Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/28/1990PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY November 28, 1990 1. CALL TO ORDER The November 28, 1990 meeting of the Apple Valley Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Erickson at 7:34 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the City of Apple Valley City Hall. Members Present: Chairman, Robert Erickson, Members Carlson, Edgeton, Felkner, Gowling, Kitzman, and Sterling. Staff Present: Richard Kelley, Meg McMonigal, and Dennis Welsch. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The proposed agenda for the November 28, 1990 meeting was approved with one addition. Item 6B - Veterinary Clinic Excavation and Foundation Permit Review. MOTION: The motion to accept the agenda with the amendment carried - unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 1990 MEETING. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to approve the minutes of the November 7, 1990 meeting. The motion carried 5 - 0 with two abstentions ( Felkner and Erickson). 4. CONSENT AGENDA (One motion sends items needing no discussion on to the City Council with the staff recommendations.) - None - 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Cedar Knolls Subdivision LOCATION: West Side of Germane Avenue, North of 127th Street West PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley and Thorson - Cornwell Company (PC90- 013 -ZS) STAFF REPORT: November 28, 1990 by City Planner Richard Kelley Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 1990 Page 2 Chairman Robert Erickson opened the public hearing and requested the staff to present a background report. City Planner Richard Kelley presented a background report in which he discussed the application for a subdivision of land to create four parcels out of one parcel. He noted that the ten acre parcel would be subdivided into four, two and one -half acre parcels. The current comprehensive plan designation on the site is medium density and the current zoning on the site is retail business. Previously, the Planning Commission and Council Members had discussed this site because of its inconsistent comprehensive plan and zoning designations. There was no easy answer as to how to resolve the inconsistency between the plan and the zoning. The developer /owner of the site decided to dedicate the property to the City instead of attempt to develop on this difficult site. The dedication would appear in four parcels over four years, with Parcel C being dedicated in December of 1990, Parcel D in January of 1991, Parcel A in January of 1992, and Parcel B in January of 1993. Kelley noted that while the City may approve a waiver of platting to allow for transfer of metes and bounds descriptions, a public hearing is still necessary for the subdivision. The Planning Staff recommended approval of the project with the stipulation that an access easement be provided over Parcels A and C to allow Parcels B and D to have direct access to Germane Avenue. Chairman Erickson asked the staff what are the proposed uses for the site. Kelley responded that the City has a number of possible uses for the site including parkland, park and ride lots, and HRA housing, all of which could be done on the 10 acre site. Member Kitzman asked if there was any objection from the convenient store landowners. The staff responded no objections had been received. The public offered no comment. Chairman Erickson closed the public hearing. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Sterling, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend approval of the metes and bounds subdivision of one, ten -acre parcel into four, two and one -half acre parcels subject to access easements over Parcels A and C to provide access to Parcels D and B. The motion carried unanimously. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Rodeo Hills Porch /Deck Setback Variances LOCATION: Southwest Corner of the Intersection of Palomino Drive and Garden View Drive PETITIONER: Diedrich Builders, Inc. (PC90- 056 -V) STAFF REPORT: November 28, 1990 by City Planner Richard Kelley Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 1990 Page 3 City Planner Richard Kelley provided a background report describing the need for setback variances to allow maximum size decks and porches as accessory construction in a townhouse project. The staff recommended approval of variance between dwelling units on Lots 6 & 7, Block 1, and Lot 8, Block 1, RoDeo Hills, to allow construction of accessory decks and porches to within 30' of each other's outer edge and in accordance with the building line illustrated on Exhibit A. Staff recommends approval of a variance between dwelling units on Lot 9, Block 1, and Lots 10 & 11, Block 1, RoDeo Hills, to allow construction of accessory decks and porches to within 18.5' of each other's outer edge and in accordance with the building line illustrated on Exhibit A. Staff recommends that as part of any variance approval, the developer be required to submit a revised development plan illustrating the maximum extent of optional accessory decks and porches all of which must conform to the required setbacks or have approved variances as listed above. This plan should also be posted at the sales office. Chairman Erickson expressed frustration with the development in which the variance is requested after - the -fact. Mr. Roger Anderson, owner of the existing townhouse unit #10, described the distance between the townhouse unit deck and the porch adjacent to him as 18.5'. He noted that a 40' setback is required from the block walls of the side of unit #9 and the rear of unit #10. Anderson stated that he had invested over $200,000 in the townhouse on a premium lot suppose to be in the woods, which now has been removed. Anderson questioned the permit process, noting that no permit had been taken out specifically for the porch prior to the variance request. Anderson asked for clarification regarding where the setback is taken from. City Planner Richard Kelley responded that the required setback is from building wall to building wall. Kelley also noted that both units #9 and #10 encroach into that 40' setback. Bill Diedrich, builder and owner, stated that the hardship for unit #9 to have a porch on the east side is that the occupant is handicapped and must use kitchen access to get to the porch level. A general discussion of setbacks ensued regarding the side setback, the rear -to -rear setback, and the side -to -rear setback. In response to a question by Member Gowling, Kelley noted that a permit had been issued by the building inspector for this structure only, but that an additional permit was needed for the porch. Member Edgeton asked if construction had continued since the variance was requested (staff responded - yes). Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 1990 Page 4 Member Gowling asked if modification would be necessary if no variance is issued. (Yes) Member Carlson asked Mr. Anderson what he expected to be done to solve the problem. Mr. Anderson responded: 1) He was concerned about the property lines and the structures being placed properly within the property boundaries. 2) He asked for clarification as to where the house is actually located on the lot. 3) He asked that the porch be found in violation of the code. 4) The Andersons requested that the porch be removed. Mrs. Anderson also stated that, if necessary, because of the encroach- ment into the setback, she would also be willing to take her deck down. Member Kitzman asked if the porch could be placed along on the north side of Lot 9 instead of the east side. site. Member Gowling asked if landscape screening could be placed on the Member Carlson asked if both the deck and the porch could be removed. Members Kitzman and Carlson agreed that the porch and the deck should be removed, noting that the builder has an obligation to both the buyers and the City to adhere to the zoning codes. site. Mr. Anderson displayed diagrams and pictures of his structure on the MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Erickson, to recommend denial of the variance request. The motion carried 5 - 2. The case will be sent to the City Council on December 13th. A general discussion ensued regarding the setbacks and orientations of the building. Developer Diedrich stated that he had interpreted the west side of Lot 10 to be a "side lot line" because the front of the unit on Lot 10 faces south. He also had interpreted the east side of Lot 9 to be a "side lot line ". Thus, Diedrich thought this allows for a 20' setback. Member Kitzman asked if the porch could be placed along on the north side of Lot 9 instead of the east side. site. Member Gowling asked if landscape screening could be placed on the Member Carlson asked if both the deck and the porch could be removed. Members Kitzman and Carlson agreed that the porch and the deck should be removed, noting that the builder has an obligation to both the buyers and the City to adhere to the zoning codes. site. Mr. Anderson displayed diagrams and pictures of his structure on the MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Erickson, to recommend denial of the variance request. The motion carried 5 - 2. The case will be sent to the City Council on December 13th. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 1990 Page 5 B. Veterinary Clinic Foundation Permit LOCATION: Garrett Avenue PETITIONER: Dr. Kurt Walter - Hansen STAFF REPORT: November 28, 1990 by Associate Planner Scott Hickok Associate Planner Meg McMonigal provided a staff report noting that the project, which would include 3,000 square feet of veterinary clinic on the first floor and also 3,000 square feet on the lower level, meets the City's zoning and parking codes. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission and Council approve an excavation and foundation permit, but request the applicant to return with finished building plans and landscape plans in order to determine the exterior elevation of the building. She also described the confusion of the number of parking spaces required. John Natwick, representing the owner, stated that the materials will be brick and other low maintenance materials. He noted that the lower level of the building will provide for kennels and two small offices, one for each veterinarian. He stated that the only way to expand parking beyond 23 spaces would be to have cross parking easements with the Mardell Building to the west or the daycare facility to the east. Member Sterling asked members of the Commission to compare this structure and its' parking with that of the Cedar View Veterinary Clinic. Dr. Hansen, the applicant, stated that at a peak time there may be up to ten staff members in the building, usually from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. in the evening. This would leave 13 customer spaces to pick up animals. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, second by Member Gowling, to recommend approval of the excavation and foundation permit and to request the applicant to return with finished building plans and site landscape plans. The motion carried 6 - 0 with one abstention (Karen Edgeton). The project will be placed on the December 13th City Council agenda. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Sign Ordinance Revisions Associate Planner Meg McMonigal provided an outline of revisions to the sign code, which will allow for more administrative clarity. The following new sections would be added: Section 6 -105 - Building Sign Criteria Section 6- 104(d) - New Definitions For Open House Signs Section 6- 104(i) - Pedestrian /Awning Signs Section 6- 105(a) - Limited Business Signs Section 6- 104(v) - Public Interest /Land Mark Signs Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 1990 Page 6 A general discussion ensued regarding the amendments and the need for clarity in the builder's model home sign criteria. No action was necessary. B. Transportation Plans and Policies Associate Planner Meg McMonigal provided a presentation which dealt with strategies for travel demand management. See Attachment A and Attachment B. C. Policies Regarding Industrial Land /Zones The Planning Commission, Community Development Director Dennis Welsch, and City Planner Richard Kelley discussed the need for clarifying industrial land development policies and zoning. A handout was provided to describe the various actions that could be taken. The staff will provide specific recommendations on each of the discussion items at future meetings. No action was taken. 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. Planning Commission Christmas Party MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Erickson, to hold the annual Planning Commission Christmas Party after the meeting on December 19th at Member Gowling's house. All members are to bring treats. The motion carried unanimously. B. Discussion of WCCO I -Team Investigation of Building Inspection Activities Within The City of Apple Valley A general discussion ensued regarding the reports prepared by WCCO and the response from other construction people in the community. No action was taken. C. Discussion of Ordinance Enforcement For Snow Shoveling and Plowing The Planning Commission requested the staff to provide more publicity and newspaper coverage of the City Code requirements for snow shoveling individual, residential sidewalks. The Commission asked who is responsible for enforcing the snow shoveling and snow plowing code. Welsch responded that this is within the streetscape area and therefore, would be administered by the Public Works Department when sidewalks are within right -of -way and by the Parks Department when pathways are within parks. Planning Commission Meeting November 28, 1990 Page 7 The staff was asked to follow up on this issue and provide a report at the next meeting. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. kg