Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/02/1987CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 2, 1987 Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Apple Valley held Wednesday, December 2, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. at the Apple Valley City Hall. PRESENT: Chairperson Robert Erickson; Commission Members Richard Carlson, Alan Felkner, Marcia Gowling, Frank Kleckner, Virginia Sterling, Phillip Peterson; Staff Members John Gretz, Rick Kelley, Meg McMonigal; City Council Liaison Gary Humphrey; City Attorney Mike Doughtery; 56 members of the public; City Engineer Keith Gordon. ABSENT: No one. 1. Chair Erickson called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. 2. MOTION: of Carlson, seconded by Peterson, to approve the agenda as presented. VOTE: Yes, 7; No, 0. AGENDA 3. Minutes of November 18, 1987. MOTION: of Sterling, seconded by Gowling, to approve the minutes of November 18, 1987, as presented. MINUTES VOTE: Yes, 4; No, 0. Abstain, 3 (Carlson, Felkner, NOV. 18, Peterson). 1987 4. Public Hearing for Preliminary Plat for Four Apartment Buildings. LOCATION Southeast corner of County Road #11 and 140th St. PH, PREL. PETITIONER H & Z Partners. PLAT, FOU] APARTMENT Chair Erickson opened the Public Hearing with the standard opening BUILDINGS remarks. Mr. Kelley presented the petition for Preliminary Plat to construct four 18- dwelling unit apartment buildings. Current zoning is "M -2" (multiple residential at 8 -12 unites /acre in four 3 -story buildings) with "SH" (shoreland) overlay district imposing stricter development controls; unplatted land. City Engineer Kith Gordon commented that storm sewer is avail - in the southwest corner of the site, water is available from the northeast corner. A pond would be contructed with the site to handle storm runoff. Ther is a marsh area located in the low area; the pond to be constructed would be separated from Lake Alimagnet by a dike -like construction; this pond would handle up to 3 feet of water. There would be 2;� acres of hard surface parking lots and building on an 8;� acre site. Approximately 1200 acres drain into Alimagnet from Apple Valley and Burnsville. The effect of additional stress on the Lake would be 3/10 of 1%. Approximately 65 acres of 1200 are yet undeveloped under the watershed portion of AV. The Department of Natural Resources will be involved in this project along with the Dakota Soil and Water Conservation District. Discussion of this proposal within the Land Use Guide Plan ensued. The Petitioner indicated his intent to meet with all concerned homeowners who surround the site. He indicated the site needs a great deal of soils correction and sloping will have to be modified. A large percentage of the site has to be devoted to watershed; therefore, multiple is very appropriate for this area. He indicated the buildings would be three -story with a walkout from the back, a townhome type of appearance, brick and main- tenance -free exterior vinyl siding, cedar trim, and 15 -year asphalt shingles on the roof. The area between the proposed buildings and the park area will be developed in such a manner that will be much more attractive than now. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 2, 1987 Page 2 In order to process an Enviromental Worksheet, this proposal will require a 30 -day review and a 10 -day "cooling off" period. Therefore, comments from the DNR will be reviewed in January. The petitioner indicated that according to the zoning, there could be 20 homes on the site which would cover much more of the area than the proposed buildings. He indicated that building coverage would be 11.5% and surface coverage, 16.5% leaving 72% of the area open and natural on the site. The apartments would be tucked back with dramatic distances between neighbors. The petitioner indicated that he felt an allowance should be made for the little node of property that the County owns at the C.R. #11 R.O.W. Chair Erickson thanked the Petitioner for his willingness to meet with concerned neighbors. Ms. Sterling was told that the garages would be somewhat like a retaining wall in appearance the way they are planned. She expressed concern over the park entry way; when this property was to be developed the Park Committee was told that there would be a pathway from 140th St. The petitioner indicated the path would not disappear from 140St. to the park; an access will continue to be provided. Ms. Gowling was told that the area adjacent to the park would be better in the development of this property than it now appears. The view from the south end would be two stories on the entry side with a transition from two to three stories- -the building will appear very residential in scale. The development is expected to proceed in one phase and as early in the spring as feasible. Chair Erickson was told that the existing zoning of M -2 was established in 1978 with the overlying shoreline designation on the property being established in 1983 as part of the zoning update. Ms. Gowling asked about the policy or precedence of constructing apartments next to single- family homes -- shouldn't there be a buffer of townhomes or lower density. Mr. Kelley indicated no precedent has been set - -this matter is usually dealt with in regards to number of units per acre. Speaking to the Public Hearing: 1. Mr. Brad Blackett, 457 Reflection Rd., AV: expressed concern over