Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/06/1987CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 6, 1987 Minutes of the meeting of the Apple Valley Planning Commission held Wednesday, May 6, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. at the Apple Valley City Hall. PRESENT: Vice - Chairperson Arleigh Thorberg; Commission Members Richard Carlson, Marcia Cowling, Frank Kleckner, Virginia Sterling, Phillip Peterson;. Staff members Rick Kelley, Meg McMonigal, Keith Gordon; 32 members of the public. ABSENT: Chairperson Robert Erickson. 1. Vice - Chairperson Throberg called the meeting to order at 7:43 p.m. 2. Approval of Agenda. Mr. Kelley reported that Item 12, Consideration of Rezoning and Preliminary Plat, Apple Ponds, should be deleted at the request of the Petitioner and this item would appear on a future agenda. MOTION: of Carlson,seconded by Sterling, to approve the agenda as amended. VOTE: Yes, 6; No, 0. AGENDA 3. Minutes of April 15, 1987. MOTION: of Carlson, seconded by Sterling, to approve the minutes of April 15, 1987, as presented. MINUTES VOTE: Yes, 5; No, 0; Abstain, 1 (Peterson). April 15,198 4. Public Hearing for Rezoning from R -IC to M -2 & Preliminary Plat- - Crestview Forest Townhomes. PH, REZONING LOCATION Between Palomino Drive and Future County Road 1138, West o£ FROM R -1C to M -2 & PREL. Garden View Drive. PLAT PETITIONER: Vista Development. Vice -Chair Thorberg opened the public hearing with the standard opening remarks. Mr. Kelley presented the petition for a rezoning to M -2 and preliminary for a 142 -unit townhouse residential development. The petitioner indicated that the plan is to save as many trees as possible, the units will be in the $90- 150,000 price range and they will be custom built. Mr. Gordon commented that because of two homes which sit back in the woods, future CR 1138 will come atop the ridge so that the homes will be closer thus access from this project will be via Palomino Drive. The denisty will be 6 units per acre. Speaking from the Public: 1. Mr. James Mattacola, 8605 Hunters Way, AV: questioned the access as indicated because of an additional visual problem that will be created. He indicated that many accidents occur at the intersection of Garden View and Palomino and with another access, the problem will no not increase. He requested that traffic ' control options be considered, that the price range seems exaggerated for town - homes, and that a family of great horned owls is now living in those woods - -has an environmental impact study been made of this area and requested that one be initiated. 2. Mr. Jon Vranicar, 8549 Palomino Drive, AV: indicated he felt there is no way this development will help the area -- it is zoned single - family residential and he purchased his property with this in mind; there is no reason for this type of development in this particular area. He indicated the heavy traffic along Palomino PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 6, 1987 Page 2 and wondered why there would be two accesses onto Palomino thus increasing the already -high accident potential. If this project is allowed, he would find this approval very "distrustful" since the area is zoned single - family residential and he was told this when purchasing his home specifically in this area. 3. Mr. Harry Ashbridge, 8501 W. 133 St., AV: wished to echo the remarks that had just been made - -when he built in 1979, he was assured by the City that the zoning was for single - family residential and he would like for it to remain that way. He moved from a towm home and would like to stay from town homes. Their property values would decline. He would like to see the area remain for nice single - family homes. 4. Mr. James Ebel, 8497 133rd St., AV: indicated he lives directly across from the proposed project and would also like to echo statements previously made. When he purchased, he thought this would be a single- family residential neighborhood. The value of their property would decline. 