Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/02/1989U 1 f PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY AUGUST 2. 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, Gowling, Carlson, Weldon and Kleckner. Members Absent: Member Sterling. Staff Present: Keith Gordon, Richard Kelley, Meg McMonigal, Kurt Chatfield, Dennis Welsch 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 JULY 19, 1989 The minutes of the July 19, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting were approved with one correction. At the bottom of page 4, paragraph 7, statement should read "Chairman Erickson provided a history and description of the comprehensive plan process wherein this Coady parcel had been designated "D -III" in the comprehensive plan in 1972..." MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Weldon, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried 5 - 0. Member Kleckner 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 the staff recommendations.) None. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Cedar Plaza /Russell /Eaton - Zoning. Lvi,nI Aull wlit of i4Dth �tr 22t and nc of Cedar Avcnue. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 050 -Z). STAFF REPORT: August 2, 1989 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal. Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 Page 2 Community Development Director Dennis Welsch provided a background presentation on the Pennock - Cedar- Garrett Land Use Study and the recommendations of the Planning Staff regarding rezonings to the ten developable parcels in that study. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal provided details on the specific site, noting that the existing zoning is "R -1A" and limited business, which was last changed in April of 1987. She also noted that the existing comprehensive plan designation for the site is "D -III" and "LB ", which was last changed in 1979. Meg McMonigal explained the staff recommendation to rezone "R -1A" to " M -3" zoning districts and a smaller portion of the "R -1A" to a limited business district. She noted and also attached to the staff memorandum a letter from Art Eaton, President of Vista Development, Incorporated, stating that Vista Development concurred in part with the staff recommendations, but felt that the site would provide a very successful retail location. Chairman Erickson asked for clarification regarding the location of access to the site and the specific location of Granite Avenue within the rezoning. Dottie Russell, 14224 Cedar Avenue South, asked for clarification regarding Granite Avenue and development that may occur based upon installation of that avenue. She also expressed concern regarding potential taxes if the zoning were changed. She felt limited business zoning would be appropriate along Cedar Avenue and that "M -3" zoning would be appropriate on steeper land to the west, but could be developed at a lower density if need be. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal responded to a question regarding need for additional public hearings, noting that at least one more public hearing would be necessary before development occurred. That public hearing would be for platting of the land. A consensus of the Planning Commission Members was that the land owned by Art Eaton and the land owned by Dottie Russell would be best served if developed jointly. A general discussion ensued regarding the access to the corner parcel currently zoned as "LB -1" from 142nd Street, Granite Avenue and Cedar Avenue. Ken Williamson, 13960 Granada Court, asked why the Planning Commission was accepting Mr. Eaton's request for retail development instead of limited business. Planning Commission Chairman Erickson responded that the Planning Commission has not accepted or approved any retail deve1opimient on the corner. Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1989 Page 3 Dallas Karl, 13985 Granada Court, asked what had happened to the original plan and asked the Planning Commission to consider whether this development would be piecemeal development if not done jointly. Member Kleckner responded that the project did not get built originally because the original tenant working with Mr. Eaton decided to locate at another location. Kleckner noted that he was opposed to forcing joint development of the two property owners. Eldon Hugelen, 7473 West 142nd Street, asked for clarification regarding why the limited business zone was north of both the church zoning and the City Hall land use at 142nd Street. City Planner Richard Kelley noted that the limited business zone is on land that is at a comparable grade with Cedar Avenue, while the higher density apartment housing is designated for land which has more difficult, or steeper topography to the west of the limited business zone. Mr. Hugelen asked if the limited business zone could be restricted to the south of the church. Member Carlson stated that the limited business zone can be a buffer for the multi- family area, which would be constructed further west of Cedar Avenue. Glen Badge, 13865 Glazier Court West, asked whether there were long term projections for Cedar Avenue traffic. A general discussion of Cedar Avenue traffic and