the grading plan which looks as if the entire site to the shoreline is being denuded - -there should be a setback from the pond that cannot disturb any vegetation. He was told the a landscape plan would be offered and that the Petitioner would be willing to work out the most desirable situation. Setbacks are well beyond the 75' required in all cases. Mr. Blackett also expressed plans for the holding pond; the existing area is a scrub wetland. He wondered why a dike was put in and then broken. Mr. Gretz explained that the dike was installed when the townhouse develop - across 140th was built; after the area was developed, it was determined that the natural grasses filtered out more impurities, so the dike was removed. A filtering system will be developed and designed that will be better than pre - development state. It was indicated that the City Staff shares Mr. Blackett's concerns, thus the reason the Dakota Soil and Water Con- servation District will be involved. The petitioner indicated the pond would contain a trap for spoils and that the slopes would be no more than a 3 -1 or 4 -1. 2. Mr. Edwin Holmes, 8921 138th St. Ct., AV: indicated his concern was over converting a natural marsh area into a development fairly close to the side of Lake Alimagnet. He wanted explanation for the 70 units planned. He was told that a variance would be requested for the southern -most building in order to keep the building further away from the lake. He indicated many of the neighbors have noticed construction has already begun on the site. Trees have already been cut down and the area is right for errosion. Piles of dirt have been moved on site, also. The petitioner indicated the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 2, 1987 Page 3 reason for this was soils exploration with a resounding "NO" from the PUBLIC The petitioner indicated that he could further explain - -they are building another project in Eagan and deposited excess material from that project for fill on this site - -no construction has begun. Trees and shrubs have ** *been knocked down to the Lake, indicated Mr. Holmes. Technically, one is supposed to have a permit before putting fill on a site before there is a development agreement. The developer was informed of this and the activity ceased. The petitioner indicated that he has proof that he called City Hall long distance and was told he could deposit fill on the site. Mr. Holmes indicated that there are holes that have been left unfilled and children are playing near these holes, some of which are up to 7' in depth. The site is in a dangerous condition because of the conduct of the developer. The petitioner indicated he would see that the holes were filled on Dec. 3. Mr. Holmes was told that the City is in the process of creating a Water Quality Management Plan which would answer concerns regarding runoff, but it will be several years before this plan is put into effect. Mr. Holmes is concerned about the effect of this project regarding the impact on Alimagnet and plans to follow up with the Department of Natural Resources. He indicated the lake has been neglected for many years and the City hasn't spent much money to keep it up and the results are that it is becoming a mud hole. It is now filled with silt, chemicals, etc. and now there is a plan to put 72 units on the north end which would double the density of the lake area. Mr. Holmes felt this is kind of the "LAST STRAW" as far as Lake Alimagnet is concerned. Over the years, a lot of silt has gone into the lake and he does not feel that assured that the pond will be enough to control the problem of silt. The traffic impact will be addressed as part of the Enviromental Assessment Worksheet. Mr. Gordon indicated that the ponding area will alleviate any adverse effect on the lake- -any development would have a minimum adverse effect and no more than any previoi development. Mr. Holmes feels that development will strip away a natural habitat. He also expressed concern about a development that would not be fully utilized or built as proposed and was told that the Petitioner will provide a performance bond. An unidentified lad fro thle udience asked why so many units were proposea for sucn a ritt aka. Mr. Hol tes and Mr. Blackett questioned the gas pipeline with Mr. Gretz in- dicating the gas pipeline was lowered some years ago and does not feel construction would impact the pipeline. Mr. Holmes again referred to the Petitioner regarding his attitude towards the Lake regarding to the cutting of trees and shrubs already, the dangerous situation created by leaving holes in the ground and providing no ground cover as stipulated in Code A 1 -49, F & G, and the concern if there is a high vacancy rate in the apartments, blight -like conditions coul result. The question was asked if there were methods to shield the apartments from the neighbors' homes. The Petitioner indicated again his willingness to wo with the neighbors and within the City's landscape plan. Mr. Carlson questioned Mr. Holmes as to what he would see as an acceptable project on that parcel of land with Mr. Holmes answering that he would prefer townhomes or single family dwellings - -this proposal doubles the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 2, 1987 Page 4 population around the lake. 3. Mr. John Vegter, 8952 West 138th St. Ct., AV: was told that any variances requested were a matter of record (public) and