Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/1988CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 15, 1988 Minutes of the meeting of the Apple Valley Planning Commission held Wed- nesday, June 15, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. at the Apple Valley City Hall. PRESENT: Chairperson Robert Erickson; Commission Members Richard Carlson, Alan Felkner, Marcia Cowling, Frank Kleckner, Phillip Peterson; Staff Members Dennis Welsch, Rick Kelley, Meg McMonigal, Tom Lawell, Keith Gordon; City Council Members Bill Holton and Gary Humphrey; forty -eight members of the public. ABSENT: Virginia Sterling. 1. Chairperson Erickson called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: of Carlson, seconded by Peterson, to approve the agenda as presented. VOTE: Yes, 6; No, 0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 1. 1988. MOTION: of Carlson, seconded by Cowling, to Table the approval of the Minutes of June 1, 1988, until the Commission has the the opportunity to review them due to the late arrival. VOTE: Yes, 6; No, 0. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Eagle Ponds Addition -- Preliminary Plat. LOCATION: East of Galaxie Avenue, South of Greenleaf Elemen- tary. PETITIONER: Joe Sweet and Bill Coady. Chairperson Erickson opened the Public Hearing with the standard opening remarks. Mr. Kelley made a verbal presentation based upon the Staff Petition Report dated June 15, 1988, for a preliminary plat containing 23 lots for detached single family homes. Speaking from the public: 1. Mr. Leon Farzad, 7259 Upper 136th St., AV: questioned the purpose of the extension of 136th St. to Galaxie. He commented that he was told by his realtor that 136th St. would not be connected to Galaxie. This made sense to Mr. Farzad when looking at the shape of the street if connected. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 15, 1988 Page 2 Mr. Kelley commented that at the time Eagle Ridge was developed, the City assumed access would be provided from Eagle Ridge to Galaxie. A road access would be beneficial since it is one -half mile between Galaxie Avenue and Cedar Avenue. Mr. Farzad commented that he was told the road would be private. Chair Erickson said that it was un- fortunate that he was given this information, but from the City's perspective 136th St. was always planned to be extended to Galaxie. 2. Mr. Robert F. Kopp, 2208 Manor Drive, AV: commented that he works for Argus Development, responsible for some of the development of Eagle Ridge I and II. They were unable to purchase the parcel under consideration. His understanding is correct that the Hecker house would be demolished, which will be made part of the development agreement. He asked if there could be two accesses onto Galaxie Ave. to provide the needed access to his property. (Accesses can be a minimum of 125' apart.) He would have liked to have talked with the engineers to join in with what has been planned for Eagle Ridge so as to plan for access to his property. 3. Mr. Douglas Maloney, 7273 Upper 136th St., W., AV: expressed concern that 136th St. will become a shortcut for people going to Galaxie Ave. There could be a cul de sac on 136th St. and have the access be the road going up through the property Mr. Coady is de- veloping. Mr. Kelley explained that if a cul de sac were built on 136th St., there would not be a direct connection to Galaxie. It is not felt that this would become a shortcut because of the design of the road. Construction equipment for this project would probably come from Galaxie Ave. 4. Mr. Dave Mieras, 13801 Gladiola Way, AV: represented the citizens from the Scott Highlands area. They are concerned about the woods adjacent to Galaxie Park and about the wildlife that inhabits them. Since this area has been undeveloped for many years, there are about 15 species in these woods which constitutes one of the last wooded areas in Apple Valley. Mr. Mieras presented a petition containing 40 signatures to the Planning Commission; Mr. Mieras will send a copy of the petition to the Environment Quality Board. The residents in that area would like NOT to see the road constructed; they feel two accesses would be sufficient. His main point was that the residents do not find it feasible to destroy the woods to provide for a ponding area. Chair Erickson commented that he could understand the concerns of the residents in that area since he was a property owner there once. There is an abundance of wildlife, and Mr. Erickson said that he often wonders what happens to the wildlife when forced to move from their habitat. He assured Mr. Mieras his concerns were noted. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 15, 1988 Page 3 5. Mr. Raymond K. Anderson, 13813 Gladiola Way, AV: said that when he moved into the area he checked with the City and was told that the area was designated as City Park. After so long a time with the park designation, he does not feel developing this land can be jus- tified. There is an abundance of wildlife there, children use that portion of the park, and the result will be increased traffic on Garrett. He stated that 139th is a shortcut for many people. 6. Mr, John McCann and Ms. Julie McCann, 13807 Gladiola Way, AV: expressed concern over what is planned for the park area. This was originally park and it does not make sense to cut a road through this land build homes on lots right up to the existing homeowners back- yards, alleviating existing park land. Mr. McCann indicated they purchased their home because of the privacy and the woods of the existing park and they desire that it remain park land. The traffic on 139th St. is very heavy and just wonders if people would use 136th St. as a shortcut since the road would be zigzag. He and his wife expressed a great deal of concern regarding the park land. 7. Ms. Nancy Modderman, 13838 Garrett Ave., AV: asked why was there consideration of constructing a road at this location. Mr. Kelley commented that initially a road was to go through and because of the grades and the depth of the sanitary sewer, end lots could not have been served until further development occurred to the north. It was decided, therefore, to deed the land to the City for a park. Ms. Modderman commented that she would be very distressed to have a road through this parcel and would like the park kept. Chair Erickson said that he could appreciate the concerns of the adjacent property owners. Mr. Anderson commented that Garrett has been dead ended at that location for 20 years. Mr. Kelley said that it is the City's desire to interconnect neighborhoods. Chair Erickson felt that the parcel should be left as park land with or without road connections. Mr. Bill Coady, Petitioner, commented that this has nothing to do with park land at this particular time. He has been working with City and the feeling is that the best interests of the City could be served by extending Garrett. He is open to other options. Ms. Modderman questioned if it were common to take park land and develop it. Can a person really purchase a home next to a park and be assured it will remain park land. Mr. Kelley said that if in the future it can be determined that park land could best be used in another capacity, the designation could be changed; it is very rare for this to occur. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 15, 1988 Page 4 Mr. and Ms. McCann said that before they purchased their home, they talked to Mr. Kelley and were told this was park land and that it would remain as park land. Mr. Kelley commented that this was true; at the time he did not know this proposed development would occur. Mr. Mieras said that it is not in the best interest to have homes in that area devalued; he paid premium price for a house next to the existing park land. Chair Erickson closed the Public Hearing with the standard closing remarks. B. Land Use Guide Plan Amendment -- Biewald First Addition. LOCATION: 14618 Cedar Avenue. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley. Chair Erickson called the Public Hearing to order with the standard opening remarks. Ms. McMonigal made a verbal presentation based upon the written report dated June 15, 1988. The petitioner, Dr. Karl. Biewald, indicated he plans to construct a nice medical building at that location. Ten additional parking stalls over code requirements will be provided. Neighbors across Glazier indicated acceptance of the plans presented when contacted by Dr. Biewald. No one from the Public wished to speak to this Public Hearing; therefore, Chair Erickson closed the Public Hearing with the standard closing remarks. C. Biewald First Addition -- Rezoning and Preliminary Plat. LOCATION: 14618 Cedar Avenue. PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley. Chair Erickson opened the Public Hearing with the standard opening remarks. Ms. McMonigal presented the Staff Petition Report dated June 15, 1988. Ms. Cowling expressed her concern over traffic in and out of Glazier Avenue. This is a relatively small medical building on a two -acre site, so traffic should not be a problem. Seventy to one hundred and twenty trips in and out per day would be expected. This two - story, 8,000 sq. ft. building would have a neighborhood -type architectural design. No one from the Public wished to speak to this Public Hearing; therefore, Chair Erickson closed the Public Hearing with the standard closing remarks. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 15, 1988 Page 5 D. Sand and Gravel a. Hearing for Amendments to the Zoning Text. b. Consider Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Text. c. Review Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Chair Erickson opened the Public Hearing with the standard opening remarks. Mr. Welsch made a verbal presentation based upon the City of Apple Valley Sand. and Gravel Ordinance Com- parisons and Proposed Amendments dated May 12, 1988, revised June 7, 1988. Mr. Welsch said it could take 6 -9 months before the decision is made in this process. The concern is the end use; the general land use should be specified and the intensity of this use should be determined. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Text: The end use will be more highly developed. All communities that abut C. R. #46 should be interested in the planning process because this road will be a significant link to the interstate highway. Comments from the Planning Commission Members: Mr. Carlson expressed these concerns about verbiage in Outline and Propose Revisions to Apple Valley Ordinance: Page 2, Abandonment: 6 months Page 3, Completion of Operations: substantial excavation Page 15, (13) Dust Control Standards: gravel operations shall be treated -- treated WITH WHAT? Page 21, (1) need for clarification; "SG" sand and gravel district -- definition of this. Chair Erickson THANKED Mr. Welsch for the tremendous amount of work in preparing this material. Mr. Kleckner concurred with Chair Erickson's remarks. City Staff will be meeting with the sand and gravel operators and the officials of the surrounding communities to communicate with all concerned. Chair Erickson commented that he does not want to leave the City in a vulnerable position; he does not want the City in an embarrassing situation. Mr. Feikner commented regarding the performance bond, Section 2, Page 20, (f): requirements of the performance bond would be listed in a separate section and posted annually. The City Attorney is working on the issue of the guarantee of a performance bond. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 15, 1988 Page 6 Section 4, Page 2, Mr. Carlson questioned how the cost of road repair would be determined with Mr. Welsch commenting that a permit would be required and a charge would be made annually for the cost of materials needed for repairs. A charge would be made according . to the impact on the City's roads.. Review of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet was pre- sented by Mr. Kelly. There are a significant number of impacts and, hopefully, all of these can be addressed. Speaking to this Public Hearing: 1. Ms. Joyce Wittman, 16185 Franchise, AV: commented that there are about 5,000 people in the area of Valley Park and the proposal that is being looked at is very frightening. Since their tax dollars would be used to share the cost of CR #46, water from this project would eventually be running through Lakeville, and the need to know what is planned for this area requires that the Valley Park area residents be kept informed. Ms. Wittman expressed her appreciation when told that everyone would be kept informed. She cited the problems that already exist with CR #46. The road is very crowded- -8,500 average trips before the Apple Ponds development, road is in poor condition, the section of the road between Pilot Knob and Cedar requires one to spend at least five minutes at any one corner to get onto CR #46. There is a need for an E/W corridor. She indicated that she presumed gravel trucks and the traffic on CR #42 has been a problem for Apple Valley. What is being considered is a 50- year project. She requested that the impact on CR #46 be examined closely. She expressed her concerns for the 5,000 people that would be effected in Valley Park and the NEED to work together on this proposal. Chair Erickson indicated that he. made a request that the people in Lakeville be notified in April. A mechanism needs to be set up to assure notification of Lakeville residents who would be affected. Chair Erickson requested that Staff work with both the communities of Rosemount and Lakeville to be assure their affected residents would be notified of all meetings. 2. Mr. James A Robinette, Director of Community Development, Lakeville, 8747 208th St. W., Lakeville: indicated that he was present on behalf of the City Council of Lakeville. Lake- ville has not taken an official position, but they have GRAVE CONCERNS. He cautioned that when a Comprehensive Plan is revised to permit something not previously permitted, extreme care must be given so as not to open a door that one would later PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 15, 1988 Page 7 come to regret. The many problems of gravel mining - -not labor intensive, not a great producer of taxes, the heavy trucks are extremely hard on roads (cannot legally impose a fee high enough to cover road damages; only administrative costs - -there was a gravel tax, but it was thrown out of court). Gravel operators are quick to take advantage of any opening they can find. Mr. Robinette suggested that it would be good to pass a moratorium on the issuance of any gravel permits until this entire discussion is complete. CR #42 is already a "disaster." Chair Erickson requested that Mr. Welsch investigate the possi- bility of a moratorium. City Attorney Sheldon will respond to this request. Mr. Felkner asked if the issue of a moratorium could be included on the June 30 City Council Agenda. 