Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/04/1987CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 4, 1987 Minutes of the meeting of the Apple Valley Planning Commission held on Wednesday, March 4, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. at the Apple Valley City Hall. PRESENT: Chairperson Robert Erickson; Commission Members Marcia Cowling, Frank Kleckner, Phillip Peterson, Virginia Sterling, Arleigh Thorberg; Staff Members Keith Gordon, Rick Kelley, Meg McMonigal, John Voss; approximately sixty members of the public. ABSENT: NONE. 1. Chairperson Erickson called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. 2. Approval of Agenda. Rick Kelley stated that the petitioner of the Apple Ponds Planned Development and plat has requested that it be considered for approval as part of Item #4. He also requested that discussion of small lot policy be added under Item #14. MOTION of Sterling, seconded by Peterson, to approve the AGENDA agenda as amended. VOTE: Yes, 6; No, 0. 4. Public Hearing for Rezoning from A to M -4. Chairperson Erickson opened the public hearing with the PH, REZONING FROM standard remarks with Mr. Kelley presenting the A TO M -4 information outlined in the staff memo. This rezoning action was instituted by the City in an attempt to balance the lower density of the Apple Ponds project with the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Sterling asked about the proposed RB area adjacent to Menard's; this was to serve as a transition area between heavy commercial and multiple residential. Ms. Gowling questioned the desirability of having such a large area of M -4 adjacent to single family uses; residents generally do not like such close proximity with shared street access. Mr. Kleckner asked what response the City Council made to the three questions raised at the last meeting about the Apple Ponds project; the Council wants the Planning Commission to use its best judgement without being influenced from the outside. Mr. Thorberg asked about the ownership of the property being considered for M -4 zoning; Mr. Kleckner responded by repeating Mr. Winkler's statement from the previous meeting that the Carrolls do not object to such an action by the City. Sue Turner of Barton Sand and Gravel stated that their operation is located 1/2 mile east of the proposed M -4 site and expressed concern that future residents may raise objections to the nuisance characteristics of their mining activities (noise,dust, etc.). Their operations will continue for 1 the foreseeable future. Ms. Turner also clarified the ownership of the adjacent 80 acre Pahl farm; Barton S & G is selling the property to Pahl on contract and has no intent to mine the property themselves. There being no further comments from the public, Chairperson Erickson closed the hearing with the standard remarks. John Voss, the City's Planning Consultant, briefly reviewed the proposed phasing plan for Apple Ponds. Mr. Kleckner asked if there had been any changes to the lot sizes or general layout; he expressed concern over the 60 foot wide lots and the fact that this development would be isolated by major roads from other areas of the City and that no park was being provided in the current plan. Chairperson Erickson and Ms. Sterling echoed these concerns, with Ms. Sterling adding that she felt that a park should be included in phase 1 of the proposal. The petitioner, Mr. Winkler, stated that he desired overall P.D. zoning approval but preliminary plat approval of only phase 1 at this time; park and other issues could be addressed as part of future phases. Mr. Winkler further commented that the City's Comprehensive Plan indicated a future park and athletic complex on the east side of Calaxie Avenue close to the Apple Ponds project; this would be similar to the Carrollton Estates development where Hayes Field is on the other side of Hayes Road. Mr. Peterson reiterated the position that the small lot and park issue still should be addressed now, not later. Mr. Kleckner stated that Galaxie Avenue would be a Community Collector road with a higher traffic volume that Hayes Road (Neighborhood Collector) and is likely to be of a 4 -lane design as well. Hayes Field was also in existence when Carrollton Estates was approved; when would the Galaxie park site be acquired? Mr. Kelley indicated that the 5 -year Capital Improvement Program has not been updated but that this site has never been included; given demands for other projects as well as fiscal/bonding restraints it is unlikely that it would be acquired before at least 5 years had passed and more realistically 10 years. Mr. Winkler indicated