HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/1989C°a`°-zc2'ed G °a�r
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 19, 1989
1. CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Erickson at 7:30
p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the City of Apple Valley City Hall.
Members Present: Chairman Erickson, Members Felkner, Kleckner,
Sterling, and Gowling.
Members Absent: Members Carlson and Weldon.
Staff Present: Richard Kelley, Keith Gordon, Scott Hickok, Meg
McMonigal, Lon Aune, Dennis Welsch, and Jim Plummer.
Others Present: See sign -in sheet.
2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was approved as written.
3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF APRIL 5, 1989.
MOTION: A motion was made by Member Sterling, seconded by Member
Gowling, to approve the minutes of April 5th with the following
correction: On page 4, paragraph 4 - should read County Road 46 instead of
County Road 42. The motion to approve the minutes carried unanimously.
4. CONSENT AGENDA (Non - controversial items needing no discussion may be
placed on this agenda by Commission members. One motion sends items on to
the City Council with the staff recommendations.)
None.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Capital Improvements Program - 1989 -1994.
Chairman Erickson opened the public hearing and requested a staff
report. City Planner Rick Kelley provided a background report regarding
the 1989 -1994 Capital Improvements Program by department. He noted that
Public Works Department will require the most funding over the next six
Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 1989
Page 2
years; primarily for roads and utilities. In addition, the Parks
Department will require additional funding for its Southeastern Athletic
Complex and Lake Alimagnet Nature Center projects scheduled in 1991 and
1994 respectively. Mr. Kelley noted that the Public Works revenue needed
is generated from many sources; including special assessments, local
government aids from State, Federal, and County. He noted that at the
next meeting a complete series of projections on revenues will be
available and the timing of each of the proposed projects would be
clarified. Member Kleckner asked for clarification regarding the timing
and funding of the ring route system.
Gary Shade, 15989 Garden View Drive, asked for clarification
regarding the bonding, phases of payout, and who is responsible for
payment of such bonds. City Planner Kelley explained the bonding process
within the City.
Chairman Erickson continued the public hearing to the May 3rd City of
Apple Valley Planning Commission Meeting.
B. Amendments to the Zoning Regulations - Section A1- 61(d)-
Parking in Residential Districts.
Associate Planner Scott Hickok provided a background report dated
April 19, 1989 in which he discussed potential amendments to the City
Zoning Code which would allow for one of two alternative changes in the
number of vehicles stored outside of a garage. He explained the process
being followed by the Urban Affairs Committee, the Planning Commission,
and the City Council to incremental update all of the portions of the code
which may be defined as the nuisance ordinance. He also explained the code
administration and code compliance process in the City of Apple Valley.
Member Erickson asked for clarification regarding the number of vehicles
left outside and noted that screening is a good idea as per the Urban
Affairs ordinance proposal. Member Sterling asked the staff to clarify
whether existing concrete pads, which do not meet the setbacks as
established in the Urban Affairs Ordinance, would have to be changed or
would be considered pre - existing, non - conforming uses. Chairman Erickson
agreed with Member Sterling and noted that such setbacks should be
utilized only for new projects. Member Sterling felt it was important to
provide storage adjacent to the garage, but not in the driveway. Member
Felkner stated that exterior storage should be limited to four (4) but
noted that this does not address unlicensed or other vehicles. Member
Erickson asked for clarification regarding "operable" versus "unlicensed
stock cars." Member Kleckner asked that the Commission consider that the
maximum number of exterior stored cars be four (4) and because this may be
easier to enforce. Chairman Erickson noted that the greater number of
Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 1989
Page 3
exterior stored vehicles on one property, the more depreciation in values
on adjacent properties.
Member Felkner recommended that the Planning Commission adopt an
ordinance which states that any licensed vehicle can be stored on the yard
up to a number of four - then only to a maximum of six with a permit. A
general discussion of the definition of vehicles and the number on the
site ensued.