capacity ensued. Anna Marie Stuebe, 13980 Granada Court, expressed concern and opposition to any other zoning than single- family. She asked why the property on the southwest corner of 140th and Cedar could not be utilized for single - family homes since there were single - family, or other types of homes on three other corners in the area. Member Carlson noted that because of the intensity of traffic and use at this corner, as well as the multi - family uses which surround the corner, single - family uses were no longer appropriate at this site. Jane Jasman, 7581 142nd Street West, asked if there were traffic studies being completed regarding the extension of Granite Avenue. After a general discussion regarding the staff recommendations, Chairman Erickson closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 Page 4 B. Domestic /Calistro - Zoning. LOCATION: North of 140th Street and West of Cedar Avenue. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 051 -Z). STAFF REPORT: July 28, 1989 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal. (Member Kleckner left the Commission and joined the audience) Chairman Erickson opened the public hearing and asked Associate Planner Meg McMonigal to present the background report on the existing zoning and the comprehensive plan on the site, as well as the staff recommended changes. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal noted that the staff recommends leaving the comprehensive plan as is and changing the zoning map to allow for an "M -1" zone on the western 120 feet of the Domestic /Calistro site, while allowing for "M -2" zoning on the remaining land eastward of the 120 foot strip to Cedar Avenue. Chairman Erickson read a letter from the Domestic /Vista developers into the records. This letter is attached to the minutes. In the letter, Developers Kleckner and Eaton stated they were opposed to "M -2 ", low density zoning, because of the excessive noise and visual exposure to Cedar Avenue, the flatness of the site and the already planned for and existing landscape buffer and duplexes constructed along the west side of their property. They noted that this area needed quality, multi- family development and were opposed to down- zoning the site. Mr. Kleckner stated that he had always intended to use the site for higher density development and that was the purpose of platting and constructing twin homes as buffers along the west side of the project. He noted that in the past, berm work had been done on this site to create even more of a buffer between the single - family homes and proposed multi- family homes.. He stated that the City does need more of a tax base and apartment zoning would provide that tax base. Barbara Calistro, 7515 140th Street W., stated that her property was not suitable generally for single - family homes. She had a consultant complete a review of this site, indicating that other uses than single - family would be more appropriate. Tom Stuebe, 13980 Granada Court, stated that he was opposed to any zoning changes and noted that in the past the City has received a petition with over one hundred names objecting to such a rezoning because of traffic density and impact on the value of existing single- family homes. He noted that staff proposal to create a "M -1" zone would create quad units that would eventually become rental units similar to Academy Village. Anne Marie Stuebe, 13980 Granada Court, stated that she was opposed to duplexes on rolling land. Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1989 Page 5 Barbara Calistro stated her consultant had shown that single - family would not be the best use of the site, but that a proposal similar to the recommendation by the staff is more appropriate. She stated that she is being forced out of her home by the high cost on the site and that she has a right to develop to the best use possible according to the law. This does not necessarily say it must please the neighbors. A general discussion ensued regarding the definition of zoning districts, particularly the "M -1" zoning district. A general discussion also ensued regarding road locations and access to Cedar Avenue. Barbara Calistro stated she was opposed to an extension of Granite Avenue and to the extension of 139th Street because it would reduce the usable and developable acres on her site. Member Kleckner asked when was the comprehensive plan change made in 1985 and what was the comprehensive plan designation prior to 1985? The staff was asked to research this. Anne Marie Stuebe, 13980 Granada Court, stated she was concerned with Mr. Kleckner's interest in the property, as well as being a member of the Planning Commission. Jerry Ross, 7740 - 139th Court West, stated his property abuts both the Calistro and the Domestic property. He recommended a minimum 120 foot buffer behind all single - family homes and double units along the west side of both the Calistro and the Domestic property. A general discussion of the past history of the "M -3" zoning and the traffic study ensued with Mr. Kleckner. The Planning Commission was asked to consider what would happen to traffic flow if medians were placed on 140th Street and on Cedar Avenue. Such medians would restrict turning movements into the area and could increase traffic in other neighborhoods. No further comments were offered. Chairman Erickson closed the public hearing. (Member Kleckner rejoined the Commission) C. Neighborhood Center - Zoning. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 045 -Z). STAFF REPORT: July 27, 1989 by Community Development Director Dennis Welsch. Community Development Director Dennis Welsch presented a background report on the purposes for neighborhood center performance standards. He listed seven key ingredients in the proposed amendment including 1) Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1989 Page 6 establishing specific location requirements for future neighborhood centers, 2) listing the key criteria necessary to develop and organize the site, 3) providing specific landscape requirements which are more extensive than the generalized commercial areas, 4) establishing specific criteria for lighting in order to minimize impact on nearby residents, 5) creating specific architectural design requirements for the site, 6) limiting the hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., and 7) re- quiring phased development to be completed in a manner which would also include completion of appropriate shares of amenities and site landscaping. Member Weldon pointed out that the Dred Scott field located in Bloomington has a neighborhood center adjacent to it. The uses and architectural design are compatible with the residential area. He suggested that staff and Planning Commission members take a look at this site. Member Kleckner stated he was generally in support of the proposed amendment as stated, but asked the staff and commission to consider the use of a conditional use permit process for neighborhood centers to allow for additional or more specific conditions to be placed on each project. Member Gowling expressed concern about on -going maintenance after the center has been approved. Member Kleckner pointed out that a portion of the requirements require the developer to place in- ground sprinkling systems in order to preserve the planted landscape. Member Kleckner reminded the staff that if a project is required to install amenities and more specific architectural controls, it will cost more, which may in fact reduce the marketability of various sites. A general discussion ensued regarding the ability to use neighborhood centers for convenience shopping instead of traveling to the downtown, taking up capacity on the existing over- crowded traffic corridors. No public comment was offered. The public hearing was closed by Chairman Erickson. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. 051 - Coady South Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan. LOCATION: On the East Side of Cedar Avenue Between 132nd Street and the Zoo Road. PEI ITIVNE V14y Vf I'1p ElIG � kP - V4V - L P)• STAFF REPORT: July 28, 1989 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal. Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1989 Page 7 Associate Planner Meg McMonigal provided a background report which described the staff recommendation to rezone from "R -1A" to "M -2 ", and to change the comprehensive plan from "D -III" to "D -II ". She noted that Mr. Coady, the owner, had expressed his opinion that the staff proposal would not be marketable or feasible for the site. He has had difficulty in selling the adjacent single - family areas as well. One to six units per acre is not a feasible multi - family zone. He requested that the area be rezoned limited business for an office building which would have visibility from Cedar Avenue. Mr. Coady then stated he had not petitioned for this rezoning and was opposed to it. He noted that the comprehensive plan should be reviewed, but the zoning had not been requested. He had not had enough time to study the proposal. He was concerned about noise, marketability of the site for single - family uses and the opportunity to create a better tax base, utilizing offices or retail space. He noted that three million people will use the Zoo Road /Cedar intersection by 1990 and that this intersection is not best used for multi- family purposes. He asked the Commission to postpone any action on this site for at least 120 days to work with the staff. Chairman Erickson stated he was opposed to a limited business zone because of the street access problems. A general discussion ensued regarding access to the site from the Zoo Road, 132nd Street and the frontage road along Cedar Avenue. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Felkner, to table further consideration of this issue until the October 4th meeting in order to allow the property owner to review proposals with the planning staff. The motion carried unanimously. (Member Weldon left the Planning Commission Meeting) B. Site Review and Building Permit Authorization for Dakota Transmission and Auto Repair Expansion. LOCATION: 6975 - 140th Street West. PETITIONER: Terry Danielson (PC89- 054 -B). STAFF REPORT: August 2, 1989 by City Planner Richard Kelley. City Planner Richard Kelley presented a background report which explained the need for expansion of the Dakota Transmission and Auto Repair building and recommended approval with the following conditions: I . Additional parking space for five (5) cars be provided on the north side. Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1989 Page 8 The berm along Galaxie Avenue be extended the length of the property and landscape materials valued at 1 1/2% of the cost of the addition be installed in conformance with the ordinance. A landscape plan must be prepared and submitted for staff approval. A variance to the building materials standard be approved to allow the use of cedar siding to match the materials in existence on the building. The owner expressed no opposition to the three conditions recommended by the staff. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Felkner, to recommend approval of the expansion of the Dakota Transmission and Auto Repair building with the three (3) staff conditions. The motion carried unanimously. C. Sign Variance - Midway National Bank. LOCATION: Lot 1, Block 1, Apple Valley Commons. PETITIONER: Brent Paschke (PC89- 052 -V). STAFF REPORT: August 2, 1989 by Associate Planner Scott Hickok. Associate Planner Scott Hickok provided a background report and explanation of the variance request to expand logos to four sides of the building. He noted the staff recommended denial of logos on the north and east sides of the building. Representatives from Schad Tracy Signs pre- sented information on the logos and concerns about lack of advertising on the building. They stated the hardship was the lack of visibility from Cedar Avenue and from the north. Chairman Erickson noted that signage on the north is only visible to the residents on the north side. A discussion ensued regarding the precedence that could be set by approving a variance with limited hardships. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend denial of a logo on the east and north sides of the Apple Valley Commons Building for Midway National Bank. The motion carried 4 - 1. Kleckner voted in opposition. D. Sign Variance - Mount Olivet. LOCATION: 14201 Cedar Avenue South. PETITIONER: Ace Signs of Albert Lea (PC89- 053 -V). STAFF REPORT: August 2, 1989 by Associate Planner Scott Hickok. Associate Planner Scott Hickok presented a background report noting that the Mount Olivet Church proposed a sign that would be 94 square feet Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1989 Page 9 in area rather than the 40 square feet allowed within the institutional zoning district. He stated a concern of the church is the extreme setback from the Cedar Avenue right -of -way, which is 208 feet and the visibility with trees adjacent to the right -of -way. In addition, Cedar Avenue is a 45 mph speed zone, requiring extended visibility in order to see the building and the lettering. Representatives of the church provided background regarding the need for an extended and expanded sign and logo. Member Kleckner stated that a larger size would break up the vast wall space. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Kleckner, seconded by Member Gowling, to recommend approval of a sign variance to allow for a 94 square foot sign to be placed on the east side of the Mount Olivet Church, because of the following hardships: 1. The extreme distance from the Cedar Avenue right -of -way (208 feet). The speed of the traffic along Cedar Avenue corridor. 3. The number of trees and landscaping on the site make visibility difficult. The Planning Commission noted with this variance they would recommend that only one sign be placed on the building. The motion carried 4 -0 -1 (Carlson abstained). DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Sketch Plan for East Valley Plaza. LOCATION: 14050 Pilot Knob Road. PETITIONER: Jay Blanchard, Dreher and Associates, Inc., (PC89- 055 -SZ). STAFF REPORT: August 2, 1989 by City Planner Richard Kelley. City Planner Richard Kelley provided a background report regarding a sketch plan for the remaining acreage within the East Valley Commercial Park. Developers, Bill Licken and Ben Merriman, presented information on various uses they proposed for the parcels east of the strip center. Chairman Erickson summarized that the major concern of the Planning Commission would be to protect or buffer the single- family homes on the east side of Essex Avenue. Merriman stated that single- family buildings would be protected through limited hours of operation, controlled lighting and controlled sign banners on sites which abut Essex Avenue. Member Carlson asked Bill Licken and Ben Merriman to consider deeper lots with little or no aCce_s onto to Essex Avenue and have the buildings fare towards the northwest. A general discussion ensued regarding the compatibility of smaller office buildings with a residential area in Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 1989 Page 10 comparison to auto or retail activities which should be located on the interior road system away from Essex Avenue. No action was taken. 8. OTHER BUSINESS The Planning Commission received copies of the Council actions of the July 27th meeting and the Second Quarter Economic Development Report. Chairman Erickson was asked by the staff to appoint a Planning Commission member as a member of the I -35W Task Force. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. kg