that his phasing plan would be phase 1 - 1987 (104 lots), phase 2 - 1988 and phases 3 & 4 in 1989 -90. The Commission expressed frustration that the petitioner has not seen fit to modify the development in any meaningful way in response to the issues that have been raised during their review. Chairperson Erickson asked the petitioner if he desired action on the proposal as currently configured; Mr. Winkler stated that he desired a recommendation without further delay. MOTION: of Sterling, seconded by Cowling, to recommend denial of the rezoning and preliminary plat of Apple Ponds. DISCUSSION: Councilmember Humphrey stated that the City Council would like to see some wording in the recommendation that would highlight the Planning Commission's concerns. It was agreed that the motion should include A. The need for a 7 -8 acre park as part of phase 1. B. The unresolved issue of the number and size of small lots. `] C. Lack of buffering or transition area between the single family uses and the multiple residential uses on the south, west and north. D. Nuisance characteristics of adjacent farming use. The amendments were accepted by Sterling and Gowling. VOTE: as amended - Yes, 6; No, 0. 5. Public Hearing for a Preliminary Plat: Meany Addition PH FOR PRELIMINARY Chairperson Erickson opened the public hearing with the PLAT - MEANY ADDITION standard remarks with Ms. McMonigal presenting the information contained in the staff memo. This subdivision would be a replat to split an existing duplex structure. Separate sewer and water services for each dwelling unit have been provided. Ms. Cowling inquired if the splitting of existing duplexes was a common procedure, with Mr. Kleckner responding in the affirmative. Mr. Meany stated that he wished to be able to sell each dwelling unit separately. No one from the public spoke at the hearing. Chairperson Erickson closed the hearing with the standard remarks. The item will be considered for a recommendation at the following meeting. 6. Public Hearing for Amendment to Zoning Ordnance: NC -1 District. Chairperson Erickson opened the public hearing with the PH FOR AMENDMENT standard remarks. Mr. Kelley presented the background TO ZONING ORDINANCE information contained in the staff memo. This proposed NC -1 DISTRICT new zoning district would straddle the gap created by the very restrictive NC district and the unrestricted RB district. It would be utilized on the periphery of residential neighborhoods where common street access makes it undesirable to allow the full range of RB uses, some of which generate significant volumes of traffic. Ms. Sterling questioned some of the setback requirements indicated on the proposed Performance Standards table. Mr. Kelley indicated that the proposed setback requirements for this NC -1 zone were a hybrid between the NC and RB requirements; upward or downward revisions could be made at the discretion of the Commission. It was generally agreed that the rear building setback be increased from 15 feet to 20 feet and that the maximum lot coverage be decreased from 30% to 25 %. Mr. Paul Scheunemann, speaking from the audience, asked what the permitted Accessory Uses would be. Mr. Kelley responded that these uses were the same in all commercial districts, covering such things as refuse enclosures, parking and loading spaces, telephone booths, etc. There being no further public comments, the hearing was closed by Chairperson Erickson. Since the following item to be considered is contingent upon the creation of an NC -1 category it has been requested that action be taken. 3 MOTION: of Thorberg, seconded by Cowling, to recommend approval of an amendment to the zoning ordinance creating an NC -1 zoning category as suggested, including the two changes to the Performance Standards table. VOTE: Yes, 6; No, 0. 7. Consideration of a Rezoning from NC to NC -l: 980 Carden View Drive. This rezoning request would change the zoning designation REZONING TO NC -1 of the vacant 7 -11 store on Garden View Drive to NC -1. VACANT 7 -11 This would provide for a wider range of over - the - counter retail and service uses. In particular, the petitioner desires to utilize the building for a dry cleaning operation with a small amount of leasable space. A petition with 25 signatures was presented to the Commission by a neighborhood resident, Ms. Kay Joyce. The petition asked that the property not be rezoned due to the potential of a greater number of permitted uses which could create more traffic, noise and litter. The petitioner, Mr. Ashwin Shah, stated that the restrictive covenants placed on the property by the current owner (Southland Corp.) would not