Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-20 Minutes CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 19, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Melander at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Chair Tom Melander, Tim Burke*, Paul Scanlan, David Schindler, and Keith Diekmann*. Member Absent: Ken Alwin, Jodi Kurtz City staff members attending: City Attorney Sharon Hills, Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, and Planner Kathy Bodmer. *Present via remote technology 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the agenda. CD Director Nordquist said no changes. MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the agenda. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 5 —Nays - 0. 3. CONSENT ITEMS MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler, approving the minutes of the meeting of August 5, 2020. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 5 —Nays - 0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Tempo Homes Residential Lot Split—PC20-09-SV Planner Kathy Bodmer, is requesting consideration of: 1. Subdivision by Preliminary Plat 2. Variance from §153.55 reducing lot width adjacent to right-of-way from 50' to 25.84'. Planner presented a PowerPoint Location— 12936 Galaxie Ave: Owned by Tempo Homes. Applicant would like to divide (site) into two (2) lots, to add another single-family home. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County,Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes August 19,2020 Page 2 of 8 Neighborhood Area Map: Shows lot, which is 33,175 square feet bounded by Galaxie Ave on the west, Forest Ct on NE, and 129th St W on SE. Comp Plan Map ("LD" Low Dens. Residential 3-6 units/acre): Lot split would change to 2.6 units per acre but follows the Comp Plan acknowledgement of the allowability of a lesser neces- sity. Zoning Map "R-3" (SF residential, 110,000 sf min.) Broner Woods Subdivision: Existing home constructed in 1970, on land shared with a neigh- bor. Brown+ Fenner= Broner Woods. Browns kept their home on Lot 3. At the time of the sub- division, Browns were granted permission to have direct access to Galaxie (Ave)with the stipu- lation that the driveway must move when the property was sold, therefore a new driveway will need to be on Forest Ct or 129th St. Requirement now in effect. Proposed Subdivision: Split in a north-south alignment. Parcel A for existing home, with an ex- tension of property to accommodate a drive way to 129th St,proposed 19,409 sq ft. Parcel B new location. Proposed 13,756 sq ft, although driveway is not indicated, the presumption is that ac- cess would be through Forest Ct. At issue— existing home receives water and sewer from utili- ties extended from Forest Ct. Since utilities need to connect directly to property being served(for maintenance and public safety), the petitioner is exploring options on how to serve Parcel A (ex- isting home). Proposed Remodeling Existing Home: Petitioners requesting to subdivide property. In the meantime, owners are remodeling and expanding existing home. Plan shows outline of existing footprint, as well as future additions on the east and south side (4th-stall attached garage) of the house, as well as driveway access. Note: a site plan review is not required for a single-family building permit, therefore remodeling proposal is informational for Planning Commission. Tree Plan: Shows only the trees that will be removed on (Parcel A). The City will need a pre- liminary grading plan that shows a building pad and proposed construction limits in order to re- view if the lot is buildable. Additional information is needed at this time. Petitioner will need to provide vehicle turning movements (due to sharp corners), to make sure a vehicle can maneuver on the driveway without issue. There is also indication of where there will be a retaining wall. The reason for the retaining wall is because the high point of the lot is located south-central of the lot, therefore retaining wall(s) are needed to provide an appropriate grade. Elevations: Informational —in keeping with City requirements but will be reviewed more closely for building permits. Floor Plans: Informational —not germane to the PC review. Variance Requested: Reduce frontage that Parcel A has to 129th St from 50' to 25.84'. This will allow for one driveway to each cul-de-sac rather than two (2) driveways into Forest Ct Issues: 1. Existing gravel driveway must be removed from Galaxie Avenue. Whether or not there is a lot split. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County,Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes August 19,2020 Page 3 of 8 2. A grading plan must be submitted showing the proposed new building pad, utility exten- sions, driveway and preliminary pad elevations for the newly established lot. Tree re- moval and grading limits will be reviewed to confirm buildable lot. 3. Administrative plats are not permitted. Subdivisions must be done by preliminary plat. Clarification: one of the drawings is shown as an Administrative Lot Split, but the City of Apple Valley does not allow this. 4. Subdivision cannot be accomplished without variances. 