with the developers. A general discussion ensued regarding the project approval process. Tom Grazzini stated he felt the Planning Commission was playing the devil's advocate. He noted that the townhouse market is soft and traffic is a problem in the area - why is the City proposing anything but single - family homes. Helen Schultz, Pennock Avenue, stated that she would like to see twinhomes along 138th Street and along Cedar Avenue adjacent to the Cedar Avenue corridor. She noted the difference between the west side of Cedar and the east side of Cedar; the east side of Cedar has a frontage road. An unidentified citizen commented that the increase in traffic and the reduction in safety may reduce the valuation of the property. A citizen from the Huntington neighborhood asked if the City had planned for the rest of the community to be townhouses and apartments. Had the City and Planning Commission studied the issue of declining value for single - family homes? Why are townhouses placed next to the better homes? A Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1990 Page 9 general discussion ensued about the remaining parcels available for development in the City. Kevin McDermott, 12600 Driftwood Court, stated he opposed townhouses. A general discussion of multi - family zoning occurred. Helen Schultz asked where can older people in Apple Valley find a reasonable place to live. She stated there are no adult senior citizen units available in her immediate area. Mrs. Byers, 13654 Pennock Avenue, stated that she was concerned about selling her property. She stated that her house currently faces Harwell Path and she expressed concern about the amount of frontage and road right -a -way acquisition that would be necessary if Harwell Path were extended from Pennock to 138th Street. Chairman Erickson closed the public hearing. D. Ulrich Farm - Zoning LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Pilot Knob Road and County Road 38 PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC90- 003 -Z) STAFF REPORT: January 28, 1990 by Community Development Director Dennis Welsch Dennis Welsch reported that the zoning district (A) and the comprehensive plan designation (MD on the Ulrich site) are not consistent. The zoning designation allows for agricultural uses, while the comprehensive plan calls for moderate density, multi- family land use which would allow for a density of 6 - 12 units per acre. The staff recommended that the most appropriate use for this site would be a multi - family housing project. This would provide an opportunity to utilize the golf course as an amenity on the north and east sides of the site making the site ideal for upper income, multi- family housing. The staff recommended that the site should be rezoned to "M -6A ", which is a multi - family zoning district with moderate density of 6 -12 units per acre. This would be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan designation of "MD ". Kevin McDermott, 12600 Driftwood Court, stated that from the schools on the south of Pilot Knob Road to Diffley Avenue on the north, all land uses are single - family. Medium density is not consistent with this development pattern. Brian Wilson stated that the proposed use is not consistent with other uses nearby. High density development is already existing in the area. Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 1990 Page 10 Linda Moore, 12576 Driftwood Court, stated that the area already has high density and low density multi - family developments in the area. She would prefer to see more single- family development, especially since multi- family development occurs on the west side of Pilot Knob Road. Iva Greenlee, 12625 Driftwood Lane, asked why single - family homes were not being planned adjacent to the golf course. She stated there were further improvements needed for Huntington Park and expressed concern regarding the traffic at Pilot Knob Road and Diamond Path. Rich Peltier, 12549 Driftwood Lane, expressed concern about traffic. He noted that his house backs up to this proposed development. He expressed concern about traffic and snowplowing on Pilot Knob Road. He also noted that wildlife travels from the west to the east through the Regional Park to Rosemount and felt this project may detour some of the wildlife migrations. Pat Cropsey, 12626 Driftwood Lane, questioned the need for a density of 12 units per acre. He asked whether apartments or townhouses could be proposed on the site and whether performance standards would be implemented to require brick and wood siding. Bryan Wilson, 12581 Driftwood Court, expressed concern with the idea of holding zones as being deceiving to the public. Roy Ulrich, 5534 138th Street W., son of the current owner, stated that he had lived on the current site because of the parks and the golf courses. He noted that his father had been a planning commission member and community volunteer for many years. His father had stressed the need for Apple Valley to be more than a hodge /podge community. He stated that the land on which the golf course sits was sold to the City by his father seventeen years ago. He noted that the site could have been sold to Orrin Thompson for much more value. He expressed concern about the view from his mothers' property to the south, noting that two and three story houses are up the hill and are not ascetically pleasing. He noted that currently there are no planned unit developments and no offers on the site. However, the site has been planned for a multi - family project for many years. This site would require high performance standards. Jim Krieger, 12579 Driftwood Lane, expressed concern about being boxed in on the corner of County Road #38 and Pilot Knob Road by multi- family housing. He also expressed concern about traffic, childrens' safety, and the need for a well thought out site plan. An unidentified citizen expressed concern about the school bus safety. Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1990 Page 11 Kevin McDermott asked the Commission to consider "M -1" or "M -2" zoning instead of "M -6 ". Rich Peltier stated that the owner should consider constructing half million dollar homes adjacent to the golf course. Iva Greelee requested the Commission to consider low density or single - family homes on the Ulrich site, noting that the area already had moderate, density housing. A general discussion of zoning in the area and the process for rezoning ensued. Bob Berkopec, 12634 Driftwood Lane, stated that the Park and Recreation plans for the golf course needed to be improved. He asked if the City would consider purchasing a portion of the Ulrich site or all of the Ulrich site for expansion of the golf course. Linda Moore, 12596 Driftwood Lane, recommended a low density "LD" designation would be the equivalent of the Ulrich proposal. Chairman Erickson stated that the Staff will review the various options for zoning density with the owners of the property in the near future. Ery Ulrich, son of the owner of the property, stated that many of the single - family homes adjacent and across the street from his mother's property were two and three stories and appeared very ugly from the Ulrich homestead. He asked that the Commission consider that the traffic from the Ulrich site will flow north in the morning and will not be involved in the traffic movements at the corner of Pilot Knob Road and Diamond Path. He stated that the Ulrichs would sell the property to the City at the current multi - family prices if the City can afford it. He requested the Commission to consider an increase in density to "M -7" or "M -8 ", noting that a higher density would allow for higher construction value on the site. Chairman Erickson closed the public hearing. 6. LAND /USE ACTION ITEMS A. Variance for House Addition LOCATION: 6236 137th Court, Apple Valley, Minnesota PETITIONER: Vern and Cathy Bloomquist (PC90- 004 -V) Item moved to Consent Agenda. Planning Commission Minutes February 7, 1990 Page 12 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS - Verbal A. Resolution - Downtown Tax Increment Amendment Item moved to Consent Agenda. 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. 1990 Goals From Work Session There was no other business discussed at the meeting. The Commission decided to discuss the 1990 City Goals at a future meeting when Member Sterling was available to explain them. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. kg Attachments: 1. Sign -in Sheet 2. Letter From Mr. Glen Tapes of the Public Hearing have been placed in the Planning Commission Meeting file.