Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/1989PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY AUGUST 16, 1989 1. CALL TO ORDER The August 15, 1989 meeting of the Apple Valley Planning Commission was called to order by Vice - Chairman Richard Carlson at 7:31 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the City of Apple Valley City Hall. Members Present: Vice - Chairman Richard Carlson, Members Felkner, Gowling, Weldon, Kleckner, and Sterling. Members Absent: Robert Erickson. Staff Present: Keith Gordon, Richard Kelley, Meg McMonigal, Kurt Chatfield, Scott Hickok, and Dennis Welsch. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The agenda was approved as written. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 2, 1989 The minutes of the August 2, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting were approved with two corrections: On Page 4, Item B, Paragraph 3, the sentence should read "He stated that the City does need more of a tax base... ". On Page 5, Paragraph 4, the first sentence should read "Member Felkner asked when was the comprehensive plan change made... "? MOTION: A motion was made by Member Felkner, seconded by Member Gowling, to approve the minutes of the August 2, 1989 meeting as amended. The motion carried 4 - 0. Member Sterling 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. Residential Parkino Chanoes. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 044 -Z). STAFF REPORT: August 16, 1989 by Associate Planner Scott Hickok. Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1989 Page 2 Community Development Director Dennis Welsch provided background information regarding the updates to the parking ordinance proposed and recommended by the Urban Affairs Committee. All changes would be proposed to Section A1- 61(D)(4). The changes would include a change in the definition to match the state statute; vehicles stored outside in residential districts must be parked on paved surfaces; non- motorized vehicles, including boats, may be parked on gravel or crushed rock in addition to on impervious surfaces; new impervious surfaces, after the effective date of the ordinance, must have a pavement permit prior to installation of the surface and must be setback at least five feet from a property line - the effective date would be January 1, 1998; vehicles must be parked near to - within 25 feet of - the principle structure, which is usually the house; on -site parking permits for vehicles 5 and /or 6 can be issued by the Staff - appeals of the Staff decision are to be heard by the City Council. Associate Planner Scott Hickok provided more information regarding the state definition of vehicles and discussed the attitudes and concerns of the Urban Affairs Committee regarding the recommendations. Member Felkner asked if permits for new pavement surfaces are to be used to protect easements and if permits will be costly. Scott Hickok responded that the Urban Affairs Committee recommended a minimum fee that would be approximately $25.00 to cover the cost of administration and inspection. Member Sterling asked if home builders will receive this type of permit automatically. Scott Hickok responded that that will be part of the building permit. Member Kleckner asked if by changing the ordinance to allow the Staff to issue permits if the paperwork would be reduced that the Planning Commission and City Council must approve. Scott Hickok responded that the Urban Affairs Committee recognized that once the definition of the word "vehicle" was changed to include all vehicles, there may be many more permit requests. Vice - Chairman Carlson asked if there were members of the Urban Affairs Committee in the audience who would be interested in discussing the ordinance recommendations. None were present. Member Weldon asked for clarification regarding non - motorized vehicles setbacks. Scott Hickok responded that the non - motorized vehicles placed on a new pad would have to meet the same setbacks as a motorized vehicle. Rihari Dosai, 13470 Pennock Avenue, asked if the ordinance considered the problem of a guest staying overnight and parking on the street, or in the yard. Scott Hickok explained the notification, warning, and citation process. Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1989 Page 3 Bob Peahl, 309 Cimarron Road, asked if there was a definition difference between a stored and a parked vehicle. Scott Hickok responded that the difference is between an operational and a non - operational vehicle. The code currently requires that a non - operational vehicle be removed from the site within 72 hours. Vice - Chairman Carlson closed the hearing. B. 005 & 049 - Hallwood /McNamara /Others. LOCATION: Between Pennock and Cedar from 138th Street to 134th Street. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 059 -Z). STAFF REPORT: August 16, 1989 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal provided a background report stating that the Staff recommendation, because of traffic and compatibility concerns with adjacent uses, was to change the zoning on these sites from "R -IA" to "R -1C ", allowing the area to develop as a single - family area with standard sized 11,000 square foot lots. This rezoning would make the zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that this site does require a north /south road system that should not unduly add traffic to the Pennock Avenue corridor. However, there is no direct access to Cedar Avenue from this site, nor is there direct access out of this site to the north. The reduced density proposed by the Staff using "R -1C" zoning would increase the traffic least amount among the alternatives reviewed. She mentioned that a letter from Mary Erickson has expressed opposition to construction of a collector street between Pennock and Cedar. A street in this area would be a local, residential street. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal also prepared and presented a recommendation for the Hallwood /Highlands site owned by Russ and Barbara Hall in a report dated August 11, 1989. In that report, the Staff recommended changing the zoning from "M -1" to "R -1C" to provide more compatibility with existing Hallwood /Highland lots. Staff did note, however, that in "M -1" zoning and in some cases "M -2" zoning, already are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Member Kleckner asked for clarification regarding the consistency between the densities on the Comprehensive Plan and the densities within the zoning ordinance. Meg McMonigal illustrated the densities on an overhead projection. Member Kleckner stated that the Staff recommenda- tion may be requesting a more restrictive land use than what the landowner hart prnpnzeri and mny he doing a disservire to the landowners. Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1989 Page 4 Member Sterling asked for clarification regarding the park proposal originally scheduled as part of the Maurer preliminary plat. Meg McMonigal stated that because the Maurer plat was withdrawn, so was the proposal for the park. Members Felkner and Carlson discussed whether the Planning Commission needs to do anything in changing the zoning from "R -1V to "R -1C" and from "M -2" to "R -1C" if both of those densities are consistent with the Compre- hensive Plan designation of "D -II ". Member Carlson stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation could simply be to do nothing. Helen Schultz stated the zoning was confusing. She stated that no development along this corridor currently has access to Pennock Avenue, but it would be needed by developers she has worked with. Such a new road should be located near Harwell Avenue. She asked why a proposed park (which is an obstacle to development according to her developers) could not be placed along Cedar Avenue instead of along Pennock Avenue. She asked if "R -1C" zoning could include cluster or double homes along Cedar Avenue as a buffer to single- family housing further west or adjacent to Pennock Avenue. A general discussion ensued regarding the location of park land with Mrs. Schultz and Member Kleckner. Both Mrs. Schultz and Member Kleckner agreed that double homes may be more preferable along Cedar than the Staff recommendation of "R -1C ". Don Erickson, 13660 Pennock Avenue, stated that he agreed with the concerns of Mrs. Schultz. He expressed concerns regarding the park location and streets which would be placed through the best lot locations. He stated that all of the vacant land will probably remain undeveloped because it is very difficult to sell property with the requirement for a park and a street. Bihari Desai, 13470 Pennock Avenue, asked for clarification regarding the proposal and the number of housing units that would actually be con- structed on this site. Dennis Welsch provided clarification from the Pennock Avenue study. Member Gowling asked for clarification regarding the densities within the Comprehensive Plan T -II" and within the zoning code. Peter Jackson, 13705 Pennock Avenue, expressed support for a park adjacent to Pennock Avenue and recommended that "VIC" zoning be adopted on all land east of Pennock Avenue. He stated he was opposed to multi- family zoning, even along Cedar Avenue, because it was not in the best interest of the property values along Pennock Avenue, Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 1989 Page 5 Bihari Desai, 13470 Pennock Avenue, stated that because of the amount of taxes paid by these properties, a park in the area should be con- structed for the neighbor's use. A general discussion of density and buffering of housing units ensued. Ruth Lundeen asked if the property along Cedar Avenue could be more heavily landscaped to provide buffers. Steve Davis, 13597 Harwell Path, asked if the zoning could be split to allow for multi- family along Cedar Avenue and "R -1C" along Pennock Avenue. Sue Koebrick, 13831 Pennock Court, asked if multi - family housing would make single - family property owners more comfortable. Mrs. Schultz responded that the developers who have looked at the property have suggested a mix of uses rather than only single- family. Don Hoeft of London, Anderson & Hoeft, Ldt., representing Hallwood Highlands and Russ and Barbara Hall, stated that the current zoning on the Hall property of "M -2" is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. He expressed concern with the Palomino Townhouses, which were proposed to the north of the Hallwood Highlands site, because of traffic and density. He stated the site, which is currently designated for "M -2" within the Hallwood Highlands site, is too steep for single- family homes. Using the site for "M -2" creates a buffer along Cedar Avenue. He stated that single - family lots would be unsalable for $200,000 to $300,000 homes and that the site was not big enough for such home pads. Mr. Hoeft presented a copy of the development agreement signed in June of 1984 between the Halls and the City of Apple Valley, in which "M -2" zoning was designated for this site. A general discussion of format and requirements for "M -2" versus "R -1C" zoning ensued. Vice - Chairman Carlson asked for additional comments from the audience. There was no public comment. Vice - Chairman Carlson closed the public hearing. C. Galles Subdivision. LOCATION: Cimarron Road, West of Cedar Avenue, North of Palomino. PETITIONER: Glen F. Galles (PC89- 036 -Z). STAFF REPORT: August 11, 1989 by Planning