5. Utilities as shown on plans crossover one property to access another. Utilities should be provided directly to the property to eliminate need for private easements. An issue that needs to be resolved. Recommended Action: Open the public hearing, receive comments, close the public hearing. It is the policy of the Planning Commission to not take action on an item on the same night as its public hearing. Questions for Staff. Commissioner Schindler—If petitioner was to eliminate old driveway, they would be able put a new driveway from where their driveway currently is to (Forest Ct) and then they wouldn't have to get approval from anybody? Answer: other than a driveway permit, that is correct. Schindler—Even with the new driveway, they could still do all the upgrades to the house? Or are there limitations? It looks like they could even double the size of their house and still have im- pervious surface. Answer: Yes, if it stayed one lot. Schindler— commented that he's uncomfortable with the way the driveway is going to have to run out to (129th St W); the neighbor on (129th St W)won't be too excited about the new drive- way. It doesn't look like it would fit in with the neighborhood. Taking a step back, it's common for people selling their property to a developer, to keep their house and sell the rest, "which makes no sense to me." If you're building a brand new neighborhood, why are you keeping your house? Obviously it's a financial thing. Commission Schindler voiced concerns about another change to the development(Broner Woods) as well as wanting to make sure the new owners have been made aware of the changes required. He will reserve judgement and listen to new in- formation. Commissioner Scanlan—Has the Fire Dept., chimed in on this as far as access to lots, if this were to go through? Answer: They have been apart of the Staff Review Committee and not made any comments, but the way the new driveway would be set up, they would have to pull hose up to the western house (Parcel A). This will be added to list of comments. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County,Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes August 19,2020 Page 4 of 8 Scanlan—Based on other comments, this may create hardships for the Fire Deptment if they get a call to this property. (Reviewing Variance Requested slide w/measurements), is variance still required if both driveways were to be (off of Forest Ct)? Answer:Assuming that the driveway is not split,yes. Scanlan—I have a concern that(the variance)is not just for 5', but(more than) double the dis- tance (under 26'), it will change the original thought of the neighborhood, and long term affect with other properties w/in the City, as we pride ourselves in not having these irregular splits. Schindler—Is there a way to have the two driveways merge into one, even though it's not a typi- cal twin home? Would that be allowed? Answer: The code does not allow for a shared driveway between two properties, unless an ex- tenuating circumstance. Schindler— Thought this could bring the least amount of disruption to the neighborhood. Commissioner Burke commented - When considering the garages that could exit onto two (2) different streets, would need to consider the utility problem. Response: The petitioner has explored that (refers to Variance Requested slide 153.55 Lot Di- mensions), and may speak to that as part of their comments. There may be some topography is- sues. Chair Melander commented—This is a flag lot, along with a retaining wall may have topography issues as well. This would fall under the category of wrestling with the land. Therefore, not in favor of carving another lot out. Bruce Nordquist—there is a single family to the north, could you please explain what is to the south? Answer: (Staff refers to Neighborhood Area Map slide)Broner Woods is a SF detached, typical subdivision. The development to the south is part of a Planned Development (PD) and is a mix of single-family homes and two-family homes. The lot sizes are smaller than what would be in an R- 3 zoning district. (Refers to Location 12936 Galaxie Ave slide, which shows Broner Woods and the PD along with the original site). Bruce Nordquist to clam, Broner Woods was (zoned) differently than the subdivision to the south [Nordic Woods 12th Add]. Schindler— (refers to Neighborhood Area Map slide), (a question for the petitioner)to the south (of the property) there are trees that are like a screen, would all those trees be taken out? I have a better picture if the trees remained, rather than a retaining wall. Chair invites Petitioner to come forward. Calvin & Tina Tran, owners of the property and builders as well as developers. Mr. Tran thanks everyone for being here tonight. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County,Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes August 19,2020 Page 5 of 8 (Tempo Homes) are general contractors that recently purchased parcel (12963 Galaxie Ave). They have been builder for 10+years, hold an EPA Certification in the State of MN. They are seeking recommendation for a proposed subdivision, which will be owned and occupied. Mr. Tran notes that(the staff presentation) is a first option, not necessarily the best option, but would like to explore in a way that(there would be) a flag lot that would allow for two drive- ways off(onto two different streets). More details: • Lot not identified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for development but meets the re- quirements for a planned subdivision • It is felt the neighbors would appreciate the new improvements and the benefits it would bring to the community • Upon purchase of property, it seemed highly neglected, therefore it is believed that it could be improved and bring back value Ultimate goal is to seek best possible options, to improving the property at the same time as well as keeping good character with the neighboring homes. Two options were explored, concerning splitting the lot: First(proposed&presented) —although"flag lot" is not desirable, we are being mindful of the low-density element and would like to split the parcel in a way that each would have a driveway in opposing right-of-way. Existing home would have its driveway off of 129th Mr. Schindler's question about the tree line was addressed: they are mature trees (refers to Neighborhood Area Map) and there is a tree plan. (Refers to Tree Plan slide)that shows the removal of certain trees are for the driveway itself, but the tree line between the lot and lot to the south is very dense, and therefore would not be able to see through. This is the reasoning for putting the driveway (on the flag). This will keep the origi- nal residence private. There is a tree plan to restore and replenish trees that were taken out, by putting them on (the north side of proposed driveway). This will allow for a sense of privacy. Reason for 1st choice/flag lot. Another concern is that utilities now come off of Forest Ct; upon discussion w/City Engineer and staff, it was concluded that utilities for the west lot would be capped and reserved for the new parcel (B), and original parcel (A)would connect to 129th. This would solve the problem of dis- ruption due to grading because connections on Forest Ct are to the north of the court. City code states there needs to be minimum lot frontage of 50' feet adjacent to the right-of-way, but average driveway width is 12'. Seeking a variance of 25.8' (less the proposed 12' driveway), leaving 6' on side of driveway. 