Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/05/1989PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY JULY 5. 1989 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Erickson at 7:35 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the City of Apple Valley City Hall. Members Present: Chairman Erickson, Members Sterling, Gowling, Carlson and Kleckner. Members Absent: Weldon and Felkner. Staff Present: Keith Gordon, Richard Kelley, Meg McMonigal, Kurt Chatfield and Scott Hickok. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The agenda was approved as written. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 1989. Chairman Erickson corrected Item 6H - Academy Village Apartments - correcting the word access to axis. The minutes were approved as corrected. 4. CONSENT AGENDA (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.) No motions were made to review any items on the consent agenda. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Academy Village Apartments. LOCATION: 141st Street and Garden View. PETITIONER: George C. Maurer Construction, Inc. (PC89- 035 -ZP). STAFF REPORT: July 5, 1989 by City Planner Richard Kelley. Chairman Erickson opened the public hearing and requested a staff report. City Planner Richard Kelley provided a background report stating that current performance standards for apartment buildings in PD #170 require that any balcony area be glassed in and that no internal building axis have length greater than 120 feet. He noted that these standards evolved from a previous building design for the site, which was reviewed Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 1989 Page 2 in 1982. Mr. Kelley reported that it has been proposed to delete the re- quirement for glassed in balconies and to increase the maximum axis length to 180 feet. Mr. Kelley noted that the number of units in the building would remain the same, as previously reviewed in 1982. Vern Swedberg, project architect, presented two models of the proposed building. He explained that common balconies would be screened by a wall and balcony railings would be designed so that a 1 1/2 foot screening area is provided. Mr. Swedberg also presented a brick sample of the exterior of the building. He explained that the base would be of wood construction. A general discussion ensued regarding the design of underground parking. Member Kleckner asked, how wide the building is. The developer, Mark Haymaker responded, 54 feet. Member Kleckner commented that 54 feet seemed narrow. Project architect, Vern Swedberg, defended the design of the building and the one -way underground parking and stated that, in his opinion, it was a better project than the one reviewed in 1982. Ron Pryatel asked what the height of the proposed building would be relative to the roofs of single - family homes across the street. Mark Haymaker responded that this design will probably be lower than the original building reviewed in 1982. Member Kleckner inquired about the enclosed balcony requirement. City Planner Richard Kelley responded explaining that the intent of the PD requirement was to get away from simple projecting balconies. He stated that this proposal does meet the intent of the PD requirements. Member Kleckner asked the developer what the scheduling of the projects will be. The developer responded that they are anticipating a fall start with spring occupancy. Chairman Erickson closed this public hearing. He complimented the developer on the project. B. 051 - Coady South Rezoning /Comp Plan. LOCATION: On the East Side of Cedar Avenue Between 132nd Street and the Zoo Road. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 040 -ZP). STAFF REPORT: July 5, 1989 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal. Chairman Erickson opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal presented a report outlining the proposed rezoning and comprehensive plan changes. She explained that the existing zoning of the property is "R -1A" and the existing comprehensive plan designation is "D -III." She explained this is one of several areas in the City in which the comprehensive plan and the zoning are in conflict with one another. Referring to the Pennock - Cedar - Garrett Corridor Land -Use Study, she stated Planning Commission Meeting July 5, 1989 Page 3 that this site is low with poor access to collector streets. This study suggests that the comprehensive plan designation should be changed from "D -III" to "D -II" and that the zoning should be changed from "R -IA" to 11 M-2 11 . City Planner Richard Kelley added that the zoning of a particular piece of property can be changed at the City's request or by the request of a landowner. Chairman Erickson stated that the landowner, Mr. Coady, could not attend the meeting but had written a letter, which the chairman read into the record. Chairman Erickson also recognized a consultant's study Mr. Coady has completed, but has chosen not to read that into the record. Member Gowling, in response to Mr. Coady's letter, asked if Mr. Coady had spoken with the staff. The staff responded that they had not spoken with Mr. Coady with respect to what was written in the included letter. Member Carlson stated that he felt the public hearing should be held open until Mr. Coady could be present and the contents of the letter reviewed by staff. Leet Wilson wanted to know why the City was considering the proposed zoning changes. Chairman Erickson responded that the Planning Commission was directed to investigate proposed zoning changes by the City Council. William Baldwin expressed concern that his property north of 052 will have its character changed. He explained that he bought not knowing the use of the 052 property might change. He was told by the State Highway Department that it would remain in an undeveloped state. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal responded that the property owner of 052 was compensated by the State for access rights when the roadway was constructed, but the State did not obtain title of the property. Leet Wilson stated that in the past they had asked the State Highway Department to build noise abatement fences and were turned down because the existing property surrounding the roadway was not developed enough. He suggested the City contact the State to see if highway noise would limit the use of the property in question. Chairman Erickson expressed his concern that in the past people have called City Hall and thought that existing zoning is a permanent condi- tion. Member Carlson explained that the comprehensive plan has not been re- evaluated for a number of years and it is time to bring it into alignment with what the Planning Commission believes it should be. Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 1989 Page 4 William Baldwin expressed that the comprehensive plan is anything but a plan. He said "R -1A" is an existing condition. He stated that if you observe the surrounding uses of Case 052, it doesn't look like anyone planned anything. He reiterated that the State had told him that the property was a buffer zone to preserve the sanctity of the Zoo Road. A discussion ensued as to the purpose of the Cedar - Pennock- Garrett Land -Use Study and its value to the city. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to leave 5B open until the next meeting. The motion carried unanimously. C. 052 - Coady North Rezoning /Comp Plan. LOCATION: On the North Side of the Zoo Road. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 042 -ZP). The public hearing was opened at 8 :30 p.m. by Chairman Erickson. Chairman Erickson asked the staff what the State of Minnesota has advised and what compensation the State had given to the surrounding property. The staff responded that they did not have that information at this time. NOTION: A motion was made by Member Gowling, seconded by Member Sterling, to continue the public hearing at their next meeting. The motion carried unanimously. D. 053 - 132nd Street Exceptions - Rezoning. LOCATION: South of 132nd Street. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 041 -Z). The public hearing was opened at 8:30 p.m. by Chairman Erickson. Leet Wilson, who owns Cherry Oaks Estates, requested to hold the public hearing open for property 053 until the next meeting. He feels that the previous cases and this case, 053, should be treated in a similar manner. Ann Feiner, 7294 132nd Street, one of the property holders in case 053, expressed that she does not have any problems with the proposed rezoning. Donna Solomonson, 7388 - 132nd Street West, owns 7 acres of the proposed rezoned property and also stated that the rezoning was not a problem. Kayla Slavik, 7320 - 132nd Street West, and Ellen Livingston were also present and did not object to the proposed rezoning. Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 1989 Page 5 MOTION: A motion was made by Chairman Erickson, seconded by Member Carlson, to close the public hearing. E. Parking Code Changes - Zoning. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 044 -Z). STAFF REPORT: July 5, 1989 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal presented the proposed changes. She stated that the modifications suggested are technical and for clarification purposes. She reviewed the new provisions with respect to changes of use, size of parking spaces, treatment of angle parking and situations when it can be clearly demonstrated by the owner that the re- quired parking is in excess of the actual demand. Chairman Erickson asked City Engineer Keith Gordon if he was comfortable with the proposed parking standards. Keith Gordon replied he was. Chairman Erickson expressed concern about parking plans that contain ninety degree (90 angle parking on one side of the lot and sixty degree (60 parking on the other. He did not feel that the proposed parking changes would prevent this situation. Chairman Erickson also raised the issue of joint parking facilities. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal responded that parking lots can be combined so long as the total number of spaces is not diminished. Chairman Erickson inquired under what circumstances do we allow the property owner to diminish the number of parking spaces required and how will the City decide when a financial guarantee is in order. Member Sterling commented that she did not feel comfortable with all of the wording in the proposed ordinance. Member Kleckner asked why the eighty foot access requirement was being changed to a one hundred foot access. City Planner Richard Kelley responded that the change from eighty feet to one hundred feet would provide more stacking space on adjacent roadways. Chairman Erickson commented that ordinance looks good, but that some of the wording could be more definitive. Chairman Erickson closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 1989 Page 6 F. Multi- Family Standards - Zoning. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 043 -Z). STAFF REPORT: July 5, 1989 by City Planner Richard Kelley. Chairman Erickson opened the public hearing at 9 :00. City Planner Richard Kelley presented a background report on the proposed multi - family standards. The proposed revisions create ten different multiple residential zoning categories M -1 through M -10 as opposed to the current four categories. The increased number of categories allows greater control over density with each category having a narrower window of density range. The practice of using a density sliding scale based on the number of bedrooms in each dwelling unit would be eliminated due to the amount of uncertainty it created. He reported that the practice of allowing more density in a three -story building would be retained with one- and two -story buildings having the same maximum density. The "M -10" zone is eligible for a conditional use permit for increased density in four- and five -story buildings. He proposed that each category could be further broken down into three sub - categories, i.e. "M -1A ", M -1B ", and "M-1C", which offer further refinement in performance standards. The A category has the highest standards concerning setbacks and building materials and the C category has the least restrictive requirements. Mr. Kelley also stated that density bonuses could be granted to those projects which meet certain designated standards. The intent of these incentives would be to create a higher quality project and allow the City