Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/16/1990PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF APPLE VALLEY MAY 16, 1990 1. CALL TO ORDER The May 16, 1990 meeting of the Apple Valley Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Erickson at 7:32 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the City of Apple Valley City Hall. Members Present: Chairman Erickson, Members Carlson, Felkner, Kitzman, and Gowling. Members Absent: Sterling and Weldon. Staff Present: Richard Kelley, Meg McMonigal, Scott Hickok, Linda Brinkhaus, Lon Aune, Dennis Miranowski, Keith Gordon, and Dennis Welsch. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to approve an amendment to the agenda which included the following: Consent Agenda's Items; 4A - Revised Bylaws; 4B - Weiss Variance; Public Hearing 5B - Capital Improvements Program Public Hearing to be opened but continued to 6/6/90; Cedar Knolls Rezoning Item 6C - Tabled to the second meeting in June; 6G - Mayer Garage Variance withdrawn; 6H - Sign Variance Along the Ring Route for Apple Valley Professional Building; 7A - Brobeck Land Use Discussion; 7B - Cedar Knolls Park Impacts Discussion. The motion carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 2, 1990 MOTION: A motion was made by Member Felkner, seconded by Member Gowling, to approve the minutes of May 2, 1990. The motion carried unanimously. 4. CONSENT AGENDA (One motion sends items needing no discussion on to the City Council with the staff recommendations.) A. Revised Bylaws MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to adopt the Revised 1990 City of Apple Valley Planning Commission Bylaws. The motion carried unanimously. Member Felkner asked the staff to correct typos on page 2, paragraph 3. Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1990 Page 2 Weiss Variance MOTION: A motion was made by Gowling, to recommend approval of the at 7190 - 131st Circle as per the carried unanimously. Member Carlson, seconded by Member Weiss variance (PC90- 028 -V) located staff recommendations. The motion 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Calistro /Vista Zon Con 017 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment to "MD ", "LD ", and "SF" and Rezoning to 11 M -0 11 1 "R -5 ", and "R -3 ". LOCATION: West Side of Cedar Avenue Between 138th and 140th Streets PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 051 -Z) STAFF REPORT: May 11, 1990 by City Planner Richard Kelley Chairman Robert Erickson opened the public hearing and requested the staff to present a background report on the comprehensive plan and zoning amendments for the Calistro site. City Planner Richard Kelley responded by describing the May 11, 1990 project summary and described the differ- ences between the previously recommended land use designations of the Planning Commission (February 21, 1990) and a recommendation returned back to the Planning Commission by the City Council on April 26, 1990. Kelley described the proposed changes in the City Council's direction for the Calistro site and the Vista Development site, noting that the most significant difference would be the change to single- family development along the west property line of the Calistro property, as well as a small portion of the southwest corner of the Vista site. He also described the official mapping process and illustrated that the official map would not designate a road from 139th Street to 140th Street. City Planner Kelley described a letter addressed to the Planning Commission dated May 15, 1990 from Leo Dehler representing Barbara Calistro. The letter requested that a street system be connected between 139th and 140th Street and expressed concern about traffic generation in residential areas. Kelley responded by describing the impacts of traffic based upon the staff computer models, noting that there was little difference between the original model prepared in response to the Planning Commission's February 22, 1990 recommendation and the April 26, 1990 City Council direction. He also referred the Commission to the original Pennock /Cedar /Garrett study. Kelley noted that the City Council's direction of April 26, 1990 does not allow for a buffer between new single - family "R -3" and median density "M -6B" land uses, particularly on the Calistro property. Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1990 Page 3 Chairman Erickson asked for clarification regarding cul -de -sac locations and requirements for road systems in the City Council's direction of April 26, 1990. Chairman Erickson read portions of the May 15, 1990 Calistro /Dehler letter into the record stating that the property owners prefer additional commercial uses on the Calistro site. Chairman Erickson asked City Planner Kelley to respond to this and explain the City policy regarding not providing additional commercial land uses outside of the downtown retail center. Member Gowling asked for clarification from staff regarding the single - family area proposed east of the Timberwick area. She asked if the single- family area will have the same problem in