6' buffer adds adequate space for another vehicle to maneuver, if needed. (18' maneuverability) Although it is a significant site change, grading and removal of trees; the intent is safety to the surroundings, providing proper drainage, and keeping good character of the neighborhood. A tree preservation plan is in place to restore (and limit) the amount of impact. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County,Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes August 19,2020 Page 6 of 8 Conclusion—there are challenges and a variance is needed for the driveway. But ultimately, this will bring more benefit to community and lot split would fit better with the neighborhood as the lot(at this time) is fairly large. We are here to explore the option of lot splits. (2nd option)was a diagonal split with both driveways off of Forest Ct. 3rd option would be to have west/original lot driveway to Forest Ct and east(new) lot driveway to 129th, but petitioner opposed to this option because with new construction, the south side neighborhood is more twin homes and mixed(and east lot would not be a good fit), vs new con- struction to north would fit better w/the neighborhood. Questions for Petitioner: Commissioner Diekman: With Option 3 [Parcel A driveway to north, Parcel B driveway to south], would a retaining wall be needed? Answer:No. As is now, original lot enters from Galaxie, but exits onto Forest. Commissioner Schlinder—asks for clarification why Option 3 not a preference. Answer:Because the new construction is a SF and fits better w/the Forest Ct neighborhood as compared to the twin and multi family homes to the south. Concerning the original lot, [fthey are allowed to build], the private driveway would keep the original home to not be as affected (by the twin and multi family homes). Chair Melander reminds that this is a public hearing and asks for comments from the public. Shane Myre — currently lives at 12894 Forest Court — thanks Kathy and developers for all the information they have provided on the possible lot development. He is in support of Option 1 (petitioner's recommendation) because Forest Ct is busy with kids and young families and there- fore Option 2 is not a viable option. Tran comments that Forest Ct density was also of concern when deciding on Option 1. Jeff Hewitt—currently lives at 12885 Forest Ct—concerned how utilities will be run and how they will affect his property. He commended the renovation plans of original property and asked if they intended to go forward with those plans. Will there be a site plan for Parcel B (east lot)? Nordquist clarifies that there is a building zone(refers to Proposed Subdivision slide)and Kathy acknowledges that setback limits are shown but not a house pad, driveway or utilities. A request has been made for next level of detail. Commissioner Scanlan — Is there an option to approach the owners of the lot to the south (6996 129th St W), to purchase a corner of their lot, in order to get the required frontage that is needed? Due to its odd shape (refers to Neighborhood area Map). Staff answers it is an option, but petitioner would have to work with property owner and that part of the property would have to be part of the subdivision. Melander— any more comments or questions from public? CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County,Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes August 19,2020 Page 7 of 8 No responses Melander— any comments or questions from virtual commissioners? Nordquist point of clarity the question, "Are there any virtual participants (via the organizer) that wish to speak?"should be asked Chair Melander asks the Organizer if there is any who wish to speak. Benjamin Simon (12897 Forest Ct)—property directly behind the original lot notes that"Option 3 would eliminate a lot of large streets [sic]." Melander - would like to see the other options (2 & 3), including the one Commissioner Scanlan brought up,to solve(the flag lot)problem,and other alternatives for evaluating whether considered preferable or not;just to see what other options there are. Schindler — would also like to have option 3 considered and what types of trees would be taken out, to see where the (driveway) pad would be which could show if Option 3 would be a viable option. Chair Melander closes Public Hearing. 5. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS -- NONE— 6. OTHER BUSINESS A. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates. The next regular Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 2nd at 7pm. Nordquist thanks the commissioners for making a virtual and in-person meeting work. Nathan Bang, Director of IT was the Organizer. Mr. Lovelace was Organizer in training. 7. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Melander asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan to adjourn the meeting at 7:47 p.m. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 5 -Nays - 0. Respectfully Submitted, Cam., ( _ . CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 2020 Page 8 of 8 Mari Salamanca, Planning Department Assistant Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commissio on 9/16/2020 Tom Melander, Chair