Jerry Otto, 12868 Hamlet Avenue, provided a background report on the
Burnsville ordinances and recommended that the City adopt the Burnsville
ordinance for exterior parking. Chairman Erickson asked the Staff to
follow up and provide a copy of the Burnsville ordinance and compare it
with the City of Apple Valley ordinance.
Gary Shade, 15989 Garden View Lane, stated that in communities that
he has lived in regulations on recreation vehicles are much more
stringent, requiring that recreating vehicles be stored either on the
driveway or in another off -site location; specifically designated for the
storage of recreational vehicles.
A general discussion of code enforcement policy ensued. Michael
Black, 9401 James Avenue South, former City Planning Director for the City
of Shoreview, Minnesota, provided a background on the Shoreview experience
with vehicle and recreation vehicle parking and encouraged the Planning
Commission to be tough, fair, consistent, and noted that while people
won't vocally support the issue, they will appreciate a more stringent
code and cleaner community.
Chairman Erickson closed the hearing. No action was taken.
LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS:
A. Planned Development Rezoning and Preliminary Plat -
Hyland Pointe Shores.
LOCATION: North Side of County Road #46, West of Garden
View Drive.
PETITIONER: Arcon Development and Sienna Corporation.
(PC89- 014 -SZ).
Associate Planner Scott Hickok provided a background report
illustrating the 60 proposed home sites on a 15.43 acre site. Forty -six
of these homes would be single - family homes, 14 would be twin homes. The
gross density of the project would be 3.9 units per acre. He noted 7
separate considerations which the Planning Commission should consider
before completing its deliberations and recoi7niienu'eu' approval with ii
Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 1989
Page 4
conditions as per the Staff report of April 19th. Scott Johnson of Arcon
Development stated that he opposed the installation of all improvements at
one time; he opposed placing a complete street along the north boundary of
the Schumann property prematurely because he cannot market all of the lots
at one time; he preferred to phase the development in order to work
project details with the Schumanns. This approach would give the
Schumanns the most options as well.
Member Sterling asked what will happen when 160th Street has a median
and allows for only right turn lanes in three years (1991). Mr. Johnson
responded that a road could be constructed along the north edge of the
Schumann property at that time when 160th Street is constructed. City
Engineer Keith Gordon stated that there are three problems with one access
only into the site: 1) problem with turning movements on to and off of
160th Street, 2) problem with access to Garden View Lane, and 3) a long
term temporary cul -de -sac.
Michael Black, a consultant for the applicant, noted that condition
#3 in the staff report should read 5,500 square feet for the minimum lot
size any one lot. He also noted that #5 and #6 of the staff conditions
must be corrected to correspond with the lot requirements and the
preliminary discussions with the staff. The setbacks noted in conditions
#5 and #6 apply to two separate sets of lots and do not overlap as shown
in the City staff report. The staff was directed to correct this
typographic problem. Member Kleckner stated that he would prefer fewer
lots, but with larger sizes. Scott Johnson objected to condition #8 which
required lakeside landscaping, what had been done in other areas adjacent
to LacLavon. Member Kleckner said it would not be reasonable to request
landscaping before construction was done. Mr. Black stated that the
applicant will stabilize the slopes with a fabric blanket, but it is too
expensive to complete plantings with Crown Vetch.
City Engineer Gordon recommended the use of a fabric blanket to
prevent soil erosion. Chairman Erickson directed the staff to rewrite
condition #8, removing the words "Crown Vetch and plantings" and
emphasizing the need to provide for stabilized slopes with a fabric
blanket. Member Kleckner concurred and stated that main purpose of the
Planning Commission would not be to damage the lake.
Scott Johnson asked if the Homeowner's Association Agreement would be
adequate to regulate the landscaping which will be done by each builder.
He noted that the minimum landscape standards could be included in the
Homeowner's Association. A question regarding who would enforce the
Homeowner's Association Agreement was asked.
Mr. Johnson asked for clarification on staff condition #9. Keith
Gordon responded that condition #9 is to allow review of retaining wails
Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 1989
Page 5
and any other soil retention mechanism utilized along the steep slopes in
order to assure the structural integrity of such an improvement to the
site.
