Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/19/1989l vrrecZ ed' G'o10 V PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY JULY 19, 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 Felkner, Sterling, Gowling, Carlson and Weldon. Members Absent: Member Kleckner. Staff Present: Keith Gordon, Richard Kelley, Meg McMonigal, Lon Aune, Kurt Chatfield, Dennis Miranowski, Dennis Welsch and Scott Hickok. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The agenda was approved with Items 66 and 6E moved to the consent agenda and Item 6F withdrawn by the applicant. With these corrections, the agenda was approved unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 5, 1989 The minutes of the July 5, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting were approved with one correction. At the bottom of page 3, the statement should read "but the State did not receive title..." MOTION: A motion was made by Member Gowling, seconded by Member Sterling, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried 5 - 0. Member Felkner abstained. 4. CONSENT AGENDA (Items needing no discussion may be placed on this agenda by Commission members. One motion sends item on to the City Council with staff recommendations.) A. 053 -132nd Street Exceptions - Rezoning. LOCATION: South of 132nd Street. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 041 -Z). STAFF REPORT: July 19, 1989 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Sterling, to recommend approval of the rezoning from "R -IA" to "R -1C" for the land known as the 132nd Street exceptions. The motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 Page 2 B. Parking Code Changes - Zoning PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 044 -Z). STAFF REPORT: July 19, 1989 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal NOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Sterling, to recommend approval of the parking code dimensional changes to the zoning text. The motion carried unanimously. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 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 19, 1989 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal. Chairman Erickson opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal presented background information on the rezoning request which included a letter from the property owner, Mr. Coady, and concerns about noise controls. In the letter, Mr. Coady noted that at the July 5th meeting he requested limited business zoning for this site, because of noise problems that would prohibit residential development based upon State noise standards. Meg McMonigal explained the State noise standards do not apply to highways adjacent to residential areas. She referred to a report sub- mitted to the Planning Commission dated 1980 prepared by City Planner Richard Kelley regarding the Coady properties. She noted that in the 1980 report concerns were expressed about projected traffic, noise impact, sub - division regulation and site plan designs to eliminate, or reduce noise pollution. The 1980 report also described the community's goal of retaining commercial development in the downtown area, rather than dispersing it throughout the community. Chairman Erickson expressed disappointment that Mr. Coady, the property owner, was not present. He noted that this meeting had been continued from the July 5th public hearing in order to gain further input from Mr. Coady. A general discussion among Planning Commission members ensued regarding the history of access to the site, and the amount of development that would occur adjacent to the original Royal Oaks plat. Chairman Erickson asked for comments from the audience. No public comment was made. Chairman Erickson closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 Page 3 B. 052 - Coady North Rezoning /Comp Plan. LOCATION: On the North Side of the Zoo Road. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 042 -ZP). STAFF REPORT: July 19, 1989 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal. Chairman Erickson reopened the public hearing and requested a staff report from Associate Planner Meg McMonigal. Ms. McMonigal noted that the existing zoning on the site is "R -1A" and the comprehensive plan designa- tion is "D -III" allowing 6 to 12 units of mixed residential development. The staff recommendation for solving the inconsistency problem would be to rezone to "M -2" and reduce the comprehensive plan designation to "D -II ", thus allowing up to 6 units of mixed housing per acre instead of 12. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal noted that Minnesota Department of Transportation had purchased a reduced access right from Mr. Coady. Minnesota Department of Transportation records and staff have noted that the purchase price was worth 60% to 90% of the property value. She noted that the owner of the property must find alternate access points if he is to develop the site and that the only logical access points are from the east through the William's property. Chairman Erickson asked if there was comment from Mr. Coady regarding the access. None was received. Bill Baldwin, 7320 - 130th Street W., stated that Mr. Coady had been compensated for the property and that larger homes were adjacent to this parcel on the north side of the property line. He suggested that multi- family housing may impact the value of the homes. He noted that an appraiser had remarked that the homes on 130th Street would lose between $18,000 and $20,000 each in value if a multi - family project were placed on the Coady property directly south of their land. Mr. Baldwin recommended that the Planning Commission not change the value and allow the zoning to remain as is. Brad Jacobsen, 7300 - 130th Street W., stated he was opposed to any change in the zoning and noted that he had talked with the Minnesota Department of Transportation during the past eleven years. The Minnesota Department of Transportation staff stated that no change would occur on the Coady property and no development would occur. Victor Wells, 7355 - 130th Street W., asked whether the City had considered acquiring the property for open space or for park purposes. He noted that the density of development on Germane may require an additional park. Chairman Erickson stated that the Planning Commission will defer the question of park land on this site to the Park Committee, but he expressed concern about the need for additional park and the duplication of existing Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 1989 Page 4 parks in the area; particularly at 127th Street which City Planner Richard Kelley had previously noted has twelve acres, mostly in a natural state. A general discussion ensued regarding the suitability of the Coady site for parks, bike paths and walking trails. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal noted that City's comprehensive park plan does not designate this site for a park. She suggested that the Park Committee review this and report back to the Planning Commission at the August 16th Planning Commission Meeting. A general discussion ensued regarding the advisability of zoning a parcel to "M-1" which would allow either single - family or low density multi - family housing on the site. It was noted that the Hidden Ponds area, directly north of this site in which single - family homes have been built, is currently zoned as "M -3" for higher density, multi- family housing. The Hidden Ponds area does have several lots still available for development. It is possible that multi- family housing could be inter- spersed within the single- family homes if the zoning is not changed to reflect the prominent use on the site (single- family). Bill Baldwin, 7320 - 130th Street W., asked if the Planning Commission is concerned about protection of property values and property rights. Stan Marion, 7340 - 130th Street W„ asked what the impact would be on resident's property and whether there was a measurement of that impact done by the Planning Commission. Meg McMonigal responded that the Planning Commission had reviewed the entire Cedar - Pennock- Garrett Avenue Land Use Corridor in a study and had determined there would be significant impact on all properties if commercial development occurred, or if higher density residential development occurred without proper access. Chairman Erickson provided a history and description of the comprehensive process wherein this Coady parcel had been designated "D- III" in the comprehensive plan in 1972 and had not changed since that time. Chairman Erickson noted that there will be no action taken by the Planning Commission prior to August 16, 1989 at which time the Planning Commission will receive a recommendation from the Park Committee. He requested that the staff add Hidden Ponds Subdivision to the zoning consistency process for future evaluation of a rezoning to "R -1C ". There were no further comments. Chairman Erickson closed the public hearing. C. Multi - Family Standards - Zoning. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 043 -Z). STAFF REPORT: July 19, 1989 by City Planner Richard Kelley. Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 1989 Page 5 Chairman Erickson reopened the public hearing. City Planner Richard Kelley presented an updated report on the multi- family zoning development standards and illustrated on a chart the degrees of complexity and density of the proposed multi - family zoning district. He requested the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to a later date and hold a separate session to consider this amendment at a future date. No comment offered by the public. NOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to continue the hearing to the first meeting in September and to establish a Planning Commission work session with the City Council invited to attend for August 30, 1989 beginning at 7:00 p.m. Any item on the agenda will be allocated a specific amount of time and will be placed after the multi- family zoning topic. The motion carried unanimously. D. Neighborhood Center - Zoning. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 045 -Z). -TO BE HELD OPEN UNTIL AUGUST 2ND- On a unanimous vote the Planning Commission held the public hearing open until August 2, 1989 for further comment and clarification by the staff. The motion carried unanimously. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Academy Village Apartments. LOCATION: 141st Street and Garden View. PETITIONER: George C. Maurer Construction, Inc. (PC89- 035 -ZP). STAFF REPORT: July 19, 1989 by City Planner Richard Kelley. City Planner Richard Kelley described the changes in the original PD #170 which would allow for development of this Valley Ridge Apartment project. He noted that the length of the building would be 180 feet instead of 120 feet and that there would be exposed balconies between extended bay window areas. Member Sterling asked for clarification regarding parking dimensions and the capacity of the site for compact cars. Member Felkner asked for clarification regarding the new parking dimension standards the Planning Commission had recommended earlier in the evening. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Gowling, seconded by Member Carlson, to recommend approval of an amendment to PD #170, Subzone 3, that would extend the maximum permitted internal building access from 120 feet to 180 feet and allow exposed balconies between the bay window areas. The motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting July 19, 1989 Page 6 MOTION: A motion was made by Member Gowling, seconded by Member Carlson, to recommend approval of the building permit for Phase I of Valley Ridge Apartment buildings, Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Academy Village in accordance with the site grading and landscaping plans as submitted on June 12, 1989. The motion carried unanimously. D. Setback Variance. LOCATION: 14321 Everest Avenue. PETITIONER: Mark Goettig (PC89- 048 -V). STAFF REPORT: July 19, 1989 by City Planner Richard Kelley. City Planner Richard Kelley explained that variance request was made in order to allow a deck to extend to within 2 to 2 1/2 feet of the side property line. He noted that such an extension would also encroach into the drainage and utility 5 foot easement along the property line. Mr. Goettig had submitted a letter from a neighbor who did not object to the variance. City Planner Richard Kelley noted that this is a small- lot- planned- unit - development with the intention of allowing no variances for larger housing on the site. He stated the staff recommends denial of the variance because of a lack of hardship and because of encroachment within the drainage and utility easement. It was also noted that the State Building Code will not allow a building extension to be closer than 3 feet to a property line. Applicant Mark Goettig noted that he had bought the house with the intention of building a larger deck than the one that came with the house (10 feet). He stated that a 7 foot deck is not acceptable and noted that the adjacent house received a variance to within 4 feet of the property line. A general discussion ensued regarding the history of small lot sub - divisions, the lack of a hardship, and the variance process. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Sterling, seconded by Member Felkner, to recommend denial of the variance based on a lack of hardship and encroachment in the drainage and utility easement. The motion carried unanimously. E. New Home Setback Variance. LOCATION: Lot 15, Block 1, Shadow Estates, Dakota County, Minnesota. PETITIONER: St. Charles Homes, Inc. (PC89- 047 -V). STAFF REPORT: July 19, 1989 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal provided background history of variances granted the original plat on lots adjacent to and east of this site. The project would require a side yard setback variance and a front yard setback variance. The staff recommended denial of the variance Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 1989 Page 7 request because of encroachment within the utility easement along the west side of the property line and because no significant hardship could be demonstrated that would require the house to be set within 20 feet of the front property line. Happy Moselle of St. Charles Homes, Inc. stated that the site may require up to 16 course of block on the exterior and could be damaged by frost. He stated that setting the building within 20 feet of the front property line allows for the same setback as adjacent houses to the east and noted that covenants on the site require large garages and house sizes. Member Carlson stated that he was opposed to the side yard setback variance, but would consider the front lot line setback variance if a hardship could be demonstrated. City Engineer Keith Gordon stated that he was opposed to the side yard setback variance, which would allow encroachment to within the utility easement, because of the construction difficulties that could occur if the utility line within the easement had to be repaired. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend denial of the front and side yard variance for the house to be located on Lot 15, Block 1, Shadow Estates. The motion carried unanimously. Subsequent to the motion, the applicant formally withdrew the request for any further consideration by the City Council. G. Set Public Hearing for Amendments to Parking Code (A1 -62). STAFF REPORT: July 19, 1989 by Associate Planner Scott Hickok. Associate Planner Scott Hickok presented the recommendations of the Urban Affairs Committee regarding the number of vehicles to be parked on a residential site (4) with a potential for up to 6 if a permit is issued. In addition, they recommended: Changes in the language to eliminate Council approval of a parking permit and changing the permit process to an administrative process administered by the staff. That definition of vehicles be changed to the State definition of vehicles, which includes licensed and unlicensed vehicles. That non - motorized vehicles could be parked on gravel or other impervious surfaces as well. Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 1989 Page 8 D. That no notification would be necessary by the applicant to the adjoining neighbors when requesting a permit for the 2 additional parking spaces on the site. Chairman Erickson stated that he supported the amendment, but asked whether there should be an appeal process from the administrative permit decision. He also requested clarification regarding setback requirements for vehicles placed on the site and a definition of where vehicles could be parked on the site. Member Carlson stated that in the future, the City Staff and Urban Affairs Committee need to write language which will identify the location where vehicles can be parked. A general discussion ensued regarding the incremental approach to improving the parking code. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to set a public hearing for August 16, 1989 to hear public comment on the proposed parking ordinance. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission asked the Staff to prepare an article for publication in the local papers explaining the proposed ordinance and to provide legal notice. In addition, the Planning Commission requested the Staff to formally thank the Urban Affairs Committee for their work on this project. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. J. V. Development Sketch Plan. LOCATION: South of County Road 38 Adjacent to Rosemount. PETITIONER: Earl Vraa (PC89- 049 -ZS). STAFF REPORT: July 19, 1989 by Planning Intern Kurt Chatfield. Planning Intern Kurt Chatfield presented a request by Earl Vraa to create 42 single - family lots from 4 agricultural parcels located south of County Road 38, directly east of the Rosemount City Limits, and directly west of the Hunters Wood Addition. The applicant proposes access to County Road 38 on the north side of the site. Chatfield noted that the zoning is currently agricultural and the proposal would require a rezoning to "R -1C ". The comprehensive plan designation of "D -I" is consistent with the proposed use. He noted that the terrain is steep and heavily wooded and that additional work would be necessary to realign streets; particularly, at Dorchester Court, and at an access to future developments within the City of Rosemount. The applicant, Earl Vraa, agreed with most of the staff concerns regarding street relocations and lot size; as well as protection of Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 1989 Page 9 existing trees. He noted that the lots are too tight and may be redesigned to a larger size. He also noted that the pond in the center of the project may not require any modification in order to preserve it. He expressed concern about the pond in the southwest corner of the project site and noted that it may be filled. He also noted that he will attempt to save as many trees as possible. He stated there would be four builders potentially building within the site. After a general discussion, the Planning Commission stated that the sketch plan concept does need more work, but is generally heading in a positive direction. No action was taken. 8. A. Quarterly Work Report. The Planning Commission received the Planning Staff's quarterly report. B. Discussion of City Council Minutes. The Planning Commission received the minutes of the July 13, 1989 meeting. 9. 1 03/111/7 lkio1ll The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. kg