3. Mr. Wenceslaus F. Pulmann, . 720 Upper 162nd St., Rosemount: asked about alternatives to sand and gravel mining with him being told that the first step is to revise the Comprehensive Plan. 4 Ms. Betty Si_ndt, 5630 W 177th St., Box 115, Farmington: commented on the fact the Metropolitan Council would be offering comments after reviewing. the EAW and Comp Plan Amend- ments. The bridge over 35W will be solely owned by Lakeville with Ms. Sindt indicating she does not know where the commu- nity will get the needed funds. She expressed concern that the residents of Lakeville be notified. It is proposed that notification be required within 3,600' of a proposed operation. Mr. Carlson said that this notification must happen; this should be a good faith effort on the part of AV Staff to inform the Lakeville Staff and the good people of Lakeville establish a link between the City and residents. Mr. Robinette indicated that he could do this through his office. The matter of abandonment was discussed; would there be a way to complete all of an operation before going on. 5. Ms. Mary McDonald, 6818 162nd St. W., Rosemount: was told that there are four primary owners in the questioned area. Legal counsel has informed the City of the desire of these owners to mine the area. She asked what direction the City wished to take and was told that generally the City does not approve of the idea of mining south of CR #42. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 15, 1988 Page 8 6. Mr. Alan Bixium, Northwest Assoc. Consultants, City of Lakeville Planner: commented that a number of homes have been completed in the area and to trade off further development for a gravel operation to last 50 years is questionable. He asked if the City had done any type of land absorption analysis to cover the next 10 -20 years in terms of projecting further growth in this particular area. 7. Mr. Edwin Holmes, 8921 138th St. Ot., AV: commented that in Sand and Gravel Ordinance Comparisons and Proposed Amendments, Section 4, Paragraph 6, Page 1V -16, it could be concluded that sand and gravel operations should not be allowed because of the problems which have been caused in the pasta Urbanization is "going strong" in Apple Valley. There were no further comments from the public. Chair Erickson declared that this Public Hearing be continued on all future Planning Commission Agendas until such time as a decision is made. E. Continuation of Hearing for Capital Improvements Plan. Chair Erickson declared the Continuation of the Public Hearing for Capital Improvements Plan with the appropriate remarks. Mr. Kelley presented the oral report based on his memo dated June 15, 1988. No one from the public wished to speak to this Public Hearing. Mr. Welsch commented that the Commission should feel quite comfortable with the rear- range projects and that the far -range projects are just plans at this time. Council Member Humphrey said that this is the first year since 1981 a CIP has been considered. Chair Erickson thanked Staff for the effort that was made preparing this document. Chair Erickson closed the Public Hearing with the standard closing remarks, MOTION: of Peterson, seconded by Felkner, to recommend approval of the Capital Improvements Program and that it be forwarded to the City Council, VOTE: Yes, 6; No, 0. 5. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS: A. Consideration of Rezoning and Preliminary Plat, Palomino Ridge Townhomes. LOCATION: On the west side of Cedar Ave. at 143rd St. PETITIONER: St_ Croix Development, Inc. and Wellington Mgmt., Inc. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 15, 1988 Page 9 Ms. McMonigal made a verbal report based upon the Staff Petition Report dated June 15, 1988. Chair Erickson stated this was not a Public Hearing, but the Commission would be willing to listen to any new information. The traffic study on Pennock has not been completed. Staff does not see traffic as a problem since this area was planned for the type of use being proposed. Pennock is designed to handle 3 -6,000 trips per day. A single family household generates an average of 10 trips per day, while a townhouse generates 7.5 trips per day. Chair Erickson stated that he feels the majority of the residents from this proposed development would use Cedar Ave. Speaking from the Public: 1. Ms. Brenda Armstrong, 7820 133rd St. W, AV: presented a petition containing the signatures of 165 owners directly affected by the proposal expressing their opposition. Ms. Armstrong was told that the plan calls for the preservation of the center area of trees (approximately 1/2 of the trees will not be destroyed). 