Scott Johnson had no objections to items #10 and #11 in the staff
report.
Member Kleckner asked for clarification regarding the 5' setbacks;
would this allow for the setback between building walls to be a minimum of
10 feet? City Planner Rick Kelley answer that there would be some
setbacks between building walls at a minimum of 10 feet, but most would be
at least 15 feet.
MOTION: A motion was made by Member bowling, seconded by Member
Sterling to recommend the planned development, rezoning and preliminary
plat with the conditions as discussed by the Planning Commission.
1) All phase 1 improvements (i.e. utilities, streets, etc.) shall
be installed at once. Phase 2 improvements may be installed at a separate
date, but no later than the beginning of reconstruction of 160th Street or
October 15, 1991, whichever occurs first.
2) Curves on Hyland Pointe Court shall be softened and shall be
approved by the City of Apple Valley Engineering Staff prior to
preliminary plat approval.
3) No lot shall be reduced to a dimension less than the 5,500
square foot minimum illustrated on the proposed plat.
4)All homes shall be designed to fit on their designated
lot.There will be no variances granted in the future, due to lot size or
shape.
5) Lots 1 through 14, Block 1 and Lots 16 through 22 and Lots 33
through 40, Block 2, shall be subject to the following setbacks:
*Front Yard 20' - 0"
*Side Yard 5' - 0"
*Rear Yard 30' - 0"
6) Lots 1 through 15, Lots 23 through 32 and Lots 41 through
46,Block 2, shall be subject to the following setbacks:
*Front Yard
25'
- 0°'
*Side Yard
5'
- 0"
*Rear Yard
30'
- 0"
*Side Yard At Corners
20'
- "u"
Planning Commission Minutes
April 5, 1989
Page 6
7) Signs, entry monuments, etc. shall comply with standards set by
the City of Apple Valley sign ordinance.
8) An overall landscape plan illustrating grading erosion control
and turf management techniques shall be provided by the applicant to be
used prior to house construction and to be reviewed by the Soil and Water
Conservation District. A landscape materials bond or other guarantee
shall be posted by the applicant for the entire project in accordance with
approved plans reviewed by the planning staff. The bond shall be based on
actual costs plus 25%, with the applicant to be released from the bond as
installation occurs.
9)Slope retention devices or structures such as retaining walls
required in the initail site grading shall be approved by the City of
Apple Valley Engineering Staff.
10) A City option agreement for an access and utility easement shall
be available until October 15, 1999 and shall be shown on Outlot D and to
the northeast corner of the Schumann property to provide access, if
necessary.
11) Surmountable curbing shall be installed on private roads and
cul -de -sacs.
The motion carried unanimously.
B. Setback Variance for New House.
LOCATION: East Side of Pilot Knob Road, Adjacent to
Farquar Lake.
PETITIONER: Michael Felix (PC89- 015 -V).
City Planner Rick Kelley provided a background report dated April 5,
1989 updated with correspondence from the Department of Natural Resources
received April 19,1989. City Planner recommended approval of the
variances with the lowest living level being 908 and hammerhead driveways
to allow for entry and exit off of Pilot Knob Road and concurrence with
the Department of Natural Resource recommendation to set the deck back at
least 43' from the water's edge. Member Kleckner asked for clarification
regarding whether a well was needed. City Engineer, City Planner and Mr.
Felix concurred that a well would be utilized on the site because it would
require over 1,000 feet of water line in order to provide City water to
this house. City sewer is directly across the street and would be
utilized.
MOTION: It was moved by Member Kleckner, seconded by Member
Sterling to recommend approval of the variances to allow proposed house to
Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 1989
Page 7
set within 35' of the right -of -way line of Pilot Knob Road and 43' of the
Department of Natural Resource's established and City high water mark with
the following conditions: 1) the lowest floor elevation to be 908 feet
above sea level, 2) construction of a driveway hammerhead to allow
vehicles to turn around rather than backing out onto Pilot Knob Road and
3) deck to be setback 43' from the DNR and City established ordinary high
water mark of park or lake. The motion carried unanimously. The
applicant concurred with the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
C. Setback Variance for House Addition.
LOCATION: 7229 Upper 139th Street West.