a public meeting was require( He indicated his desire to meet with the DNR. He wondered if every unit would be allowed a boat slip and was told by Mr. Kelley that he did not this the DNR would approve. The petitioner indicated that it becomes an arena if there are more than 5 boat slips (thus this would not be allowed). He wondered who controls what happens to the pond 5+ years from now and was told the City would be required to maintain it - -the City has a program to clean ponds. Mr. Vegter indicated that the City has not put out any money to maintain Lake Alimagnet, so what would make them think the pond would be maintained. Mr. Gretz indicated to him that the City has not done anything other than add chemicals, but presently they are working with Burnsville with a prograr scheduled to be in effect by 1988. 4. Ms. Renee Miller, ±3667 Holyoke Lane, AV: indicated that with 134 homes flooded last summer in Burnsville and with these 72 units just a block away, the run -off problem will be even greater. When she moved to the area four years ago, she enjoyed a living lake--now it is not a living lake,it is a cesspool of green slime. Apartments would be best in downtown Apple Vall( as stated in the City's policy. Without the issuance of permits and without silt fences, how can the City be sensitive to neighboring properties. She indicated that it is time to draw the line on growth. Chair Erickson answered her concern about growth and indicated he does not know where to draw the line. Mr. Kelley indicated that the plan calls for dispersing apartments throughout the community to provide for a diversity of housing needs. 5. Mr. John G. Miller, 13667 Holyoke Lane, AV: indicated that the the reason he and his family moved from St. Paul to AV was the quality of life issue and to be able to look out on a parking= -lot and vinyl siding takes some of his quality of life away from him which he does not appreciate. He indi- cated that the developer has already destroyed two acres of land by bulldozing, excavating and other activities- -this reduces the credibility of the developer. He questioned how the Environmental Worksheet can be accurate when r4 of the land has already been disturbed /destroyed. The Petitioner indicated again that he had a reasonable explanation for what happened and will have the situation corrected as soon as possible. Mr. Miller indicated the Petitioner should know the laws of the City with the Petitioner indcating he called the Inspection Department of the City and a message was relayed by his secretary that he could dump fill. * *Mr. Gretz said that the inspectors are fully aware of the requirements of a permit and that he could find NO ONE in the department who passed on that information to the Petitioner. The Petitioner insisted that he has a recur( of a long- distance telephone call indicating this. The dumping took place on Saturday and Sunday with the Petitioner explaining why this occurred. Mr. Miller indicated that there are 17 species of animals and reptiles live in the proposed development and that 2 of these are on the endangered species list. There are 7 distinct habitats; this are needs to be main- tained as a natural preserve in Apple Valley. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 2, 1987 Page 5 Mr. Miller cited the Burnsville City Plan and indicated that their plan and that of Apple Valley called for 3 -6 units per acre. (Zoning was explained to him.) The 5.1 acre park actually has only about 2 -3 acres of usable land which is used by many persons. To add 72 units would be a drain on the existing park. Studying of the land indicate it should be preserved- -not built upon. He does not think of a planned community having apartments adjacent to homes - -this is indicative of poor planning - -there should be some tyna_ -f h..ffo_ s + _ ;,__ U -- voon 6. Ms. Sandy Olander, 13657 Holyoke Lane, AV: indicated many of her concerns had been previously stated. She is the owner of the second home on Holyoke and there would be just about 70' between her and the.apartments. She asked how many apartments are allowed next to executive homes- -any apartment buildings in the City only 70' from property lines? City Attorney Doughtery said the proposal is a proper land use under the terms of the City's Comprehensive Plan which has been in place well over ten years. The M -2 zoning has been in place since 1978; the Comp Plan designation since 1979. Some one from the audience spoke indicating that he had heard there had been a single family proposal on this parcel but Mr. Kelley indicated the City had not received such a proposal. Ms. Olander indicated she had never seen apartments next to executive homes in any other location in the US where she has lived. She wondered if there was not some provision that there would have to be a buffer between the single family homes and apartments- -she was told there would be luxury townhomes in the area; others indicated the original developer had told them the same. 7. Ms. Lynn D. Buri, 8962 138th St. Ct., AV: indicated that most of her concerns had been previously stated. She indicated the community has been told that the City monitors development, but in this case the developer proceeded without proper permits. She feels there is a serious problem at the City level and the City is responsible for monitoring what is going on. She asked who has the authority to tell the developers. Mr. Gretz