the future with adjoining "M -6B" apartment properties to the east of the proposed single- family area. She asked if a buffer of land uses or distance should be included. Member Carlson asked for clarification of procedure. Why was this request sent back to the Planning Commission and what can the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council? City Planner Kelley responded that the request was returned to the Planning Commission because the City Council's direction asked for a public hearing on a proposed single- family area adjacent to Timberwick, which was not in a previous public hearing notice. Once the public hearings are complete, the Planning Commission can recommend other combinations of land uses than are currently proposed in the Council directive as long as those uses have been published in the legal notice. Member Gowling asked for clarification regarding the access allowed at 139th Street. Is the access permanent? Kelley responded that the access is available at this time, but that there is no guarantee that the access will always be opened at the 139th Street and Cedar Avenue inter- section. Chairman Erickson asked for public comment. Barbara Calistro, owner of the Calistro property, stated that she could not attend the last public hearing held on this issue. She stated she objects to the designation of single - family uses along 140th Street. She noted that the Highway Department has projected 140th Street would be a six lane road. She objected to the designation of single- family uses on this property in the same manner that Mrs. Schultz objected at the corner of 138th Street and Cedar Avenue. Mrs. Calistro also objected to the proposal to place all of the 139th Street access on the Calistro parcel. She expressed opposition to the loss of access onto 140th Street and asked for traffic and access points clarifications from Cedar Avenue onto 139th Street. Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1990 Page 4 Mrs. Calistro noted that the County had told her that Cedar Avenue will have a divider and eight lanes of traffic in the future. She expressed concern about access to her site from Pennock and 140th Street. City Planner Kelley responded that the current proposal does not preclude an entrance onto her property from 140th Street. However, it is unlikely that there will be full four -way intersection on her property along 140th Street. Mrs. Calistro asked why the intersection would be required to be at least 600 feet west of Cedar Avenue on 140th Street. City Engineer Keith Gordon stated that there is no regulation requiring a 600 foot setback from Cedar Avenue because 140th Street is a City street. Gordon noted that the setback would be at least 300 feet from Cedar Avenue and would not allow for left hand turns into the Calistro site or left hand turns out of the Calistro site onto 140th Street; only right turns into and out of this site would be allowed. Mrs. Calistro reiterated that she was opposed to the designation of single- family development on her parcel; the establishment of 139th Street entirely on her property; the traffic access limitations to her property from 140th Street; the addition of more roads on her property reducing the amount of developable land and the financial impact that additional roads would have on the value of her site. Chairman Erickson clarified that the 600 foot setback for an inter - section at 140th and Granite occurred on a previous planning project at a time when a full intersection was proposed both north and south of 140th Street. City Planner Kelley described the officially mapped road and the assessment process for the road actually constructed on each property owner's site. In response to a question regarding the desire to have single- family on her property, Mrs. Calistro noted that she had previously meet with the staff and would have accepted a small piece of single - family development adjacent to the Timberwick project, but did not expect half of the site to be designated for single- family uses. Frank Kleckner, representing Vista Development, asked the Planning Commission to make a rational decision and submit it to the City Council so that a final decision can be made by the City and development can begin. Art Eaton, representing Vista Development, stated his company would accept the Planning Commission's original decision and recommendations. Frank Kleckner stated that the original intent was to add density in addition to what was proposed by the City Council at the April 26, 1990 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1990 Page 5 Judy Young, 13835 Pennock Avenue, stated she was opposed to the "M -6B" zoning on the entire corner of 138th Street and Cedar. She noted that duplexes on the west side of the site will have double facing lots which will make them difficult to sell if they are adjacent to a three story apartment building. She asked the Planning Commission to consider placing three story apartment buildings south of 140th Street. She illustrated examples along Interstate 35E wherein single - family and duplex developments