allow a convenience grocery store; in conjunction with the restrictive NC zoning the property is rendered virtually unusable. Ms. Sterling asked about these covenants and Mr. Kelley stated that only the entity to which the covenants ran in favor to or a court order could remove them. Councilmember Humphrey stated that building was likely to remain vacant and in a poor condition unless the City does something. Ms. Joyce said that her greatest objection was the permitted use as a laundromat, which could be open late with no supervision; it could become a teenage gathering place. Mr. Thorberg asked if it was the intent to open a laundromat; Mr. Shah said no. Councilmember Humphrey suggested that laundromats be deleted from the permitted uses. Mr. Shah stated that the building is only 2000 sq. ft.; only about 500 sq. ft. would be leased to another business. Mr Scheunemann, speaking from the audience, said that this could set a precedent for other rezonings in the area; the adjacent church land is vacant and they might want to sell it and redevelop it. Mr. Shah stated that the church has expansion plans and is not interested in selling any property. Mr. Kleckner stated that a property owner can always request the City to rezone land; there are no absolute assurances about the future other than the process through which change will occur. MOTION: of Kleckner, seconded by Thorberg, to recommend approval of the rezoning to NC -1 as requested, subject to the deletion of laundromats from the list of permitted uses in item #6 preceding. VOTE: Yes, 6; No, 0. S. Consideration of Amendment to Zoning Ordinance: LB -1 District. Staff member McMonigal presented the information AMENDMENT TO contained in the memo. This proposed new zoning ZONING ORDINANCE category would provide for a limited business district LB -1 DISTRICT with the more intensive commercial uses deleted from the permitted use list; it would be a more appropriate zoning category for land in 4 close proximity to residential uses. Ms. McMonigal reviewed the differences between the LB and LB -1 permitted uses. Mr. Kleckner inquired as to whether the permitted uses had changed from those presented at the public hearing; there were none, although there had been some discussion on further limiting the maximum permitted height. MOTION: of Peterson, seconded by Thorberg, to recommend approval of an amendment to the zoning ordinance creating an LB -1 zoning category as proposed. DISCUSSION: Ms. Sterling asked if the maximum height should be changed; Mr. Peterson amended his motion to restrict the height to 30 feet, which was accepted by the second. VOTE: as amended - Yes, 6; No, 0. 9. Consideration of a Rezoning from R -lA to LB -1: Cedar Plaza Staff member McMonigal presented the information which REZONING TO LB -1 was contained in the memo. This rezoning proposal was CEDAR PLAZA instituted by the City in an attempt to better fit the Cedar Plaza development proposal into the southwest quadrant of Cedar Avenue and 140th Street West. A recap of the chain of events and public hearing comments was made. Ms. Gowling inquired of Councilmember Humphrey if the City Council felt that a limiting of permitted commercial uses would answer the concerns of the residents. Councilmember Humphrey stated that in listening to these concerns it appeared that the use of an LB -1 zone here and in other similar locations would be appropriate. Mr. Kelley stated that the City Council's suggestion of an LB -1 zone creation was an attempt to answer the quantifiable aspects of the residents' concerns by eliminating uses which would tend to generate greater volumes of traffic and have longer hours of operation. Ms. Sterling questioned how this use would fit with the surrounding uses indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. She expressed concern about rezoning Outlot A at this time and about future access to property along 140th Street W. Councilmember Humphrey reminded the Commission that their last recommendation was to rezone the property to LB, which was a more intensive use than LB -l. Mr. Kleckner asked what the property owner of the remaining land along 140th intended to develop it for. Mr Eaton stated that he would probably use it for a multiple residential use but had no specific plans at this time; access could be taken in combination with either the Pennock Place property or the Russell property, depending upon development plans and timing. Mr Heiberg said that they have tried to address all of these issues as part of review process; he doesn't know what else they can do and believes that they have been responsive. Mr. Stuebe, speaking from the audience, said that while the developer has met with the residents he does not feel that they have been successful in communicating their desires regarding the development of the property; he still opposes commercial use. Mr. Heiberg responded that he felt his project now adresses the concerns of the majority of the residents. 