indicated that City Staff is responsible for following the laws that are in the City Code and he has not found anyone in the City who indicated to the Petitioner he could dump fill. (The petitioner indicated again he would give the exact time of the phone call, etc.) She asked the question if that was your home being affected with plans for a retaining wall to block the view- - she feels current residents have a right to the view which they "purchased." It was indicated that in the Twin Cities there is a regulation that a building cannot block sunlight. Ms. Buri asked why live in a City that condones that type of development that so encroaches on the current landowner 8. Mr. John Ritter, 1709 Victoria Lane, AV: strongly felt that since there is only one lake in the City, but a lot of projects going on, it is time for commitment on the part of the City to save the lake and protect that one resource. He asked what it would take from the City of Apple Valley that no more harm come to Lake Alimagnet. Everyone has heard from years that the City will do something for:.the proper protection of the lake. This lake is the one God -given resource and he feels the Planning Commission must stop further building of even another project or another road. He feels all buil< ing should be stopped until this one resource cann be taken care of. He feels the current Zoning on the property is wrong and that the City should reassess this situation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 2, 1987 Page 6 9. Mr. Thomas Carlson, 8955 138th St. Court, AV: indicated this is an emotional issue - -the fact that the developer went ahead and did something to the property makes them question his integrity. He has done something illegal; the fact this was done on a Saturday when no one could call City Hall for two days is wrong and should have something to do with the decisioi making process - -his conduct has been wrong!! The zoning and other problems are one big issue and there must be a way to solve these problems. This area is as beautiful a piece of land as the Richfield Nature Center off 35W and as beautiful a piece of land anywhere in AV and this proposal does not use the land to the best degree. 10. Mr. Adeel.Lari, AV: spoke regarding the county -owned sliver of land and felt the County could be petitioned to vacate and purchase the land. (Mr. Kelley indicated that with density at 61 units, the county owned parce: of land was not included.) Mr. Kelley also indicated to the audience again that the City Staff is working with the DNR regarding the lake shore. 11. Ms. Mary Turgeon, 431 Reflection Rd., AV: indicated she felt as others have indicated- -the property should be left the way it is. She received a round of applause from the audience. She felt this should not be rental property, but owner occupied. She indicated this is a recreational lake and they have lived there since 1972. She has seen the lake go into the "toilet" from the drainage resulting from the homes built on the hill. The additional 72 units proposed will just "pull the chain" on that lake! She indicated the Chair of the Planning Commission has the opportunity to draw the line and strongly recommended that this be considered. The lake has greatly deteriorated during the past 16 years, she pulls weeds from th lake, etc. She suggested that the Planning Commission has the opportunity to draw the line. She thanked the Commission for all of their efforts. Sh would rather look at a wetland than apartments. 12. Mr. Ron Aehterkirch, 13835 Frontier Lane, Burnsville: just indicated his opposition to the proposal. His concerns had previously been voiced. Chair Erickson closed the Public Hearing with the standard closing remarks. Ms. Sterling indicated her concern over the 7' holes and planned to look at this ar on December 3, 1987. Chair Erickson called a five minute recess. Continuation of Public Hearing for Preliminary Plat of Heritage Hills 8th Addition. PH CONT. LOCATION Northeast corner of Section 21. PREL. PLA' PETITIONER Heritage Hills Development Corporation. HERITAGE HILLS, 8t Chair Erickson opened the Public Hearing as a continuation with ADDITION the proper opening remarks. Ms. McMonigal presented the preliminary plat for 11 single family home lots. The plat is inconsistent with Apple Valley's and Dakota County's Thoroughfare Plans. The Dakota County Highway Department will recommend denial, as the right -of -way is not dedicated via the plat. The Petitioner indicated the reason for this PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 2, 1987 Page 7 request. Mr. Art Eaton said that when MENDOT established the ROW for the Zoo Rd., they also established their extension of their ROW for CR #38 which moved it into the Heritage Hills 7th and 5th additions. The result is two pieces of useless land. No one from the Public wished to speak/ to issue; Chair Erickson closed the Public Hearing with the standard closing remarks. 