2. Mr. Terrance G. Maurer, 7780 133rd St., W. AV: expressed concern over the private driveway in the proposal - -he does not know of any other development with just one access. He stated it would be a concern to him as a developer to have 84 units with one access. He asked where there was another development con- sisting of 84 units with just one access. He does not see any plans for buffering the project from the residential properties to the south and he also does not see how this could be accomplished. He is most upset because of the fact that this is an unique site in the City and feels there are better uses for this particular area. The interchange is high and Cedar Ave. cannot be heard and seen from the site. He is concerned that this high ridge will be taken down, that 85% of the trees will be destroyed, and that traffic on Pennock Ave. will become an even bigger problem. He feels this area is best suited for single family homes at a density of two per acre. The proposed density is too high. To summarize, Mr. Maurer stated his major concern is the devastation of an unique piece of property, preserve that particular site. Mr. Felkner commented that a bluff exists but there is also a lot of lowland on the site. 3. Mr. Russell Hall, 13460 Pennock Ave., AV: indicated his intention is return to single family on Outlot A in Hallmark High- lands. He is losing sales because of consideration of the rental townhouse proposal. He stated that Mr. Gretz said he could get back to single family and that his wife had contacted Mr. Kelly PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 15, 1988 Page 10 regarding this wish. He stated his concern over the traffic problem. It is just a short area between Cedar and the Zoo Rd. and he feels most would opt to go south and then north. Mr. Hall feels there is a problem with a horrendous amount of traffic within a short space of time. 4. Mr. Chuck Payne, 7625 W. 125th St., AV: stated that the Comprehensive Plan is an undermining document to the Zoning Map. He asked Mr. Kleckner why residents in Saddle Ridge had not been informed and Mr. Kleckner replying that the area was developed as Saddle Ridge based on the Zoning Map. 5. Mr. Bob Ross, 7600 W. 128th St. AV: commented on the use of Pennock Ave. and the fact that he sees his neighbors traveling that route, also. This proposal will add to the traffic on Pennock north of 140th St. This is some of the finest areas and this drastic change with this density does not fit. Perhaps a low- density townhouse type of project could be considered. 6. Mr. Peter W. Jackson, 13705 Pennock Ave., AV: stated that he lives right on Pennock Ave. and the traffic is very heavy. As an alternative, he suggested that perhaps a decision to TABLE this item could be made until all the information comes forward regarding the Pennock Ave. traffic study. Traffic on Pennock is a significant and dangerous problem. The housing in the area is desirable and consistent; this is one of the few residential areas that has some consistency to it. To break this consistence would change the whole flavor of the area. The City expects the traffic study, being done by a consultant, to be complete within the next month. Mr. Carlson stated that he would like to see the traffic study on Pennock Ave. Chair Erickson con- curred with the need for this study; the traffic problem has bothered him from the beginning. The Petitioner stated that he appreciated the concerns that had been raised. He desires to continue working cooperatively together on this proposal. There is a Pennock Ave. traffic problem, but he does not feel this proposal will impact it to any significant degree. He feels that their proposal would be a credit to the community. He feels that the basic planning issue is the Pennock Ave. traffic issue and this is a much broader issue than their proposal can impact. (The need for the public to use Cedar Ave. rather than Pennock Ave. as n/s corridor must be dealt with.) Mr. Carlson indicated that he understands, but that this proposal does have a potential impact. Mr. Kleckner indicated that the Petitioner has been quite cooperative in dealing with issues raised concerning his proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 15, 1988 Page 11 A decision on this proposal must be made by September 11, 1988. Ms. Russell Hall stated that her lawyer reviewed