5. Mr. John Marwede, 8733 Highwood Way, AV: represented 135 voting persons of the Hunter's Wood Homeowners Association. He indicated their organization feels the area should remain single - family residential; it is zoned single - family and they see absolutely no reason why this should not remain single family and bring comparable housing in the area requested. To change the zoning would devaluate the homes already in the area. 6. Ms. Peggy Story, 8577 Palomino Drive, AV: indicated she purchased her lot deli- berately in an area zoned single - family residential. She could only build 30' away from Palomino Drive and is alreay expering a lot of traffic. To approve this type of project would be detrimental °in terms of increased traffic and multiple housing in a single - family housing area. Mr. Carlson questioned the petitioner as to his reason for the change in zoning with the petitioner indicating they felt townhomes in that area would be the best use for the land. Because of the heavy traffic on the roads which the site borders, it would very difficult to sell single - family lots. Mr. Thorberg questioned the old plans regarding the area of homes around the golf course and was told the majority of this became single- family homes. Mr. James Mattacola indicated single - family homes would generate more tax dollars for the City. Mr. Marwede questioned why the zoning should be changed - -if the area is developed for single - family homes, he feels they would sell. 7. Ms. Carol Vranicar, 8549 Palomino Dr., AV: indicated if single - family homes were built, less of the natural environment would be destroyed than the proposed townhomes. Mr. Art Eaton replied to this comment indicating there is not an appreciable difference. Ms. Sterling questioned why not put in nice single- family homes. Mr. Vranicar indicated they put in a circle driveway because of the traffic on Palomino and to add 142 townhomes would only further aggravate an already hazardous traffic problem. Mr. Mattacola commented that owls are an endangered species and that the EPA would be notified, if the change were to go into effect. Mr. Kelley commented that the requirements of a project of this size do not include an environmental impact statement 8. Dr. Karen Lucas, 8625 Hunters Way, AV: indicated she had been involved in an accident on Palomino Drive resulting in $3,000.00 in damages; this is a very dangerous intersection. Before purchasing their lot, they looked very carefully into the zoning and one of the major reasons for their choice was because of the single- fami.1v znninv in n7.ara_ Thav aro --A ..,�._.... PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 6, 1987 Page 3 their areas. Adding multiple housing would decrease values in that entire area. Vice -Chair Thorberg declared the public hearing closed with the standard closing remarks. 5. Public Hearing for Preliminary Plat for Wildwood Pond Townhomes. rLI r � L LOCATION Southwest Corner of 140th St WILDWOOD POP .. & Pennock Ave. rn, WOOD POI PETITIONER Miles Development, Ltd. TOWNHOMES Vice -Chair Thorberg opened the public hearing with the standard opening remarks. Mr. Kelley presented the petition for a preliminary plat to create 19 townhouse lots. The site plan and building permit review for these 19 townhouse units has alreai been completed and approved by the City; but for purposes of marketing these units as townhomes rather than condominiums as initiall planned, the land must be replatted. The configuration for the layout is the same. The matter of the extra garage for one unit was discussed as to ownership, etr::with an option indicated that additional covered parking may be considered instead. Mr. Peterson questioned the depth of the pond and was told there is a 4 -1 slope in the area; it will be heavily landscaped. No one from the public was present to speak; the Vice -Chair declared the public hearin closed with the standard closing remarks. 6. Public Hearing for Rezoning from LB to M -2 and Preliminary Plat -- Pennock Shores Third Addition. LOCATION On Glenda Drive. PETITIONER: Vista Development. PH, REZONIN( LB to M -2 & PREL. PLAT, PF.Nmorx mgni Vice -Chair Thorberg opened the public hearing with the standard opening remarks. Ms. McMonigal presented the petition for rezoning from LB to M -2 and Preliminary Plat, Pennock Shores 3rd Addition. The area is guided for limited business Since the area adjacent to it is guided for multiple residnetial, an extension of multiple residential is an acceptable land use for the area and does of inte with the land use guide plan. Ms.McMonigal indicated a few proposaB/ o tie area ices across the street have come in and that is likely what the area would be used for. The petitioner indicated this would complete their project in this area and would not interfere with the commercial in the area. Ms. Sterling indicated to the petitioner that he make sure the people know there is LB zoning just across the street so they will not be coming to Planning Commission members. Mr. Eaton indicated he feels that area of business will develop in the same architectural mode as Valley Commercial Park. No one from the public was present to speak; the Vice -Chair declared the public hearin closed with the standard closing remarks. 