Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/1990PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF APPLE VALLEY MAY 2, 1990 1. CALL TO ORDER The May 2, 1990 meeting of the Apple Valley Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Erickson at 7:31 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the City of Apple Valley City Hall. Members Present: Chairman Erickson, Members Carlson, Felkner, Sterling, Kitzman, Gowling, and Weldon. Staff Present: Richard Kelley, Meg McMonigal, Scott Hickok, Linda Brinkhaus, Dennis Miranowski, and Dennis Welsch. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA With the addition of Item 6C, Sunnyside Chrysler sign variance, the agenda was approved as submitted. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 1990 MOTION: A motion was made by Member Sterling, seconded by Member Gowling, to approve the minutes of the April 18, 1990 meeting with the following corrections: 1 - page 5, third paragraph, fourth sentence should read "The Commission disagreed with Mr. Klose regarding traffic impact." 2 - page 8, fourth paragraph, second sentence should read "The nonconforming porch is 3 feet, 6 inches from the side lot line." The motion carried unanimously. 4. CONSENT AGENDA (One motion sends items needing no discussion on to the City Council with the staff recommendations. None. Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 1990 Page 2 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Coady South - Comprehensive Plan Amendment from "MD" to "LD ", Rezoning from "R -1" to "M -3A" and "M -4A ". LOCATION: S.E. Corner Cedar Avenue and Zoo Road PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 040 -ZP) STAFF REPORT: May 2, 1990 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal Chairman Erickson opened the public hearing and requested Associate Planner Meg McMonigal to provide a background staff report. McMonigal noted that on March 7, 1990 the Planning Commission recommended a comprehensive plan change from moderate density to a mix of low density and moderate density and an east -west split in the property for such uses. The Planning Commission also set a public hearing for a similar split in the property zoning designations with "M -4" being the west side of the property and "M -3" on the east side of the property. She provided a chart explaining the impacts of various zoning alternatives. Mr. Bill Coady, owner of the property, stated that the comprehensive plan has shown "M -3" as being 6 to 12 units in the past. He stated that the proposal would be a down grading of the site. The highway to the west is not environmentally compatible for multi - family uses according to Coady. Mr. Coady stated that he has studied the problem for many years and had projected that air and traffic problems would occur and now they are creating a problem on the site. McMonigal explained the comprehensive plan changes allowing for 6 to 12 units per acre in a moderate density development and for 3 to 6 units per acre in a low density development. She noted that the existing zoning on the site is "R -1 ", which would allow for a large lot 40,000 square foot, single- family lots. The change in the zoning would increase the density from one unit per acre to at least 3 to 6 units per acre. Chairman Erickson noted that the Planning Commission had asked for a higher density than was recommended by the Staff; that is, a "M -4" zoning designation on the west half of the site. McMonigal noted that in a letter from the City Attorney, the City can require noise barriers when a site is subdivided, thus allowing the property to come into compliance with the existing Minnesota Pollution Control Agency noise standards. Mr. Coady stated that sound barriers will not work on low areas such as his property. He stated that the property will remain undeveloped for many years to come because of the designation recommended by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 1990 Page 3 Chairman Erickson stated that it would be difficult for both residential and commercial uses because of different impacts of each type of project on this site. Coady stated that information had been provided to the City regarding the project and the designation of uses for this site. The multi - family designation will not allow the property to be sold. He stated he did not have a direct answer to what the site should be designated in order to be sold most effectively. He recommended that the Planning Commission wait to designate the site for a use at a future time when a project appears on the horizon. Chairman Erickson stated that if such a proposal does occur, even after the Planning Commission has made its' recommendation regarding multi- family zoning, the Staff and the Planning Commission are always open to consider additional changes. Coady stated that the designation will make the site completely unmarketable. Chairman Erickson asked Mr. Coady if the State did not provide consideration or compensation when acquiring property for Cedar Avenue or the Zoo Road. Coady responded that while the State did supply some com- pensation, it was not significant. The State provided compensation based upon farmland value. No public comment was offered regarding this project. Chairman Erickson closed the public hearing noting that the Planning Commission will probably act on this project on May lb, 1990. B. Apple Ponds Exceptions - Rezoning from "A" Agriculture to "M -6B" or "C" and "M -7B" or "C ". LOCATION: N.E. Corner Cedar Avenue and 157th Street W. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC90- 008 -PZ) STAFF REPORT: April 25, 1990 by City Planner Richard Kelley Chairman Erickson opened the public hearing and asked City Planner Richard Kelley to provide a background report. Kelley noted that the property, as currently proposed, would be designated medium and high density in the comprehensive plan and the zoning would be "M -6" and "M -7", respectively. He estimated that the "M -7" site would be approximately 700 by 500 square feet in size. He noted that the original proposal on 155th Street was "M -8" and that the City readvertised for a combination of "M -6" and "M -7 ", thus reducing the potential density on the corner of the project. Kelley described the differences in performance standards for multi- family housing. City Planner Kelley noted that the property owner has suggested that commercial uses be allowed on 155th Street. The Staff has worked with the Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 1990 Page 4 owner to provide some option for a neighborhood convenience center to be located on 155th Street. No proposal is available at this time. The Staff has recommended that the proposal not be brought forth until a site plan design has been completed illustrating how multi - family housing and a neighborhood convenience center could be laid out on the same site. Reid Hanson, representing the Carroll family owners of the property, noted that in the past the Carroll family felt it was entitled to some type of commercial designation along 155th Street since it did dedicate 155th Street without cost to the City. In the future, the Carroll family will hire a planner to do a land use design for both the commercial uses and the multi - family uses. Mr. Hanson requested that the Planning Commission table a rezoning for three months to allow the Carroll family to retain a site plan designer to complete work on the various land use alternatives. Member Carlson noted that the inconsistency that the Planning Commission is trying to resolve requires the property owner to solidify a plan for the area. He stated that Hanson and Carroll would propose just such a plan if allowed the time to complete it. A general discussion ensued regarding the need for additional public hearings for a neighbor- hood convenience center designation. Member Carlson asked if the entitlement that Mr. Hanson referred to was in writing or in a contract. Mr. Hanson responded that there is no contract, but that the previous comprehensive plan did allow for commer- cial development. Brian Jergenson, 7250 157th Street W., stated that the "M -7" area is larger than at previous meetings. He would prefer "M -4" and "M -5 ". City Planner Kelley noted that the parcel has not grown in size and that the designa -tions were "M -T" and "M -8" in the previous proposal. Mr. Jergenson said that he would like to see "M -6" reduced to "M -4 ". City Planner Kelley explained the multi- family density requirements in the City Code. Russ Lipps, 7281 W. 158th Street, asked about the volume of traffic along 157th Street. City Planner Kelley responded that 157th Street is a neighborhood collector street which is defined as a street of at least two miles in length, carrying a maximum of 4,000 to 5,000 trips per day with a 44 foot wide width. Kelley noted that on 157th Street townhouses would be built along the street, but they would be oriented to common driveways with clusters of homes thus reducing the amount of driveways onto 157th Street. Mr. Hanson noted that the density on the west side of Cedar Avenue and south of the Apple Ponds single - family development is high density rather than medium or low density development and therefore, his project would be consistent with these designations. Chairman Erickson stated Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 1990 Page 5 that one of the reasons the moderate density attractive noise and visual buffer for the east. Planning Commission found high density and in these areas was that it would act as a the single - family developments set further to Chairman Erickson asked for further public comment. There was none. Chairman Erickson closed the public hearing. This item will appear on the May 16, 1990 agenda. C. Hidden Ponds - Rezoning from "M -8C" Multiple Residential to "R -5" Duplex LOCATION: 12825 -45 Germane Avenue PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 083 -ZP) STAFF REPORT: May 2, 1990 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal Chairman Erickson opened the public hearing. Associate Planner McMonigal noted that the Hidden Ponds area had been previously rezoned from "M -8C" to "R -5" where duplexes existed. The two lots in question at this hearing had been omitted from the original legal description. She noted that this rezoning reflects the use of the site which is currently two duplex buildings. No public comment was offered. Chairman Erickson closed the public hearing. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend a change in the zoning map from "M -7" to "R -5" for residential lots located at 12825 through 12845 Germane Avenue. The motion carried unanimously. D. Hesli Replat - Rezoning from "R -1 to "R -3" and 3 Lot Replat LOCATION: 4855 Dominica Way West PETITIONER: Eugene and Helen Hesli (PC90- 021 -ZS) STAFF REPORT: May 2, 1990 by Planning Intern Linda Brinkhaus Chairman Erickson opened the public hearing and requested a staff report. Planning Intern Linda Brinkhaus described the project as being a 2.6 acre plat which would contain three lots with two existing single - family homes. The petition requests a rezoning from "R -1" to "R -3" to allow a third lot to be established on the site. The third lot called "Lot 1" would be 26,000 square feet in size, while Lot 2 would be 46,000 square feet in size and Lot 3 