PETITIONER: Walt Haussner (PC89 - 016 -V).
City Planning Intern Jim Plummer provided a background report dated
April 19,1989 regarding a variance request to allow for a house addition
to set within 28' of the front property line. The proposal by Walt
Haussner, 7229 Upper 139th Street West, would include an expansion of a
dining room at the front of the house. Mr. Haussner had submitted seven
letters from neighbors, who support or have no opposition to this variance
request. A sketch plan from the architect was illustrated. The staff
report recommended denial of the request because based on the Statutes and
the City Code, there was no obvious physical hardship.
Member Sterling stated that the houses at the top of the hill, a 2'
variance would not jeopardize visual access to the street or encroach upon
the street. She stated that the hardship should be that there is no other
location to add to the existing dining room except at the front of the
house.
Member Gowling stated that there was no land hardship, but the hard-
ship was in the way the house had been designed.
Members Erickson and Kleckner had no objection.
MOTION: Member Kleckner moved, seconded by Member Sterling to
recommend approval of the variance to allow for a house to set within 28'
of the right -of -way line at 7229 Upper 139th Street West because of a
hardship created by the design of the house wherein only one location
within the house allows for additions to the dining room area. The motion
carried unanimously.
D. Building Permit Authorization for Palomino
East Apartments.
LOCATION: West Side of Pennock Avenue, North of
Palomino Drive.
PETITIONER: Carl Watrud and Art Eaton (PC89 - 00017 -B).
Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 1989
Page 8
Member Kleckner temporarily stepped down from the Planning Commission
desk.
City Planner Rick Kelley provided a background report dated April 19,
1989 in which he reviewed the past history of the project, noting that it
had originally been approved and building permits had lapsed on this
project. He noted that the current project will be subject to recently
adopted performance standards requiring brick and redwood and that the
project will have underground parking. He also discussed the 40' height
limitation for the building and the 100' setback limitation, which was
approved in the past permit. Finally, Mr. Kelley noted that the sanitary
sewer to the site would have to be constructed through a new easement to
the west or the project would require a lift station. The staff had
recommended tabling this project until issues regarding the grading,
sanitary sewer, height and rear yard setback (30' versus 100') can be
resolved.
Charles Habiger, architect for Weis Companies, illustrated a massing
model and provided demonstrations of how grading could be completed on the
site. He noted that the applicant would provide grading up to the first
floor elevation, which would resolve the problem with the height of the
building and would provide additional landscaping on the site to a cost of
at least $37,000 for shade trees and screening trees, which would mostly
be Conifers. He also estimated that the existing tree value to be
preserved would be the equivalent of $43,000. He also noted that between
15 and 20 trees would be removed because of the necessary grade changes on
the site. A general discussion of the grading and cut and fill on the
site ensued.
Mr. Habiger noted that the applicant will provide brick along the
foundation walls of this project.
Member Sterling and Member Felkner asked if the Planning Commission
could recommend granting a height variance to allow for the height of the
building to exceed what is currently allowed, thereby reducing the amount
of grading that would be necessary to the Oak woods on the west side of
the project. Staff responded, "yes, a variance could be issued."
Member Kleckner asked if it would be possible for the Planning
Commission to approve the project as submitted, subject to working out
details with the staff.
Chairman Erickson recommended that the project be tabled to May 3rd
for staff review. Member Felkner agreed. Member bowling asked if the
neighbors should be notified of the changes in the setbacks.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 1989
Page 9
MOTION: Member Felkner moved to table the project to the next
Planning Commission meeting. There was no second. The motion died.
Mr. Art Eaton recommended that the Planning Commission approve the
project with the concurrence of staff, but returned to the Planning
Commission if the applicant and the staff cannot work out the details to
the grading and other issues.