the minutes and said that Chair Erickson did not close the Public Hearing of June 1, 1988, and that he did not inform them of tonight's meeting as he said he would. Please note that Page 6, Planning Commission Minutes of June 1, 1988, last paragraph of Item 4. A states that Chairperson Erickson closed the Public Hearing with the standard closing remarks. Let the record also state the Chair Erickson told all present of the meeting scheduled for June 15 on June 1. Mr. Peterson suggested that there are significant concerns about the traffic issue and the answers should be obtained before reacting to this proposal. MOTION: of Carlson, seconded by Peterson, to reject consideration for the request for rezoning due to the issue regarding traffic on Pennock Ave. Discussion: This item will go to the City Council with a negative recommendation, but it is up to City Council to make their decision. VOTE: Yes, 4 ( Felkner, Carlson, Cowling, Peterson); No, 2 (Erickson, Kleckner). B. Site Plan Review and Building Permit Authorization for Office Building. LOCATION: On the west side of Cedar Ave. at 143rd St. PETITIONER:. Uhde /Nelson, Inc. Ms. McMonigal made the verbal presentation based on the Staff Petition Report dated June 15, 1988. MOTION: of Carlson, seconded by Felkner, to recommend approval of the Site Plan and that the Building Permit be authorized for an office building on the west side of Cedar Ave. at 143rd St. VOTE: Yes, 6; No, 0. The Petitioner stated that the City's Planning and Engineering Staff have been good to work with. 6. DISCUSSION /REVIEW ITEMS. A. Apple Valley Apartments -- Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Mr. Kelley made a verbal presentation in reference to the Environ- mental Assess Worksheet, Apple Valley Apartments. He stated that he does not expect detailed comments from the State agencies on this PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 15, 1988 Page 12 matter. Mr. John Miller, resident of the Lake Alimagnet area made reference to the following items of the EAW: Item 12 Item 14 -- County property is not part of the 8 -L acres Item 18- -There is a large amount of fill and if there is a heavy rainfall, a large amount could end up in Lake Alimagnet; erosion control should be included in this item. A silt fence is needed. Item 19- -There could be a problem with a pond in this area. Item 25- -Areas adjacent to that are already at carrying capacity. It is not responsible to say that animals will just go somewhere else. There are approximately 35 different species of animals in that area. (For example, the snapping turtle is on the State "concerned species list. ") Item 26- -There is very little available parking. There will be more pressure on the park than is needed. Five distinct habitats will be altered. Mr. Joseph Christensen, attorney for the owner of the property indicated that the legal description of this parcel comes from a very large area. The legal description will be simplified; it is felt the survey information is accurate. The question is what is the true acreage. Mr. Brad Blackett, 457 Reflection Rd., AV: requested that everyone look at the big picture. The total ecosystem of Alimagnet Lake will be altered. He read from a prepared, detailed document in which he stated that Mr. Kelley basically rubber stamped the developer's original EAW, and that only eight sentences and one table were inserted. He requested that review of the EAW be made to show the impact of this proposed development. Chair Erickson responded that Mr. Kelley is very concise and well intended and that he did not appreciate the "attack" on Mr. Kelley. Mr. Christensen commented that he met with Mr. Kelley and other Staff and went through the EAW and made a series of comments and changes were made. Chair Erickson said he felt sure if only eight sentences were changed, that was all the change that was needed. Mr. Blackett indicated that he had requested Mr. Kelley to address the concerns of the residents and that none of these concerns really showed up on the second EAW. He further stated that he shares the concerns regarding the gravel issue, but he does not know as much about this as Alimagnet Lake. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 15, 1988 Page 13 A copy of Mr. Blackett's presentation was left with City Staff. B. Huntington 2nd Addition -- Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Mr. Kelley made a verbal presentation regarding the Environ- mental Assessment Worksheet prepared for Huntington 2nd Addition. Most concerns relate to the quality of the water in Farquhar Lake because of the size of the development. 7. OTHER ITEMS: None were reported. 8. ADJOURN: MOTION: of Carlson, seconded by Felkner, to adjourn the meeting at 12:09 p.m. VOTE: Yes, 6; No, 0. APPROVED SECRETARY