occur adjacent to an expressway. She stated it was unfair to put homeowners in a position of constant land use change which would reduce the homeowner's property value. Chairman Erickson and City Planner Kelley explained the existing "RCL" density and the advantages of two to three story building over a one story sprawled building. Mrs. Young stated that duplexes and quads would introduce owners into the area whereas three story apartment buildings would bring renters. She objected to the manner of upkeep for apartment buildings. Mrs. Calistro stated that a single- family home cannot be built on Cedar Avenue and that it would likewise be very difficult to build a single - family home facing 140th Street. There were no further public comments. Chairman Erickson closed the public hearing. No action was taken on the item. B. 1990 -1995 Capital Improvements Program LOCATION: City of Apple Valley PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC90- 026 -P) Chairman Robert Erickson opened the Capital Improvement public hearing. The Planning Staff requested that the public hearing be continued until June 6, 1990 to allow department heads to complete their Capital Improvements Program and submit it to the Planning Commission. There was no public comment. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to continue the public hearing from the 1990 -1995 Capital Improvements Program to June 6, 1990. The motion carried unanimously. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. 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 16, 1990 by Community Development Director Dennis Welsch Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1990 Page 6 Community Development Director Dennis Welsch provided a background report in which he summarized the request by the Heslis to create three lots on a 2.6 acre site. He noted that there were conflicting require- ments from the "R -1" residential district, as well as the shoreland zoning required by the State. Linda Brinkhaus provided a comparison of the sites available for further re- subdivision under the various zoning classifi- cations ( "R -1 ", "SH ", and "R -3 ") Brinkhaus also illustrated the dimensions of the various lots and the requirements for each of the zoning districts. Dennis Welsch discussed seven possible solutions to the Hesli case. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS 1. Approve subdivision for two (2) lots and deny rezoning. 2. Approve subdivision for three (3) lots, deny rezoning, variance for 26,000 s.f. lot. 3. Rezone entire subdivision to "R -3 ", approve three (3) lot sub- division. 4. Adopt policy that "SH overlay applies in sewered areas. Approve subdivision for three (3) lots, deny rezoning. 5. Amend "R -1" zone to allow 20,000 s.f. lots if sewered. Approve three (3) lot subdivision. Deny rezoning to "R -3 ". 6. Adopt "R -2" for entire area (18,000 s.f. minimum lot size). Approve three (3) lot subdivision. 7. Create new zone called "SH ", replace all "R -1" areas adjacent to lakes with "SH" (20,000 s.f. lake lots and 15,000 s.f. interior lots). NOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Felkner, to table Item 6A - Hesli Replat - to the June 6, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried unanimously. B. Coady South - Comprehensive Plan Amendment from "MD" to "LD ", Rezoning from "R -1" to "M -3A" and "M -0". LOCATION: S.E. Corner Cedar Avenue and Zoo Road PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 040 -ZP) STAFF REPORT: May 10, 1990 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal Associate Planner Meg McMonigal presented a background report which answered questions regarding the noise regulations of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. She summarized by stating that the City and the Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1990 Page 7 developer could approve residential uses on the Coady site which meet the MPCA's noise standards. A general discussion of the project and the potential land uses ensued with Mr. Coady. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Felkner, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend changing the zoning from "R -1" to "M -3A" on the east one -half of the Coady's south site and from "R -1" to "M -0" on the west one -half of the Coady site. The motion carried unanimously. The project will be sent to the City Council for its' consideration on May 24, 1990. C. Cedar Knolls ZonCon 002 - Consideration of Rezoning to "NCC" and "M -6" LOCATION: West of Cedar Knolls Mobile Home Park PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC90- 013 -Z) The Planning Staff recommended to the Commission that no action be taken on this item until the second meeting in June to allow the owners to resolve a possible change in ownership of the parcel. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to table further action on the Cedar Knolls rezoning case to June 20, 1990. The motion carried unanimously. D. 