Intern Kurt Chatfield. Planning Intern Kurt Chatfield provided a background report, which summarized the request for rezoning from "R -1B" to "R -1C" and a preliminary plat that would create six, single- family lots from three Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1989 Page 6 contiguous outlots. After review of the report, he recommended denial of the proposed rezoning from "R -1B" to "R -1C ", noting that "R -1C" would be inconsistent with the surrounding "R -1B" zone and recommended denial of the preliminary plat since the lot width at the standard setback line did not meet the "R -1B" or "R -1C" minimum standards. He also requested the Planning Commission to establish a date for a public hearing to change the "R -1B" lot width requirement from 120 feet to 100 feet. Vice - Chairman Carlson moved the Staff request to establish a public hearing regarding the width of "R -1B" lot be moved to the "other business" section of the agenda. Orrin Stone, 315 Cimarron Road, stated that the 25 to 30 foot setback of the apartment building from the rear lot line of the proposed project provides no buffer to the single - family area. Planning Commission Members asked for clarification regarding road widths and differences in road design between a rural section, which is utilized throughout Cimarron Road, and a normal urban section. Glen Galles, the developer, 221 Riverwoods Lane, Burnsville, provided background on the proposed subdivision and stated that the surveyor had made corrections to the original proposal, which was submitted to the City, allowing for an 80 foot width at the setback line on all lots. He also stated the surveyor will make changes to allow for at least all 18,000 square foot lots on all six lots, noting that the average lot size will be at least 21,000 square feet. He stated that many lots nearby have 75 to 80 feet in width at the setback line because of the curvilinear - nature of Cimarron Road. He noted that each of the lots will meet all other "R -1B" lot dimensions except the width at the setback line and that the covenants in the area require a minimum of 15,000 square feet on each lot. He stated he has retained the services of a landscape architect to protect the trees and plant additional trees. He discussed the utility and storm sewer proposals, which could connect to Cimarron Road, or could jointly be constructed with the apartment project to the east. City Engineer Keith Gordon expressed concern with rural street design because it is more difficult to maintain, noting that the Public Works Department prefers street with curb and gutter, because of its permanence and because of the ability to drain water more effectively. Planning Intern Kurt Chatfield stated that no where in Palomino Hills are there lot widths in cul -de -sacs as narrow as proposed in this subdivision. Member Kleckner stated that Heritage Hills may have some of the same sized lots, but noted that houses are set deeper on the sites to allow for bigger homes. He asked for clarification regarding the storm sewer feasibility. Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1989 Page 7 City Engineer Keith Gordon noted that it is possible to serve the entire site with storm sewer through a series of catch basins and pipes. Member Felkner stated that he had received a letter from Mr. Anderson expressing concerns about the site. Merlin Anderson, 307 Cimarron Road, stated he objected to the development because Cimarron Road is steep and winding and is a traffic and safety hazard in the winter, especially near the entrance to the proposed Cimarron Cove. He noted that many drivers have lost control of the car and end up in the intersection of Cimarron Cove. He expressed concern regarding drainage from the site, which drains to a pond partially on the Anderson site. He expressed concern about the vegetation on his site and adjacent sites and what the fill or additional water on the site would do or what kind of damage would be done to his oaks and ferns. City Engineer Keith Gordon explained that storm sewer would be installed if the project were approved. The storm sewer would be a gravity -flow catch basin and pipe system from Cimarron Road to the ponds to the northeast. Storm water can be handled on the site. There would be no assessments to existing homeowners in the area. Orrin Stone, 315 Cimarron Road, owner of Lot 7 adjacent to the site, expressed concern about the storm sewer capacity, noting that there had been a 6 to 7 foot lake or pond in the backyard. This spring the pond had been 5 feet in depth. City Engineer Keith Gordon stated that the size of the storm sewer would have to be calculated to handle the runoff, as illustrated by Mr. Stone. Member Kleckner asked if Mr. Anderson and Mr. Galles could work together to provide a new driveway off of the proposed Cimarron Cove cul -de -sac. Mr. Anderson stated he did not wish to have a new driveway. Denise Conner, 326 Cimarron Road, expressed concern about the dangers of the road and the existing curve of Cimarron. Karen Anderson, 307 Cimarron Road, stated that currently a ditch has been filled with gravel to be used as a driveway through the proposed project area. She showed pictures of her driveway and the road system, noting that trees would have to be cut to relocate her driveway. She stated that the pond shown on proposed lot 6 would have to be filled for a driveway into lot 6 and asked where this water would be displaced. She objected to the rezoning request. Merlin Anderson, 307 Cimarron Road, asked that the Planning Commission consider an alternate access to this site directly from Pennock Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1989 Page 8 Donna Stark, 101 Cimarron Court, asked if