would be 42,000 square feet in size. Planning Intern Brinkhaus noted that this proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and that the project does lie within the City's shoreland district which requires additional lot requirements, including a Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 1990 Page 6 minimum size of 15,000 square feet for a house utilizing City sewer and water. Steve Haggmark introduced himself as representing Eugene and Helen Hesli. Jerry Kistner, 4885 Dominica Way, stated that the change from "R -1" to "R -3" would begin a process of increasing lot densities around the lake. He noted this would mean 10 to 11 more homes in the area. City Planner Kelley described the difference between the "R -1" and "R -3" zones and the shoreland regulations. Mr. Kistner stated this would be a big change to the neighborhood. Jon Dahlin, 4899 Dominica Way, stated that Lot 1 would be much smaller than other lots on Dominica Way. Mr. Kistner stated that a new home would decrease market value in the area. Ron Wolff, 4901 Dominica Way, asked what would be the impact of the high water mark on this lot. Steve Haggmark stated that the level has been determined by the City's control of lake levels through pumping. Mr. Dahlin asked for further descriptions of what the procedure would be to subdivide land in the area. Chairman Erickson instructed the Staff to look at the precedent issue. He also asked the Staff to look at the number of possible lots that could be created and to determine the capacity of the new sewer and water system that will be installed this year. Betty Rabe, 4877 Dominica Way, an adjacent property owner, ask why lots 1 and 2 could not be joined into one lot and asked for clarification regarding lot widths. Chairman Erickson asked the Staff to provide a clearer survey illustrating the lot widths in the future. Mrs. Rabe asked how the house will be set on the lot and have access to Dominica Way. A general discussion of the zoning around the lake ensued. Chairman Erickson closed the public hearing. No action was taken. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Rasmussen Setback Variance LOCATION: 8635 - 143rd Street Court PETITIONER: H. Jon and Kathleen Rasmussen (PC90- 007 -V) Chairman Erickson noted that no additional information is available for this case, but that Mr. Rasmussen had contacted him and asked that the case be delayed one more time. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Sterling, to table the Rasmussen variance case to May 16, 1990. The Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 1990 Page 7 motion carried unanimously. Chairman Erickson stated that the Planning Commission will take action at the next meeting on the Rasmussen case. B. Monument Sign Setback Variance LOCATION: C.R. #38 and Dover Drive PETITIONER: Earl Vraa (PC90- 024 -V) STAFF REPORT: May 2, 1990 by Associate Planner Scott Hickok Associate Planner Scott Hickok provided a Staff report regarding need for a setback variance for a monument sign located on the J. V. Development /Vraa site. The 6 foot variance requested would allow the sign to set within 7 feet of the property line wherein a 13 foot setback is required by the code. The stated reasons for the variance were that locations would require extensive regrading and would cause damage to existing Oak trees. The Staff recommended approved and recommended conditions be attached to the variance including, prior to issuance of the sign permit, an easement be recorded by the developer. This easement, along with a $1,000.00 permit fee for a monument sign, would allow the Staff to enter the property to maintain the signs if maintenance associated problems arise. Staff also recommended that any lighting constructed on the site be shielded and not be detrimental or affect traffic or adjacent property.. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Sterling, to recommend approval of the variance, citing the hardships of grading and damage to trees. The motion also included the conditions as recommended by the Staff. The motion carried unanimously. C. Sunnyside Chrysler Sign Variance LOCATION: S.W. Corner of County Road 42 and Galaxie Avenue PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC90- 025 -V) STAFF REPORT: May 2, 1990 by Associate Planner Scott Hickok Associate Planner Scott Hickok explained that due to Ring Route construction, the placement of the monument signs in the ring route conflicts with the Sunnyside Chrysler sign. A variance was requested to place the permanent pylon sign along the north property line further to the west from its' present location. The present location of the pylon sign sits at the property line, not ten feet from the lot line. Staff recommended approval of the variance to allow the permanent sign to be set at the north property line in accordance with Diagram B. Staff noted that placing this sign in other areas of the site can cause visual blight or make the sign hard to see from the street system. The location recommended in Option B appears to reduce the problems with visibility and is acceptable to the owner, Sunnyside Chrysler. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Gowling, seconded by Member Sterling, to recommend approval of a sign setback variance to allow Sunnyside Chrysler to establish a sign at the property line as per the Staff report, Option B. The motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 1990 Page 8 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS State Planning Conference - A general discussion of who would attend the State Conference ensued. 8. OTHER BUSINESS None. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. kg