Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1990(i 0.r reCZ - &41 Co/i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF APPLE VALLEY JUNE 6, 1990 1. CALL TO ORDER The June 6, 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, and Gowling. Members Absent: Weldon. Staff Present: Richard Kelley, Meg McMonigal, Scott Hickok, Linda Brinkhaus, Dennis Miranowski, Keith Gordon, and Dennis Welsch. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The agenda was approved as written with the understanding that Item 513 - Capital Improvements Program - Public Hearing - would be continued after the land use section has been completed. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 16, 1990 The minutes of May 16, 1990 were approved as written. Member Sterling abstained from voting on the minutes because she was absent. 4. CONSENT AGENDA (One motion sends items needing no discussion on to the City Council with the staff recommendations.) A. Portable Classroom Relocations - Building Permit Authorization LOCATION: Greenleaf Elementary - 13333 Galaxie Avenue Southview Elementary - 1025 Whitney Drive Cedar Park Elementary - 7500 Whitney Drive Highland Elementary - 14001 Pilot Knob Road Apple Valley High School - 14450 Hayes Road PETITIONER: ISD #196 (PC90- 034 -B) MOTION: A motion was made by Member Felkner, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend approval of portable classroom relocations and building permit authorizations at Greenleaf Elementary, Southview Elementary, Cedar Park Elementary, Highland Elementary, and Apple Valley High School. The motion was made contingent upon the seven portable Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1990 Page 2 classrooms being relocated in accordance with the submittal application. The motion carried unanimously. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Apple Valley Retail Addition Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Cedar Avenue and 153rd Street West PETITIONER: Ryan Construction (PC90- 030 -B) STAFF REPORT: 5, 1990 by City Planner Richard Kelley City Planner Richard Kelley provided a background report in which he described the request for a preliminary plat containing two or three commercial lots on a site which is 19.87 acres in size. The existing zoning on the site is retail business and the comprehensive plan also is consistent. Kelley described Lot I and Lot 2 activities. Lot 1 may include a building of approximately 87,000 square feet in size which would be a freestanding shopping center type building. On Lot 2, it is antici- pated by Ryan Development that a strip center and another smaller anchor may be constructed in the future. Kelley noted that both lots far exceed the minimum zoning requirements for establishment of new lots in a "RE" zone. He also noted that utilities are available in the area. The actual engineering documents and surveys will be available at the June 20, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting. City Engineer Keith Gordon reported that sanitary sewer and water are located in Cedar Avenue directly west of the site and are available for this site. There appears to be adequate capacity to serve the entire site. Sanitary sewer and water would simply be extended to the east from Cedar Avenue. Storm sewer currently runs north and south through the Garrett Avenue extension. Gordon noted that surface drainage and extensions from the east into the major parking areas would be necessary to provide storm sewer to this site over the long term. In the short term, some additional runoff may be allowed to run to the north and the east over the parking lot surface. In summary, he noted that the storm sewer solution is workable and provides no major problems. A general discussion ensued with Planning Commission Members and Staff regarding traffic flows into and out of the site, as well as the ability to provide a right turn only access from Cedar into the parking area, especially as it relates to the additional growth which may occur in Lakeville. Richard Kelley noted that Westwood Engineers will be completing a traffic plan for the site. Bill McHale, representing Ryan Construction the owner and developer of the site, noted that the parking lot design will be simple with a ring route design around the edges. A semaphore will be needed at the second entrance (east entrance) on 153rd Street to the site. Right turn entries to the parking lot from Cedar Avenue would be of help to dispersing traffic on this site. McHale noted that storm sewer will be worked out Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1990 Page 3 with a solution available at the June 20, 1990 meeting. He noted that the building will be either a 67,000 square foot building with a possible 20,000 square foot addition, or a 105,000 square foot building immediately. He also described the exterior building as being of same quality and brick materials as the Target Greatland complex. The same light standards as Target Greatland will be used here. McHale stated that he had worked with Menards and informed the adjoining neighbor that Menards and the potential user of the Ryan site should cooperate on a joint entry from Cedar Avenue. McHale noted that the final site plans will be available for staff to review on June 14th in anticipation