MOTION: Member Sterling moved, seconded by Member Gowling to
recommend approval of the project to staff review and approval. Member
Felkner stated he would be more comfortable with a second review of the
project by the Planning Commission. City Planner Kelley noted that the
general request to set the building at least 100' back from the west
property line was a portion of an overall package of approval to provide
housing revenue bonds to the project so that rent could be reduced.
MOTION: Voting on the motion, Member Sterling voted in favor of the
motion. Members Felkner, Gowling and Erickson voted opposed to the
motion. The motion failed.
MOTION: Member Felkner moved, seconded by Member Gowling to table
the issue until the next Planning Commission meeting with the staff to
work with the applicant to answer unresolved questions. The motion
carried unanimously.
7. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
A. Sketch Plan for the Oaks of Apple Valley IV.
LOCATION: Between Cedar and Pennock Avenues, North of
Harwell Avenue.
PETITIONER: George C. Maurer Construction (PC89- 018 -SZ).
Planning Commission Member Kleckner rejoined the Planning Commission
at the Planning Commission desk.
Associate Planner Meg McMonigal provided a staff report and review of
the Oaks IV sketch plan noting that there are 13.1 acres of land in the
northern area to be developed by Maurer Development group. This would
allow for 20 lots. The remainder of the site is approximately 17 acres,
which would provide approximately 30 more lots. She noted there are two
major issues to be resolved in this subdivision: 1) street connections
between Hallwood Highlands and 138th Street and 2) designation of parks.
She provided a background report from the Park Committee noting what their
recommendation was - that at least 1.3 acres of land should be required
from the Maurer Development as a park dedication with additional land to
Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 1989
Page 10
be acquired with park dedication funds so that a neighborhood park of 3.5
to 5 acres in size would be available.
Terry McDonald of Suburban Engineering provided a background report
of the grading and layout of the project. A general discussion of the
topography and park location ensued. Mary Erickson expressed concern over
the access to the park across Pennock Avenue. Frank Kleckner noted that
there are parks along many major road systems in the community; not just
in the Pennock Avenue area. Member Erickson asked for more definition
from the Park Committee as to what would occur on the site and where
additional or nearby parks are and what their facilities provide. City
Planner Rick Kelley noted that Harwell Avenue is the logical location
along Pennock for the neighborhood park since it would allow a connection
between Wildwood Park one -half mile to the west and the Pennock Avenue
Park. Harwell Avenue is the only location along Pennock where stop signs
could feasibly be placed in the future if traffic warrants allow for such
placement.
Terry Maurer stated that he can not sell lots which face on to
Pennock Avenue. He did state that lots abutting Cedar Avenue will sell
more easily. That is the reason why the sketch plan does not illustrate
lots fronting on Pennock Avenue, but rather abutting Pennock Avenue with a
cul -de -sac to the east.
Mr. Maurer recommended that the City accumulate the 10% cash
dedication from the Maurer project to buy acreage from the parcels to the
south; especially Helen Schultz property. Mr. Maurer stated that the park
issue is much more severe than he originally thought and if it is resolved
as the Park Committee requests, he will reconsider whether this
development can proceed as currently planned. A discussion ensued
regarding whether the amount of funds collected from the proposed Maurer
site for park purposes would be adequate to pay for a similar amount of
land on the Helen Schultz property. Mr. Schultz responded that it would
not be adequate funding.
B. Council Action of March 23, 1989 (Verbal Report).
City Planner Kelley provided a background report regarding the
Council's adoption of improvements to be made to the first 300' east of
Cedar Avenue on 153rd Street.
8. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Pennock Avenue Corridor Land Use Study (Verbal Report) and Set
May 3rd as Forimial Recommiendation to City Council (PC89- 012 -R).
Planning Commission Minutes
April 19, 1989
Page 11
Dennis Welsch provided a summary report illustrating some of the
major concerns over the consistency of the comprehensive plan, the zoning
and the developer's wishes in the Pennock - Cedar - Garrett land use area. He
also provided some recommendations regarding the Staff's realignment of
zoning districts in this area. He asked the Planning Commission to set a
formal date by which they will review a written recommendation from the
Staff (May 3, 1989).
9. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 11:47 p.m.
kg