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: May 10, 1990 by City Planner Richard Kelley City Planner Richard Kelley provided a background report in which he summarized the Planning Commission's consideration of a rezoning of this property to comply with the City's comprehensive plan. Staff had recommended that all of the "MD" property be rezoned to "M -6B" and that a portion of the "HD" area be rezoned to "M -7C "; a 5.22 acre parcel at the intersection of Cedar Avenue and 155th Street West would be retained as agricultural zoning at this time for future consideration. The Staff recommended that the owner engage a planning consultant to arrive at a concept plan for "NCC" uses in the remaining agriculturally zoned lot with some adjustment to occur to the zoning boundaries in order to accommodate the neighborhood commercial center. A general discussion ensued regarding the advisability of only rezoning a portion of the site. There was general consensus among the Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1990 Page 8 members that the Planning Commission should wait to make a decision on the entire site rather than make a recommendation on portions of the site for multi - family housing. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Felkner, to table action on the Apple Ponds exception rezoning to a date no later than July 18, 1990 in order to allow the applicant to complete a land use design for the entire site. The motion carried unanimously. E. Rasmussen Setback Variance LOCATION: 8635 143rd Street Court PETITIONER: H. Jon and Kathleen Rasmussen (PC90= 007 -V) STAFF REPORT: May 16, 1990 by Associate Planner Scott Hickok Associate Planner Scott Hickok provided a background report which summarized the various setback issues and permits issued for a deck on the site. No permit was issued for a screened porch on the site. In both cases (deck and screened porch), the setback requirements of the zoning code have not been complied with. In addition, the building permit process has not been completed because inspections were not made of the structure as it was constructed. The Staff recommended the variance be denied because alternatives do exist, the project, as currently built, sits within a City utility easement, and the structural integrity of the building is questioned because of the lack of inspection during the process. Chairman Erickson asked the applicant to provide some background as to why the size of the deck was changed and why no inspections were made. Mr. Rasmussen stated he built the deck with six friends in 1986. In July of 1987, the deck was built without a proper permit. He stated he had talked with the building officials and that the construction was approved except for truss design, which was submitted in May of 1989. He noted that the original site plan for the house was changed to preserve oaks on the site. The oaks were later destroyed by the contractor of the original house. A general discussion of the materials and inspection process ensued. Member Carlson asked for clarification regarding the corrective steps necessary and listed footings size, beams, joist hangers, roof and trusses that needed to be inspected. Mr. Rasmussen stated there would be no problem in providing access to these structural members. Member Carlson asked for clarification regarding the City's need to maintain the easement for drainage purposes. It was suggested that an escrow account be established. The Staff responded that an escrow account Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1990 Page 9 may not be adequate and that a legal document is attached to the deed notifying future property owners of the requirements to move the structure if necessary would be adequate. Member Carlson stated that he felt the only solution to this problem would be for Rasmussen to allow all of the inspections and corrections of the structure to occur and for the City to have safeguards for an escrow and easement attachments to the deed. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Felkner, to table further action on the Rasmussen variance case for three weeks until the June 6, 1990 meeting at which time the following issues will be address: A. Building inspection be complete and a letter submitted by building inspection staff to the Planning Commission explaining what the building modifications for structural improvements must be made. B. A letter from the City Attorney explaining the method in which the City can protect the drainage easements through the use of an attachment to the deed and an escrow account. The motion carried unanimously. G. Mayer Garage Variance LOCATION: 165 Garden View Drive PETITIONER: Roger C. and Sharon G. Mayer (PC90- 029 -V) The Planning Staff reported that Mr. and Mrs. Mayer had withdrawn their request for a variance because they were able to find an alternative design for the garage. No action was necessary. H. Apple Valley Professional Building Sign Variance LOCATION: 7493 - 147th Street West PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC90 -0 -V) STAFF REPORT: May 16, 1990 by City Planner Richard Kelley City Planner Richard Kelley provided a background report in which he illustrated the existing sign for the Apple Valley Professional Building in order to reconstruct the Ring Route road improvements. A new sign will be needed. The sign cannot meet the thirteen foot setback requirement. The new sign will be setback nine feet from the property line. A four foot variance is necessary. The Staff recommended approval of the variance due to the hardship created by the additional street easement required by the City for the Ring Route reconstruction. Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1990 Page 10 MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Felkner, to recommend approval of the Apple Valley Professional Building sign variance of four feet. A discussion ensued regarding the landscaping and street furniture around the base of the sign. Commission members discussed whether the landscaping and street furniture will visually block the sign. City Planner Kelley noted that the street furniture and fencing will not be higher than the thirty inch high base of the sign. The motion carried unanimously. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Brobeck Development John and Henry Brobeck, owners of property located in the northwest one - quarter of Section 36, requested comments and discussion from the Planning Commission regarding direction to be taken for changing the comprehensive plan and rezoning to allow the Brobeck parcel (20 acres) to be utilized for single - family development. A general discussion ensued regarding the completion of sand and gravel activities in the area and how this project would compliment the sand and gravel operations. Chairman Erickson noted that sand and gravel mining may be occurring on all four sides of the Brobeck parcel and asked whether the site would be market- able. Mr. John Brobeck stated that it would be possible to develop in this area because in the past the Brobeck Company has had two projects adjacent to the Nordic Square site. Both projects have been successful. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal said that the last application made by the Brobecks was in 1987. No action was taken on the issue at that time. Community Development Director Dennis Welsch explained the gravel staging plan as described in the Environmental Impact Statement for south Apple Valley. John Brobeck stated that the last few times that this project has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, the applicants have spent funds to prepare plans. Before preparing additional plans for this site, the Brobecks are asking the City whether the City is ready to rezone for single - family at this time. Member Carlson stated that the gravel issue has not been resolved and asked Staff to respond to the timeline for completion of the Gravel Environmental Impact Statement. Dennis Welsch responded that the Environmental Impact Statement may not be completed until the end of 1990 at the current rate of completion. He stated that approving a subdivision at this time may be premature because of so many unresolved issues. Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1990 Page 11 City Planner Kelley noted that sewer and water do not currently serve the site and must be constructed to the site within easements provided by the gravel operators if they are available. He suggested that such ease- ments may not be available without condemnation. The cost of such ease- ments would then be born by the Brobeck parcel. Chairman Erickson stated that the Brobecks are within their rights to request a rezoning, but there are numerous unresolved issues. These issues include: a) Utilities not to the site. b) Roads which will be realigned and reduced in elevation. c) An amendment to the comprehensive plan. d) An amendment to the zoning map. e) The gravel mining on all four sides. f) The premature nature of installing single- family in an area where utilities and roads are not available at this time. No action was taken by the Commission. B. Cedar Knolls Impacts Report Associate Planner Meg McMonigal presented a report comparing the population, developable acres, park acres, and density of parkland within seven separate sectors of the community. The comparison showed that the Cedar Knolls area has a similar acreage per resident as other areas in the City. Meg McMonigal noted that the park acreage per person under twenty years of age was equal to or above the average of park acreage available in other areas of the City. A discussion ensued regarding the accessibility to the parks and the Parks Staff and Public Works Staff reports on various requests for improvements to Cedar Knolls Park and Briar Oaks Park. The Commission requested the Planning Staff to report back at a future date on additional improvements which could be made surrounding the Cedar Knolls area. Chairman Erickson noted that many of these issues may be resolved after the ownership of the Cedar Knolls area has been resolved on June 20, 1990. No further discussion was offered. Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 1990 Page 12 8. OTHER BUSINESS None 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. kg