of review and a decision on the site plan and preliminary plat at the June 20, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting. Member Gowling commented on the need for a drop off lane in front of the store, noting that the Rainbow Center is a very bad traffic problem. Chairman Erickson asked for more details on cart storage areas. Member Sterling asked about the parking layout and the width of the driving lanes near the entrance to the store. Are they adequate? Chairman Erickson expressed concern over the drop off and entry areas and the methods of providing traffic flow, as well as pedestrian safety. Member Sterling asked for more details regarding the setback of the building and the screening of the building from Cedar Avenue and the Menards complex to the south. City Planner Kelley responded that the Menards building to the south is set at the property line, thus requiring the Ryan project to be setback at least 60 feet from the same property line. There was no comment offered from the public. Chairman Erickson closed the public hearing. B. 1990 -1995 Capital Improvements Program LOCATION: City of Apple Valley PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC90- 026 -P) Chairman Erickson opened the continued public hearing on the City of Apple Valley Capital Improvements Program and invited the Staff to provide details after the conclusion of the land use section of the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1990 Page 4 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Vista /Calistro ZonCon 017 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment to "MD ", "LD ", and "SF" and Rezoning to "M -6B ", "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: 6, 1990 by City Planner Richard Kelley City Planner Richard Kelley provided a background description of previous actions by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He described the last Planning Commission recommendation as a change in comprehensive plan to medium density and low density and a change in zoning to "M -613" and "M -iB ". He also noted that the Planning Commission had previously recommended a north /south road_ alignment from 138th Street south to 140th Street. Kelley described the City Council's recommendation regarding the site as a change in comprehensive plans to "LD ", "MD ", and "SF" and a change in zoning to "R -5 ", "M -613", and "R -3", respectively, with all "M -613" areas to be adjacent to Cedar Avenue. The Council also recommended that the north /south road alignment only be officially mapped from 138th Street to 139th Street and to connect with Cedar Avenue instead of 140th Street. Kelley noted that the summary comments from the last Planning Commission Meeting included that: 1) single - family homes adjacent to Timberwick was acceptable to the adjoining neighbors in Timberwick and 2) single - family development was opposed by the owners of the property being considered for rezoning. Staff explained the options which could include: a) the Planning Commission recommending its' previous recommendation, b) the Planning Commission could recommend the City Council's recommendation, or c) the Planning Commission could change either one of the previous recommen- dations to include some new land use or road alignment which had been included in the public hearing notices. Member Sterling asked for clarification regarding what type of land use could occur on a "R -5" lot (either single- family or duplexes). She asked if the road will line up with the road north of I38th Street and the Staff responded affirmatively. Chairman Erickson stated that the Planning Commission had originally planned that this area have some type of staged or stepped density from Timberwick to Cedar Avenue. The City Council recommendation does not allow for a buffer or stepping down of densities between the future medium density multi - family and future single - family areas. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1990 Page 5 Chairman Erickson read a letter dated June 2, 1990 from Barbara Calistro to Art Eaton in to the records. June 2, 1990 Barbara L. Calistro 7515 140th St. W. Apple Valley, MN 55124 Mr. Art Eaton 7552 280th St. Randolph, MN 55065 Dear Sir: This letter is to inform you that I do not wish you to use my name in conjunction with Vista Development, Zon Con Development, or in any way with the zoning proposals now before the City Council of Apple Valley. I feel since we have no mutual business interests, it is imperative that we keep our identities separate. Respectfully Yours, Barbara Calistro cc: William Branning cc: Robert Erickson Barbara Calistro, owner of property within the proposed rezoning, asked for clarification regarding City authority to place an entrance at 139th Street onto Cedar Avenue. She mentioned that a State Highway Department official (Bill Crawford) had told her that the State would not allow an entrance at this point. She also noted that the State is condemning Calistro property. Chairman Erickson asked the Staff to clarify these issues before the June 7, 1990 City Council Meeting. Mrs. Calistro stated that there is no proof that access will be allowed in the future at 139th Street and that there were no written confirmations from the Minnesota Department of Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1990 Page 6 Transportation. A general discussion ensued regarding who has authority over Cedar Avenue and 140th Street. Tom Stuebe, 13980 Granada Court, stated the City Council has recommended single - family adjacent to Timberwick and that medium density is not a good transition from single - family. The new single - family owners, to be designated adjacent to Timberwick, will know in advance that medium density development will occur to the east of the site. Chairman Erickson stated that the City cannot guarantee the quality or the individual value of single - family homes that are placed on the site. A general discussion ensued regarding the accessibility to 139th Street and plans for turning lanes on Cedar and 140th Street. Member Gowling stated that there was not a significant buffer between the future single- family areas and the moderate density multi- family areas. She referred to Staff and asked that Staff clarify the policy in the comprehensive plan that states that density should step down or reduce as it gets closer to single - family units. She noted that there was no transition between the uses except that a road could be utilized as a open space transition between single- family and moderate density units. Chair- man Erickson concurred with the comment of Member Gowling. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson to recommend denial of the proposal set forth by the City Council. The motion was withdrawn by Member Carlson. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson to recommend the original Planning Commission recommendation of February 1990 with the original north /south road alignment from 138th Street to 140th Street. The motion died for lack of second. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Gowling, seconded by Member Erickson, to recommend approval of the proposal set forth by the City Council for the area between 138th and 140th Streets. The configuration of the north /south road would begin at 138th Street and exit onto Cedar Avenue at 139th Street, but with the change of single - family land uses to "M -1B" uses along the easterly boundary of the Timberwick plat. The motion carried 4 - 1 - 1 with Members Carlson, Erickson, Kitzman, and Gowling voting in favor. Member Felkner opposed and Member Sterling abstained. Member Sterling stated she abstained because of the road issue and the alignment of 139th Street at Cedar Avenue. Cit , v_, a t •n e my ♦.ity Paauuca aticaley state tue c �taaa Wiaa cheek w t h . Highway Department to clarify the issues and also will check with MnDOT if available to determine their involvement in this case. Member Kitzman asked the Staff to contact the owner after receiving information and especially to talk to the Calistro attorney. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1990 Page 7 B. 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) - TO BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 20, 1990 MEETING - C. Rasmussen Setback Variance LOCATION: 8635 - 143rd Street Court PETITIONER: H. Jon and Kathleen Rasmussen (PC90- 007 -V) STAFF REPORT: 6, 1990 by Associate Planner Scott Hickok Associate Planner Scott Hickok summarized a report previously sub- mitted to the Planning Commission and additional information made avail- able by the Building Inspection Staff and the City Attorney's Staff. He noted that the construction on the existing building has some defects: a. the footings are undersized b. the footings are not plumb and are shifting c. the beams in the deck are undersized d. a roof saddle is needed e. the siding is not installed as per manufacturer's instructions f. the joints need to be caulked The Staff report from the City Attorney regarding the construction within the easement noted that a legal document indemnifying the City should be prepared by the Rasmussen attorney and submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval. Associate Planner Hickok noted that the Planning Staff recommended denial of the variance case because there were alternatives available, the structure was inadequate -not meeting the building codes, and the construc- tion occurred within a City drainage easement. Kathleen Rasmussen, owner of the property, stated that she was here representing her husband Jon and she apologized that her husband could not be at the meeting. She noted that the Rasmussens will bring the structure up to the code and provide an indemnification and will cooperate with the recommendations of the Building Inspector and the City Attorney. A general discussion ensued regarding how to fix the current problems utilizing equipment and materials. Bill Husler provided details on the construction that would ensue if approved by the Planning Commission and Co cil. H° ..oted that all constr„cti— .epairs could be done within a matter of a week or two. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Felkner, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend granting a 6' - 6" or 6.5 foot variance with improvements to be made to the porch to bring it up to code, and indem- Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1990 Page 8 ni£ication covenant be placed on the deed to the satisfaction of the City Attorney by the last day of August 1990. The motion carried 4 - 2. D. Southport Center /Target - Sign Variance LOCATION: East Side at Cedar Avenue at Center Entrance PETITIONER: Donald Laukka (PC90- 033 -VO STAFF REPORT: 6, 1990 by Community Development Director, Dennis Welsch Community Development Director Dennis Welsch provided a background report illustrating the differences between the request for a 41 foot high sign and the current code which requires a 24 foot high sign at the entrance to the Target complex on Cedar Avenue and on County Road 42. The Planning Staff recommended denial of an 11 foot height variance to place a masonry wall, freestanding sign along both Cedar Avenue and County Road 42. Photo taken on the site illustrates the size of the sign and indicates that there is adequate visual identity for the Target store within the additional size. Welsch also encouraged the applicant to continue to use the current design, but reduce the size of the overall complex. He noted the sign materials and design were complimentary with the building and the downtown design guidelines. Donald Laukka and Michael Plautz, representing Target sign consultants and architects respectively, illustrated models of the buildings and the sign and demonstrated the differences between an eight foot and a ten foot logo. They expressed the need to have a quality sign and felt the larger sign provided more clarity for the sign and provided more space for Southport Centre to have signage below the Target insignia. Laukka noted that the sign is a $50,000 sign with neon channel individual letters. Plautz noted that the applicant is willing to add red color within the sign at the peak, and add red brick, which is the downtown design color, into the masonry wall side structure. Laukka noted that there are current restrictions or covenants on the site which restrict the amount of signage the Ryan Development Company can install. There will be no free - standing signs allowed on the site other than the Target signs and free - standing signs for the individual freestanding buildings. Member Carlson stated the vertical height is not objectionable next to the store, but the sign at Cedar Avenue would be too large. He would like to see the use of the restrictive covenants to limit the number and size of signs along the entire site. Member Sterling expressed concern with the tall signs adjacent to the outlots which would cause problems for the buildings placed on the outlots and their individual signs. Mr. Laukka stated that a three -story high sign is not out of char- acter with the urban design in the area. Member Felkner expressed con- cern over the potential competition between K -mart and Target for the largest sign. Member Gowling stated that 28 feet in height, which is the current height of the K -mart and Apple Valley Shopping Center sign, may be Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1990 Page 9 an adequate compromise. Carlson noted he was willing to look at some type of variance to allow for better design. Gowling noted that this is not a freeway, there is no fast traffic in the downtown and signage should be low keyed. A large sign is simply billboard advertising. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Kitzman, to recommend denial of the 11 foot height variance. The motion carried unanimously. Member Carlson stated that the truss used as an architectural feature could be allowed to a 28 to 30 foot total height if other restrictions on other signage on the Southport Center were provided to the City and included in the planned unit development. Member Kitzman stated that a 24 foot high sign with a 4 to 5 foot high architectural peak above that would be acceptable to him. Chairman Erickson stated that the reasons for requesting the height variance were not clear. There was no hardship expressed. If the property owners had asked for a sign variance to 28 feet in total height based on existing competitors, it may have been a better case. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONTINUATION OF 1990 -1995 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM) Associate Planner Meg McMonigal provided ¢ highlighted the Capital Improvements Program various Capital Improvements within the program. still has to complete projections of revenues various requests. The Planning Commission role various project requests with the comprehensive determine compliance with the comprehensive plan. staff report in which she process and defined the She noted that the Staff and comparisons of the is simply to compare the plan goals and policies to McMonigal provided illustrations of the requests arranged by year and a comparison between the 1989 and the 1990 program. There was no public comment. June 20, 1990. The public hearing was held open until 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Downtown Signs Community Development Director consider discussing the philosophy of The Planning Commission concurred. Dennis Welsch asked the Commission to downtown signs at a future meeting. Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1990 Page 10 8. OTHER BUSINESS Commission members discussed the possibility of cable broadcasts of Planning Commission and City Council meetings similar to the current program available for the City of Lakeville. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m. kg