6. Public Hearing for Planned Development Rezoning. LOCATION 146th St. and Galaxie Ave. PH, PLANNI PETITIONER Apple Valley Industrial Partners. DEVELOP. REZONING Chair Erickson opened the Public Hearing with the standard opening remarks. Mr. Kelley presented the petition for a proposed commercial/ industrial PUD rezoning. The proposal is to proceed with a PUD rezoning to allow for a wider range of permitted commercial uses than are now allowed. The language of Sections 19 (i) and 20 (i) would allow 50% of the building to be occupied by retail or professional office uses. This occupancy level would create a different "flavor" than has been anticipated under the LI designation of the Comp Plan. A clause should be inserted in the ordinance that requires the maximum permissable retail /office space to be provided with parking stalls the rate of 1 stall per 150 net sq. ft. of building floor area. The lawyer for the Petitioner gave an extensive presentation regarding proposed uses /flavor change. Chair Erickson commented that he feels Mr. Linville does a very nice job, but he has concerns about the project going in where proposed. He wondered if there would be competition with the existing shopping centers. Retail traffic could be drawn to an area where retail is not intended. Much discussion resulted with concerns over semis(not a lot of semi -truck traffic would be generated), with the proposed flavor change, what percentages Staff would feel comfortable with, parking with the consensus being that the proposal does not seem that inappropriate. Councilmember Humphrey indicated that he sees an entirely different type of retail use in these types of buildings and quoted some examples. He felt that a balance would be created between truck traffic and parking. A different type of tenant would occupy a facility such as this. The petitioner indicated that the tenants who go into this type of facility would not be successful in a shopping center. Chair Erickson indicated that he does not want to create a low -rent business area that would compete with an already existing business. Mr. Felkner indicated his concern over who "polices" what is permitted, etc. wii the petitioner volunteering that more importantly than even the City is the landlord's responsibility to make sure than when a lease is sign, the use is a permitted one. No one from the Public wished to speak to this hearing; therefore, Chair Erickson closed the Public Hearing with the standard closing remarks. 7. Public Hearing for Preliminary Plat -- Commons Market. LOCATION' Southeast Corner of C. R. #42 and Cedar Ave. PH, PREL. PLAT PETITIONER PRG Development Company. COMMONS Chair Erickson opened the Public Hearing with the standard MARKET opening remarks. Ms. McMonigal presented the preliminary plat for PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 2, 1987 Page 8 consolidation of six lots into one lot, an outlot and 100 feet of right -of -way for 153rd St. West. The City would like 153rd St. to connect to Galaxie Ave. at 155th St. The road could run straight on each end for 200' and at a straight angle in between. The City Council would like to have the road constructed as straight as possible. (The sliver would be an outlot) The intent of the petitioner is to construct a 150,000 sq. ft. shopping center. It would be like a Loehman's Plaza in Rosefille with an enclosed walkway with overhead doors. The petitioner indicated he felt it would be compatible with the Linville project just proposed. Speaking from the Public: 1. Mr. Richard Winkler, AV: representing the Southport properties indicated he owns the land adjacent on two sides of this property and would like to object to the proposal for replatting both legally and morally. The zoning on the entire piece of property indicate that the two pieces have to be developed together. Mr. Winkler presented Legal Evidence as attached to these minutes. Mr. Winkler and the petitioner exchanged their concerns on the development of this property jointly. Mr. Winkler indicated this has been shown as a neighborhood shopping center since 1972 and feels the people of AV should be notified of the petition to cut the parcel in half. Chair Erickson indicated that he tended to agree with Mr. Winkler that the piece should be developed as an entity. Much discussion ensued as to the tenants being pursued, whether a shopping center could be supported (with the thought being that 150,000 sq. ft. would probably be the maximum), etc. Leaving this corner piece of property causes real concerns. City Councilmember Humphrey indicated that the City is equally interested in this land being developed in a retail mode- -and that the parcel be developed as as a whole in some reasonable time frame. Both Mr. Winkler and the petitioner agreed that the 40 acres should be planned together. 2. Mr. Donald E. Boynton, 4100 Terraceview Ln., Plymouth: indicated his concern as voiced by Mr. Winkler over the future development of the land to the east. It was agreed that the some logical solutions as to development should b worked out. Since there are legal ramifications regarding this request, it was recommended that the City Attorney offer comments. MOTION: of Carlson, seconded by Sterling, to continue this Public Hearing until the legal questions can be resolved. QUESTION: Ms. Cowling wished clarification on the property owned by Mr. Winkler. VOTE: Yes, 7; No, 0. This Public Hearing will be continued until the December 16 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 2, 1987 Page 9 8. Other Items. a. There is a need for a Vice -Chair of the Planning Commission. A vote to fill this office will be taken at the December 16 meeting. b. December 9, 1987- -Work Meeting of the Planning Commission. 9. ADJOURN. MOTION: of Carlson, seconded by Sterling, to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 p.m. VOTE: Yes, 7; No, 0. APPROVED SECRETARY