Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/1989��rle_eklff_zl CL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY OCTOBER 18, 1989 1. CALL TO ORDER The October 18, 1989 meeting of the Apple Valley Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Erickson at 7:31 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the City of Apple Valley City Hall. Members Present: Chairman Erickson, Members Carlson, Felkner, Gowling, Kleckner, and Sterling. Members Absent: Member Weldon. Staff Present: Richard Kelley, Meg McMonigal, Kurt Chatfield, Keith Gordon, Lon Aune, and Dennis Miranowski. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The agenda was approved with the following changes: Item 7A was added to discuss the government training service courses. Item 7B was added to discuss the editorial in Thisweek. Item 8B was added to set a hearing for November 13th for the Park and Recreation development plan. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Sterling, to approve the agenda. The motion carried unanimously. 3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 4, 1989 There was one correction to the minutes. On page 6, second paragraph, the last sentence, should read "Member Kleckner stated that with twenty (20) feet between the units in a "R -1B" zone, the houses could be specially designed to sit on narrow, eighty (80) foot wide lots." MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to approve the minutes with the above correction. The minutes were approved unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 1989 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA (One motion sends items needing no discussion on to the City Council with the staff recommendations.) A. Setback Variance for a New Home LOCATION: Lot 2, Block 2, Cherry Oak Estates PETITIONER: Frank Biagi (PC89- 070 -V) STAFF REPORT: October 18, 1989 by City Planner Richard Kelley NOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Fel kner, to approve a setback variance for a new home, Lot 2, Block 2, Cherry Oak Estates. The motion carried unanimously. B. Variance for Front Deck Addition LOCATION: 148th and County Road #42 PETITIONER: Handyman's Home Services (PC89- 068 -V) STAFF REPORT: MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Felkner, to approve a variance for a front deck addition at 148th and County Road #42. The motion carried unanimously. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. American Transportation Bus Garage Site Review, Conditional Use Permit for Motor Fuel Dispenser, and Building Permit Authorization LOCATION: Everest Avenue and 148th Street West PETITIONER: Robert J. Regan (PC89- 065 -BC) STAFF REPORT: October 18, 1989 by City Planner Richard Kelley City Planner Richard Kelley provided a background report and presented the revised drawings of the project. The first phase of the building will be under 13,000 sq. ft. with single access to the street. The petitioner shifted the building north and west to allow for greater setbacks and included an underlying berm along the west side of the property line. A six foot high berm is shown on the eastern side of the property line. The staff recommended that the berm be completed all along the lot with the first phase, and the lighting on the back of the building that faces east should be structured so that structure be pointed down toward the ground, so it does not shine on the adjacent property. The public hearing is for a conditional use permit to allow motor fuel as part of the motor fuel dispensing. They will have a canopy over the gas pumps. The conditions recommended for the conditional use permit are that the lights in the canopy also shine directly down and that a fuel skimmer is added to the storm sewer. It was also recommended that no additional signs be placed on the gas canopy and no retail sales of gas are allowed. Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 1989 Page 3 Chairman Erickson inquired as to the height of the berm on the east side. Six feet high is proposed - eight feet is preferable. Member Kleckner asked if the petitioner has talked to the adjacent property owner to work out the berm on the east side of the property. He suggested that they work out the slopes at this time. Member Sterling asked who the parking is for and was told it was planned for employees only. Member Kleckner asked if a forty foot setback was required. Richard Kelley responded stating that forty feet is normally required, however, twenty - five feet meets the intent of the ordinance and allows enough maneuvering area. Member Gowling asked what the plantings on the berm are. The petitioner responded that there are three various types of bushes and also crab trees. Member Gowling inquired whether there should be more of a barricade with evergreen trees, City Planner Richard Kelley responded that while the intent was to soften the impact of differing uses, the idea was not to create a wall. City Planner Richard Kelley asked the petitioner what color they intended to use for the building and suggested that they use a muted color. The petitioner indicated that they do want to keep it low key. Chairman Erickson inquired whether there was any objection to the limitation on signs. The petitioner indicated there were no problems with that. The public hearing was closed with the staff recommending approval tonight since it appeared to be a noncontroversial item. MOTION: A motion was made by Kleckner, for the conditional use canopy, the exclusive gas dispensing only, and a fuel skimmer be put into unanimously. Member Gowling, seconded by Member permit subject to no signs on the to be used by American Transportation the storm sewer. The motion carried MOTION: A motion was made by Member Kleckner, seconded by Member Sterling, to recommend building permit authorization subject to an eight foot high berm along the entire east side with landscaping, and a berm along the west side with the landscaping subject to staff approval. Another condition of the motion was that the colors on the building be neutral. The motion carried unanimously. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. J. V. Development Rezoning ( "A" to "R -1C ") and Preliminary Plat LOCATION: South Side of C.R. #38 (125th Street West) East of Dorchester Trail PETITIONER: Earl M. Vraa (PC89- 049 -ZS) STAFF REPORT: October 18, 1989 by Planning Intern Kurt Chatfield Planning Intern Kurt Chatfield presented the staff report and addressed the issues from the public hearing. One was the issue of a neighborhood park and Mr. Chatfield explained that Valleywood is a special use park and Huntington Park is the neighborhood park for this area. The Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 1989 Page 4 issue of trees was also addressed. Mr. Chatfield indicated that the staff would like to know how many trees will be lost and how many will be saved. Staff recommended approval of the zoning from "A" to "R -1C" and the amended preliminary plat, which showed the cul -de -sac coming from the east side versus the west side. Member Sterling asked about the ponds and was told that nothing had changed in regard to the ponds on the site. She also inquired about the easement to Rosemount and was told that it remains in the same place. Chairman Erickson asked if the Park and Recreation Advisory Committee had looked at this development plan. He also asked if the developers had seen it. He was told that the Park and Recreation Advisory Committee had briefly discussed the issue at their regular meeting. Valleywood is a golf course and park_ No one is all -owed to be on the golf course without a ticket purchased from the club house. The public can be in the picnic area and on the volleyball courts. The staff inquired whether somebody had been told to leave the park and the golf course staff indicated that to their knowledge they had not told anyone to leave the park. The staff developed the tree language that was presented at the meeting as an indication of what might be included in the development agreement. The developer had not seen it. The staff indicated to Chairman Erickson that the development agreement will be worked out with the developer prior to final plat. A short discussion ensued regarding trees. Mr. Vraa stated he has not seen the language, but intends to save as many trees as possible and would like to work with the City Forester to do so. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Sterling, seconded by Member Carlson, to rezone the property to "R -1C ". The motion carried unanimously. Member Kleckner inquired about the option to Rosemount and was concerned that the two property owners know that this will be a possibility in the future. City Planner Richard Kelley responded stating that the option will be filed against the property and will be shown on their deed. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Kleckner, to approve the amended plat with the option on the east boundary and the tree issue items addressed in the development agreement. The motion carried unanimously. Discussion on the Vraa property continued with Mr. Vraa asking about the option for easement and the staff explaining the reasons behind. A general discussion about the conditions under which the City would buy the easement ensued. The staff indicated that safeguards would be put into the development agreement regarding this option. Member Kleckner indicated that he thinks the City should either buy it or not buy it at this time. A member of the audience, Dan McGinley, asked to make a comment. He was concerned that the revised plat was not available to the Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 1989 Page 5 public and was also concerned whether the houses at the end of Dorchester Court would meet City standards. Mr. McGinley was told that the lots do meet City standards and that the Planning Commission and staff felt that there would be no difficulties in placing homes on these lots. Mr. Stan Swirhan, 12506 Dorchester Court, wondered if this new plat contained everything that was recommended by the staff. The Planning Commissioners indicated that they felt everything that was brought up at the public hearing was addressed and that the plat met the standards the City required. Mr. Swirhan said he was not pleased with the Planning Commission's tone. The Planning Commissioners responded by indicating this was not a public hearing, yet they were willing to listen to comments from the public. B. Galles Subdivision Preliminary Plat LOCATION: Cimarron Road, West of Cedar Avenue, North of Palomino Drive PETITIONER: Glen F. Galles (PC89- 036 -Z) STAFF REPORT: October 18, 1989 by Planning Intern Kurt Chatfield Planning Intern Kurt Chatfield presented the staff report regarding the Galles Subdivision. He indicated that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the zoning request from "R -1B" to "R -1C ". They would be considering the preliminary plat at this meeting. Mr. Galles did conduct soil borings as requested by the staff at the last meeting and the tests indicate that the soils are correctable and the area is buildable. Chairman Robert Erickson read the Anderson's letter into the record: Apple Valley Planners Office From: Merlin J. Anderson 307 Cimarron Road Re: Galles Addition Neither my wife or I will be able to attend the planning commission meeting on October 18, 1989. As requested by my wife during her phone conversation with you on October 17, would you please read the following into the record regarding the approval or disapproval of the access to the development. While we certainly respect Mr. Galles right to develop his property, we continue to violently oppose the placement of the new access road so close to the end of our driveway at 307 Cimarron Road. This violates the city ordinance which allows for not less than 30 feet setback between driveway and intersection. Actually the ordinance technicality is secondary to the safety issue for our family. Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 989 Page 6 The present road or "path" that exists on this property is about 30 feet away from the end of our driveway and is the minimum distance acceptable to us. Our intentions are to obtain legal assistance to reject this access road if approved as proposed. This is not the only access available to the development; only the most convenient for the developer. Access could be purchased on the eastern boundary of the proposed development. We respect the planning commissions evaluation of this project pertaining to the health, safety and welfare of the existing neighborhood and again ask that this project be tabled until legal, alternate access is proposed. Sincerely, Merlin J. Anderson Member Gowling asked if the driveway is on the Galles property and was told that it is. Planning Intern Kurt Chatfield indicated that the question of the driveway being on another property is a civil matter between the two property owners. The five -foot shift of the road would require an approval by a variance so that the driveway would only be sixteen feet from the new street at the curbline. Member Sterling asked if a tree will be hurt by shifting the road five feet north and was told it should not hurt the tree. Chairman Erickson asked if there will be a stop sign and Keith Gordon replied that normally, there is. Member Gowling asked if the five -foot shift is to improve the angle or because of the driveway. Keith Gordon indicated that it is mostly because of the driveway. Glen Galles indicated that the Anderson's driveway encroaches three feet on his property. He is not opposed to shifting the street five feet, but thinks Mr. Peahl did not understand that the shift is in the right -of -way and thought it would be closer to his house than it is. He also indicated that the Andersons have an outbuilding that is too close to the property line. Chairman Erickson asked about the soil borings. Keith Gordon, after reading the report, indicated that it looks like on Lot 6 that six feet would have to be taken out of the building pad. Member Sterling asked if they could put in 5 lots instead of 6 lots and Mr. Galles replied that economics dictate 6 lots. Member Carlson inquired as to whether the driveway issue could be solved. He was told that the staff did try to work with the Andersons to move their driveway. However, the Andersons were unwilling to do so. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Felkner, seconded by Member Kleckner, to approve the preliminary plat with a variance to the setback requirements with the roadway being shifted five feet to the north at the intersection with Cimarron Road. The vote was 4 - 0 - 2, with Members Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 1989 Page 7 Sterling and Carlson abstaining. This item will go to the City Council on October 26, 1989. C. Valley Olds /Pontiac Building and Site Plan Review LOCATION: 7500 145th Street W. PETITIONER: Valley Sales, Inc. (PC89- 071 -B) STAFF REPORT: October 18, 1989 by City Planner Richard Kelley City Planner Richard Kelley presented the report on the portable used car sales office for Valley Olds. He indicated that the existing portable structure has reached the end of its' useful life and Valley Olds would like to replace it. The replacement structure does not meet the requirement for exterior masonry construction standards. The Planning Commission recommended that the building permit be authorized with a variance to the building materials requirement because an existing structure is being replaced. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Kleckner, to approve the building permit with a variance to the exterior materials and with the condition that the curb area be put in by October 1, 1990. The motion passed 4 voting in favor and 2 abstentions. D. Multi- family Standards - Zoning PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC89 - 043 -Z) STAFF REPORT: October 18, 1989 by City Planner Richard Kelley City Planner Richard Kelley presented the report summarizing the new standards, including the bonuses and the changes to the comprehensive plan. Ross Glynn, 13349 Granada, indicated that he had been at the last meeting, but did not have time to digest the standards and now had some questions. He asked what was the purpose of the proposal and indicated that he doesn't think confusion has been eliminated. There is still some overlap - which means confusion. Chairman Erickson responded that he thought the Planning Commission did not want to build the multi- family zoning standards to be completely inflexible. A general discussion ensued. MOTION: A motion was made by Member Gowling, seconded by Member Carlson, to recommended approval with the change in the wording regarding bathrooms. The motion carried 5 - 0 - 1, with Member Kleckner abstaining. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Government Training Service Courses The Planning Commission Members all received information about the Government Training Services Seminars and recommended that we discuss it further at the next meeting. Planning Commission Minutes October 18, 1989 Page 8 B. Editorial - Thisweek 8. OTHER BUSINESS A. Consideration of Amendment to "RB" Zone for Car Washes MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to set a hearing for November 15, 1989. The motion carried unanimously. B. Park and Recreation Development Plan MOTION: A motion was made by Member Carlson, seconded by Member Gowling, to set a hearing for the Park and Recreation Development Plan for November 15, 1989. The motion carried unanimously. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at p.m. kg