to retain greater control of the land development process. A general discussion ensued regarding the complexity of the proposed multi- family zoning changes. Member Carlson expressed concern over the number of categories and the difficulty in assigned land to those categories. Chairman Erickson questioned as to whether the new multi- family categories could be implemented. Member Kleckner questioned as to whether the new multi- family categories would severely limit land owner's rights. Art Eaton, Randolph, Minnesota, stated that the existing designations today are still arbitrary. He suggested that the new categories might tend to give a developer a little more guidance as to what land use the City would like to see on a piece of property. He mentioned that the proposed guidelines might provide a good starting point and force the developer and City to address important issues. Don Kasprzyk, 12880 Foliage Avenue, felt that the new standards were overkill. Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 1989 Page 7 MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling to hold the public hearing open allowing the staff to review its multi - family standard recommendations. The motion carried unanimously. G. Neighborhood Center - Zoning. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 045 -Z). STAFF REPORT: July 5, 1989 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal. The public hearing was opened at 9:40 by Chairman Erickson. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal presented information that the staff is currently reviewing regarding neighborhood centers. She presented the current zoning regulations for neighborhood centers along with a set of recommendations for new neighborhood or convenience centers. She suggested that the Planning Commission review this information to make recommendations for zoning changes to "NC" and "NC -1" districts. Chairman Erickson suggested that the Planning Commission review the information Meg McMonigal presented and that the public hearing be held open until the next planning commission meeting. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Nordic Woods 12th - Rezoning and Preliminary Plat. LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Galaxie Avenue and Zoo Road. PETITIONER: M. W. Johnson Construction, Inc. (PC89- 038 -ZS). STAFF REPORT: July 5, 1989 by City Planner Richard Kelley. City Planner Richard Kelley presented the staff report. He stated that this mixed use, low density, residential project has been modified based upon input received from the public hearing and the commission members. The density has been reduced by one unit and the layout re- configured to save the existing knoll at the corner of Foliage Avenue and Trunk Highway #77. Unit designs have been altered to minimize the need for reduced setbacks and the parking lot for the duplex units has been eliminated. Berms and landscape materials will be installed along Trunk Highway #77 and Galaxie Avenue. Steve Grohoski, realtor for Nordic Woods 12th, stated the changes the staff had requested have been made on the preliminary plat. He also stated that the right -of -way has been staked to show how far back they were from the right -of -way. Member Sterling asked about the parking changes in front of the duplexes. Mr. Grohoski replied that the parking changes had been made according to staff recommendations; eliminating the small parking lot and creating a drive to each of the units. Member Kleckner asked whether the developer needed to get permission from the Department of Transportation for the berm landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 1989 Page 8 Mr. Grohoski replied that as long as they were adding and not removing berm, the Department of Transportation was unconcerned. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to approve the "PD" rezoning as outlined in the staff memo. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to approve the preliminary plat of Nordic Woods 12th Addition in accordance with the grading plan dated 6/29/89. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Sterling, to approve the building permit authorization of dwelling units in Nordic Woods 12th Addition in accordance with the landscape plan dated 6/29/89. The motion carried unanimously. B. Southport Centre - Rezoning, Preliminary Plat and Building Permit. LOCATION: Southeast Corner at Cedar Avenue and County Road #42. PETITIONER: Ryan Construction (PC89- 025 -ZSB). STAFF REPORT: July 5, 1989 by City Planner Richard Kelley. The staff report was presented by City Planner Richard Kelley. Mr. Kelley reported that Ryan Construction is seeking approval of the rezoning from "SC" and planned development #244, subzone 1 to a new planned development designation. Approval is also sought for a 35 acre preliminary plat to vacate an existing plat and create a new plat with six commercial lots and one outlot. The proposal includes 2,051 parking spaces, extensive landscaping in and around the parking lot, and architectural glass and brick detail to the building. A new plat will be required to describe the six lots, road and utility easements. An Indirect Source Permit must be issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before construction can begin. This permit may have conditions attached relative to traffic handling improvements on Cedar Avenue and County Road #42. To do rezoning to a new planned development will include permitted uses, signage, parking, truck loading and setback requirements. The City's architectural performance standards will be written into or referenced in the P.D. Class II restaurants would require a conditional use permit. The staff recommendation was to approve the preliminary plat of Southport Centre. Staff also recommended that the rezoning to a new planned development be approved subject to all shopping center uses being permitted with the exclusion of any auto - service - related activity and restricted to Class I restaurants. Staff recommended that the building permit authorization for the major anchor be approved subject to further revisions to the parking plan to improve peripheral vehicular circulation on the north side of the site. Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 1989 Page 9 Bill McHale, developer for Ryan Construction, addressed the Planning Commission. He voiced concern that fast food restrictions on his property were unfair and that the restrictions had not been placed on property on other sides of the intersection. He also reported that he had redesigned the parking area to 60 angle parking in front of the major anchors in the centre. A general discussion ensued regarding the parking plan and the continuity of the proposed ring route. Bill McHale stated that he felt the angle parking improvements over shadowed the loss of the ring route. He expressed concern over the number of parking places that would be lost if he was required to retain the clearly defined ring route. Member Kleckner asked about the building materials of the back of the buildings facing 150th Street. Developer McHale responded that the same building materials would be used on all sides of the building - with the back of the building having painted, metal doors that will match the exterior color of the building. Chairman Erickson asked Developer McHale if he was concerned about the exclusion of fast food restaurants and drive - throughs on this site. Bill McHale responded that he does not want to be discriminated against and can design drive- throughs attractively. A general discussion ensued. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Sterling, to approve the P.D. rezoning with stipulation that the conditional use permit be used for any free standing, fast food restaurant or auto service center. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to approve the preliminary plat. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to approve the building permit based on resolution of the ring route parking circulation with the staff. The motion carried unanimously. C. Amendment of Sign Code. Regulation for Signs on Two Sides of a Building. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal presented a background report. She stated that in order to improve visibility of businesses in the downtown area of Apple Valley, it is recommended that the sign ordinance be amended Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 1989 Page 10 to allow business signs to be located on two sides of a building. She reviewed the existing requirements for sign placement and suggested re- visions to Section 6 -107. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Kleckner, to approve the amendments to the sign code. The motion carried unanimously. D. Minnehaha Falls Garden Center Parking Variance. LOCATION: 14901 Cedar Avenue. PETITIONER: Keith Hittner (PC89- 034 -V). STAFF REPORT: July 5, 1989 by Associate Planner Scott Hickok. A staff report was made by Associate Planner Scott Hickok. Mr. Hickok reported that the petitioner, Minnehaha Falls Garden Center, requests two variances in conjunction with improvements to the parking lot at Cedar and 147th Street. The first of the variances is to allow an eighteen foot parking setback rather than the twenty foot setback required by code. The second of the variances is to install the parking area without curbing as required by ordinance. Mr. Hickok stated that Minnehaha. Falls Garden Center is a pre- existing, nonconforming use in a limited business district. Its existence preceded current zoning and City ordinances that require surfacing, curbing of off - street parking areas and a twenty foot parking setback. Since these requirements were adopted after the business began operating, the lot can remain unimproved. Surfacing the lot will improve the appearance of the site. The nursery proposes to highlight this setback area with shrubs, sod and a keystone retaining wall. They also plan to install a berm in this planting area with the intention to showcase many of their products. The applicant proposes to edge the parking lot with a poured curb designed to be more conducive to his proposed parking grades. A standard B6 -12 curb would require extensive grading. The proposed curb would not. The variance requested would allow the internal driveways and the area adjacent to the building to be surfaced without curbing. Parking bumpers are planned for parking adjacent to the building and sidewalk. Staff recommended the approval of a two foot variance to the setback requirements resulting in an eighteen foot setback. Staff also recommend a curbing variance for all areas, except the area that surrounds the proposed plantings on the Cedar Avenue side of the parking lot. This proposed curbing shall be approved by City Planning and Engineering staff prior to installation. Staff also recommended requiring a bond for curbing and landscape materials. Planning Commission Minutes July 5, 1989 Page 11 A general discussion ensued regarding the garden center's rights as a pre - existing, nonconforming use. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Sterling, seconded by Member Carlson, to recommend the curbing variance for all areas except the area that surrounds the proposed plantings on the Cedar Avenue side of the parking lot. This proposed curbing shall be approved by the City Planning and Engineering staff prior to installation. The motion carried unanimously. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Zoning or Other Code Improvements Suggestions (Commission). Member Carlson inquired as to whether the Apple Valley Theatre is admitting underaged patrons. He started a general discussion as to whether the City should intervene. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal asked if the Planning Commission would like to review the code enforcement proceedings before the next meeting with Associate Planner Scott Hickok. Members of the Planning Commission accepted the invitation. Associate Planner Scott Hickok reported that the Dakota County District Court had ruled in favor or an ordinance restricting four to six cars in residential areas. 8. OTHER BUSINESS Member Sterling inquired as to whether the Planning Commission had decided whether or not to hold a summer picnic. The Planning Commission agreed to hold a summer picnic, but did not set a definite time. 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Sterling to adjourn. kg