the Planning Commission would consider a park in the area to protect the deer living in the area. She noted that Palomino Park is too far away for young children. Dan Freef, Cimarron Road, asked if the culvert system could be changed or improved even if the project did not go ahead. City Engineer Keith Gordon stated that no changes are anticipated at this time if this project does not go ahead. Bob Peahl, 309 Cimarron Road, stated he lives in the old Glen Galles house on lot 13. He recommended a buffer between his house and the apart- ment building proposed to the east. That buffer should be homes instead of a park. He opposed the park because of parking problems and privacy. Mr. Peahl stated that the lots should be as large as possible to retain as many of the trees on the site. The road should be reduced in size to a rural section in order to reduce the amount of tree cutting necessary. He expressed concern about safety on the roadway systems. Pat Kregel, Cimarron Road, expressed concern about parking at Palomino Park, noting safety hazards of parking near Palomino Park. He requested that the Planning Commission consider acquiring the proposed development site for a neighborhood park to provide an open space, as well as a buffer to the apartments proposed to the east. Steve Lindholm, 367 Cimarron Road, owner of lot 7 adjacent to the site, stated that the homes on the proposed lots would be built further back on each lot because of the narrowness of each of the lots. He felt the actual building sites would be too close to his home along the north property line of the proposed project. He recommended the zoning remain as It is ( "R -1B ") with four lots created maximum. He asked if there would be any assessments to adjoining property owners for this project. City Engineer Keith Gordon stated there would be none. Ann Stone, 315 Cimarron Road, owner of lot 12, expressed serious concern regarding the drainage that could occur into her lot and that the damage that could be done to the trees on her lot. Orrin Stone, 315 Cimarron Road, stated that lot 1 is the lowest part of the plat and will require fill. Would this affect the trees and vegetation on the site? Staff responded that the City Forester has reviewed the site plans and is concerned about some of the trees. Nancy Moody, 135 Sabra Court, expressed concern about the difficulty of rlovnlnninn this rolling site. She noted that the ponds have been there for at least twenty years, except for the last three years in the drought conditions. She was opposed to the change in zoning and asked if one of the homes, as currently proposed, would be built on one of the ponding Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1989 Page 9 areas. She expressed concerns regarding the cost of the improvements necessary to do soil corrections adjacent to the pond area. She stated that the increased cost of each lot will make them unmarketable since many of the lots will back up to the apartment building to the east. She stated the water table is high in this area and that many of the lots in this area should not be developed for that reason. She requested the Planning Commission to consider providing a park on this site. Vice - Chairman Carlson stated that neighbors concerned with the need for a park in the area should attend the next Park Committee Meeting to be held on August 22, 1989 at the City of Apple Valley Community Center. Dorothy Galles, 221 Riverwoods Lane, Burnsville, stated if the site were made into a park, there would there be problems with drainage, safety, snow - mobiling, and caves in the area. She stated that six homes on the 3 1/2 acre site may be a better alternative. Orrin Stone, 315 Cimarron Road, stated that the Planning Commission should consider leaving the land open, as well as developing portions of the site. Karen Anderson, 307 Cimarron Road, stated that the intersection of Cimarron Cove with Cimarron Road may be a safety hazard because of mailboxes and constant traffic at that point on the road. She stated there are problems with school bus traffic moving up and down the hill and she expressed concern regarding snow removal on Cimarron Cove in that snow would be dumped on her property and driveway from both Cimarron Cove and Cimarron Road. She expressed concern about the survivability of oaks in the construction area from filling, the destruction of the pond areas, and damage caused by the construction equipment. An unidentified citizen asked if the City of Apple Valley wanted more cul -de -sacs. She asked if the City would find this site more approachable from a cul -de -sac constructed adjacent to the apartment building. She recommended that a through street not be constructed from Pennock Avenue to Cimarron Road. Vice- Chairman Carlson closed the public hearing. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. 030 - Cedar Plaza /Russell /Eaton - Zoning. LOCATION: South of 140th Street and West of Cedar Avenue. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 050 -Z) STAFF REPORT: August 2, 1989 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal provided a background report and recommended changes in the "LB -1" zoning, as well as changing "R -1A" zoning to "M -3 ". A general discussion ensued regarding the access from Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1989 Page 10 the Dorthea Russell property. Mr. Art Eaton stated that he has no problem with the proposal for "LB -1" zoning on his property. He did note that he was undecided as to how to gain access to the site except through an extension of Granite Avenue. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Felkner, seconded by Member Weldon, to recommend a rezoning per the staff recommendation from "R -IA" to "M -3" and from "R -IA" to "LB -1 ". The motion carried unanimously. B. 017 - Domestic /Calistro - Zoning. LOCATION: North of 140th Street and West of Cedar Avenue. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 051 -Z). STAFF REPORT: August 16, 1989 by Associate Planner Meg McMonigal. Planning Commission Member Frank Kleckner stepped down from the Planning Commission. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal presented the background report, recommending that the Comprehensive Plan designation of "D -III" be retained and that the zoning be changed to a combination of "M -1" on the west 120 feet of the site and "M -2" on the remaining easterly portion of the site. Member Sterling asked for clarification regarding a proposed road on the site. Meg McMonigal responded that at this time the location has not been clearly identified, but a road would be necessary. Member Felkner responded to a letter submitted to Chairman Erickson at the previous Planning Commission Meeting from owners Eaton and Kleckner. He stated that "RCL" zoning will only allow single - family clusters; the noise levels may not be as bad as along Interstate 35E; there are trees available on the site and the site is not flat; the site is not completely buffered from the single- family area to the west; the site is not similar to 142nd Street and Garden View wherein another development of a three -story apartment building is proposed. Frank Kleckner stated that there is obvious disagreement between "M -1" and "M -2" zoning and the "D -III" Comprehensive Plan. He requested tabling until further work can be done on this project. Mr. Eaton stated that the developers would need at least 30 days to review the alternatives available and that he considers "M -1 and "M -2" zoning as down zonings. Barbara Calistro, 7515 140th Street West, stated she had no objection to tabling the action for a 30 days period. Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1989 Page 11 MOTION: A motion was made by Member Gowling, seconded by Member Weldon, to table the Domestic /Calistro project to the second meeting in September. The motion carried unanimously. C. Neighborhood Center - Zoning. - ACTION OF THIS ITEM WILL BE POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 - PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 045 -Z). D. Grace Lutheran Church Addition. LOCATION: 7800 W. County Road 42. PETITIONER: Grace Lutheran Church (PC89- 058 -BV). STAFF REPORT: August 16, 1989 by City Planner Richard Kelley. Member Kleckner rejoined the Planning Commission. City Planner Richard Kelley provided a background report regarding the Grace Lutheran Church request to provide variances for concrete curb parking setbacks and building setbacks. A general discussion ensued regarding the concrete curb and permanent paving along the northwest quadrant of the site. Tammy Magney, architect representing Grace Lutheran Church, stated that Phase 2 of the remodeling may demolish the northwest portion of the existing building and replace it within five years. That is the reason to request the City not to require permanent concrete curb and gutter to the eleven parking spaces in the northwest corner of the lot. Vice - Chairman Carlson stated he had a problem with a 17 foot building setback to Pennock, but noted that the 17 foot setback is to the property line and that an additional 14 feet from the property line to the curb line is also available. A general discussion of setbacks and gateways to the parking lot ensued. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Felkner, seconded by Member Weldon, to recommend building permit authorization for Grace Lutheran Church with the following variances: 1- 17 foot setback for the new extension of the building to the east property line adjacent to Pennock Avenue. 2- No concrete curb along the northwest side of the existing parking area. 3- 17 foot setback for parking along the south side of the property provided a 3 foot earth berm is constructed within the setback. Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 1989 Page 12 4- Canopy and parking lanes adjacent to the main entrance be redesigned to allow for more efficient traffic flow. 5- 18 1/2 foot setback for parking adjacent to Hoover Lane. 6- 25 foot setback for north driveway to Hoover Lane from the intersection of Haralson Drive. The motion carried 5 - 1. Member Gowling abstained. E. 052 - Coady North Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan. - ACTION OF THIS ITEM WILL BE POSTPONED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 6, 1989 - LOCATION: North Side of the Zoo Road, Approximately 800 Feet East of Cedar Avenue. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89- 042 -ZP). 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS - Community Development Director Dennis Welsch noted that two projects the Planning Commission has previously reviewed, the Coady South Rezoning and the Cedar Knolls Rezoning, may request additional time to prepare complete studies of the site when these issues appear on the Planning Commission agenda in September. 8. OTHER BUSINESS MOTION: A motion was made by Member Felkner, seconded by Member Gowling, to set a public hearing for the first available meeting in September to consider a "R -1B" text amendment to allow lots to be 100 feet in width instead of 120 feet, as currently required. The motion carried unanimously. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal distributed copies of the Citizen's Guide to the Comprehensive Plan and the guide to Parks and Recreation Facilities dated June of 1989. Both of these booklets were prepared by the Planning Staff. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. kg