7. Public Hearing for Rezoning to R -1C and Preliminary Plat -- Bubbers- Krause Addition. LOCATION: East of Cedar Ave, South of 42nd St. PH, REZONIN PETITIONER Mark and Cindy Bubbers, Mark and Debra Ann Krause. TO R -1C & PREL. PLAT. Vice -Chair Thorberg opened the public hearing with the standard opening BUBBERS- remarks. Mr. Kelley presented the petition for a rezoning to R -1C and KRAUSE ADD. preliminary plat for two detached single family lots. Mr. Gordon commented that utilities are available from Cherry Oak Estates and there is a second PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 6, 987 Page 4 alternative to run the sewer from 132nd Street. The project fits all codes. No one from the public wished to speak; therefore, Vice -Chair Thorberg de- clared the public hearing closed with the standard closing remarks. MOTION: of Sterling, seconded by Peterson, to recommend approval of the rezoning of the Bubbers- Krause Addition to R -1C and to approve the preliminary plat as presented. VOTE: Yes - 6, No - 0. 8. Sign Variance Request LOCATION 980 Garden View Drive PETITIONER Ashwin Shah SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST Ms. McMonigal presented the petition for a sign variance to allow for a pylon sign to be erected on the site. The petitioner, Mr. Ashwin Shah, presented a list of 23 surrounding residents who indicated they would not object to a pylon sign on this site. Ms. Sterling questioned the persons living in the duplex right across from the proposed business with Mr. Shah indicating the reenter of one portion of the duplex did not object and the owner who lives on the other side could not be reached (three tries!). Only two of 25 persons did not sign it. Ms. Sterling indicated her concern for not having reached the person right across the street and also that she had received a telephone call from a person who did not want the sign approved. Ms. Sterling felt it would be desirable to have written permission from the owner of the duplex just across the street. Mr. Kleckner complemented Mr. Shah on the respectable job he did addressing the concerns of the Planning Commission at the previous meeting that he obtain approval of the surrounding residents. Mr. Carlson indicated he has a concern granting a variance - -this is a residential area and a precedence could be set allowing a sign of this magnitude. It was indicated that the persons present at the public hearing were happy this land was being put to some use and were happy with a dry cleaning establishment rather than another store. Mr. Shah indicated he is 99% sure the space he thought would be for rent will be used by his own business. Mr. Kleckner indicated he feels the Commission has to give Mr. Shah the sign. Mr. Shah is waiting for the results of 7 -11 checking their records in regards to the previous sign. MOTION: of Peterson, seconded by Cowling, recommending approval of a vari- ance to allow for a pylon sign to be erected on the site as request- ed. DISCUSSION: Ms. Sterling is concerned about the fact that they worked on a new sign ordinance and decided there should not be signs in a residential neighborhood, thus her concern about granting a variance. Mr. Thorberg doesn't really feel this is a definite resi- dential neighborhood. Mr. Kleckner doesn't see this area as totally residential, the neighbors don't object, and there was a sign pre- viously. Ms. Sterling hopes Mr. Shah doesn't request another vari- ance because posts are too close to the property line. (13' from property line -- previously discussed by Ms. Cowling with Mr. Shah indicating he had measured and it is correct.) AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION - -by Peterson, seconded by Cowling to include that the sign must meet the requirements of signs allowed for a single occupant in a residential district. VOTE ON MOTION AS AMENDED: Yes, 4 - No, 2 (Carlson, Sterling). PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 6, 1987 Page 5 The Planning Commission recessed from 9:00 to 9:10 p.m. 9. Consideration of Rezoning, Preliminary Plat- -Salem Woods. LOCATION North Side of 132nd St., 1/4 Mile West of Galaxie Ave. PETITIONER Richard Williams REZONING, PRELIM. PLAT SALEM WOODS Ms. McMonigal presented the petition for rezoning to R -1C and Preliminary Plat, Salem Woods Addition, 26 lots of single family homes. Mr. Williams indicated he would be purchasing the 60' wide strip on the north side of the property. Mr. Gordon indicated they are presently in the process of securing easements for 132nd St. and no problems are foreseen. Mr. Kelley indicated the desire to alternate the bubble with the need for setbacks for two lots. MOTION: of Kleckner, seconded by Sterling, to recommend approval of the Rezoning to R -1C and Preliminary Plat, Salem Woods Addition, subject to working with the Staff for the needed alterations to the bubble. DISCUSSION: Mr. Carlson was told that the two lots would be narrower at the setback lines. VOTE: Yes, 6; No, 0. 10. Setback Variance for Garage. LOCATION 8375 141st Street West. PETITIONER Wayne Erbe. SETBACK VARIANCE GARAGE Ms. McMonigal presented the petition for variance to setback requirements to build a garage. An attached letter from the petitioner outlining the reasons for the variance request was reviewed. The variance request is for approxi- mately 9 feet. Mr. Erbe presented a letter from three of his neighbors who find no problem with his request. Ms. Cowling indicated that since there was to a garage previously on this house site, this would be the appropriate place to build a garage. MOTION: of Sterling, seconded by Carlson, to recommend approval of the variance request of approximately 9 feet to build a garage as stated in the petition. VOTE: Yes, 6; No, 0. 11. Setback Variance for Garage. LOCATION 885 Oriole Drive. PETITIONER Melvin Bennett. SETBACK VARIANCE GARAGE Ms. McMonigal presented the petition for a variance to setback requirements for an addition to a garage which would bring the garage within 8 inches of the property line rather than the 5 feet required by ordinance. Discussion ensued as to other alternatives because of the concerns of Commission Members about the eaves of the garage being on his neighbor's property, fire hazard, etc. The neighbor was present to voice his approval of the plan. Concern over setting a precedent was discussed, and especially being that close the living quarters of a neighbor's house. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 6, 1987 Page 6 MOTION: of Sterling, seconded by Cowling, to recommend that the request for a variance to setback requirements for an addition to a garage be denied. VOTE: Yes, 6; No, 0. 12. Withdrawn from Agenda. 13. Setback Variance for a Screened Porch. LOCATION 14334 Embry Path. PETITIONER Steph -An Homes, Inc. SETBACK VARIANCE SCREENED PORCH Ms. McMonigal presented the request for a variance to the sideyard setback requirements for a screened porch. The petitioner has begun building the porch with a 5' setback rather than the 10' required by the ordinance. This variance would bring the porch with 5' of the property line. There is 20' between the porch and the garage next door. The neighbor has no objection. The petitioner indicated he had made the error by not doing the desired re- search. The Planning Commission indicated their desire for something in writ- ing from the neighbor; Ms. McMonigal could present this at the City Council meeting. MOTION: of Kleckner, seconded by Cowling, that as much as we dislike approv- ing a request "after the fact ", if the petitioner could get a writ- ten statement indicating approval from the abutting neighbor to staff and /or City Council, recommendation is made for approval of this variance request for a screened porch within 5' of the property line subject to the written statement being presented. VOTE: Yes, 5; No, 0; Abstain, 1 (Sterling). 14. Site Plan Review and Building Permit Authorization, Auto Max, Inc. MOTION: of Sterling, seconded by Carlson, to Table this itemsince the peti- tioner is not present and there were questions concerning the pro- ject. VOTE: Yes, 6; No, 0. 15. Site Plan Review for Office/Warehouse. LOCATION 146th Street West, East of Galaxie Ave. PETITIONER D & R Vinge. SITE PLAN REVIEW OFFICE/WAREHOUSE Mr. Kelley presented the petition for authorization of a building permit for an auto service facility. The site plan meets the requirements of the applic- able zoning requirements and a landscaped plan has been included; the proposed office /warehouse use is a permitted use in an I -1 (Limited Industrial) zoning district. A grading plan prior to construction must be submitted to Mr. Gordon. The petitioner is in the tile business and he indicated the other space would be probably rented to others in construction -- plumbers, electri- cians, etc. The petitioner indicated the office side would be of ceramic tile with decorative block completing the building. They are concerned about vis- ual impact. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 6, 1987 Page 7 MOTION: of Peterson, seconded by Carlson, to recommend approval of the authorization of a Building Permit for an office /warehouse facility. VOTE: Yes - 6, No - 0. 16. Other Items. None were reported. 17. Adjourn. MOTION: of Carlson, seconded by Cowling, to adjourn the meeting at 9:46 p.m. APPROVED SECRETARY