5 Ms. Sterling stated that the Granite Avenue alignment could be shifted to the east so that the right -of -way would be split 50/50 between Cedar Plaza and the Russell property. Mr. Heiberg stated that the portion of Granite which connects to 140th Street and provides additional access to the Russell property is being 100% dedicated and paid for by him and that this balances the 100% future dedication from the other property owner. MOTION: of Peterson, seconded by Thorberg, to recommend approval of a rezoning from R -lA to LB -1 for the proposed plat of Cedar Plaza. VOTE: Yes, 4; No, 2 (Gowling, Sterling). Mr. Stuebe , speaking from the audience, stated that he objected to the participation of Mr. Kleckner in the vote, believing that he has a conflict of interest due to his previous business dealings with Mr. Eaton. Chairperson Erickson requested that the record reflect that if Mr. Kleckner had abstained the vote would have been 3 to 2 in favor of the rezoning. Chairperson Erickson called a five minute recess. 10. Consideration of Preliminary Plat: Baribeau 1st Addition. PRELIMINARY PLAT Staff member McMonigal presented the information BARIBEAU ADDITION contained within the memo. This replat would serve to split an existing duplex building to provide for separate ownership of each dwelling unit. MOTION: of Thorberg, seconded by Peterson, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of Baribeau First Addition. VOTE: Yes 5; No, 0 (Kleckner not returned from recess). 11. Setback Variance for Garage: 8414 134th Street Court. SETBACK VARIANCE Staff member Kelley presented the information contained 8414 134th ST. CT. within the staff memo. This variance had been approved once before but had lapsed after one year when the garage addition was not constructed. MOTION: of Cowling, seconded by Thorberg, to recommend approval of a variance to construct to within 16 feet of the north lot line. VOTE: Yes, 6; No, 0. 12. Further Sketch Plan for Andy's Market Expansion. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Mr. Kelley presented the sketch plan, which indicated ANDY'S MARKET that the preferred building design for Andy's Market expansion would only fit upon the property if setback variances were approved on the north, south and west sides for parking. In addition, a cross - easement would have to be prepared for joint parking area use between the City (park) and the property owner. The general consensus was that a superior building design with much greater aesthetic appeal was preferred and that the Commission would look favorably upon the setback variance request. 13. Sketch Plan Review for Townhouse Project. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Ms. McMonigal presented the development proposal. FARQUAR HILLS Mr. Sohn Houston, the developer, wants to build a TOWNHOMES small townhome project in the Farquar Hills subdivision. The property is zones M -2 and this use would be permitted. The project would be oriented toward the "empty- nester" market and the units would contain upscale features to appeal to existing single family home owners; 1500 -1800 sq. ft. units, formal dining rooms, oversize kitchens, den /family room, workshops, 2 -car garages, overflow parking. The units would be stepped into the hill sloping up toward the park. Some passive solar design features could be utilized given the southern exposure. Price range of the units would be $125,000 - $160,000. Some encroachments from the park improvements exist on the property and would have to be removed. A public hearing would be necessary to replat the lots into townhouse lots; in the alternative, a condominium plat could be filed without a public hearing. Exterior building treatment has not yet been decided upon. 14. Small Lot Single Family Standards. SMALL LOT STANDARDS As a result of the discussion concerning the small lot single family proposal of Apple Ponds, staff was requested to investigate the small lot standards which adjacent communities are utilizing. Preliminary review of small lot projects indicates that 11.5% of the total single family lot count in Apple Valley is devoted to substandard lots. It has been suggested that 5% is a reasonable figure. It is hoped to devise a policy related to the minimum size and maximum amount of small lots for the City. Projects which have lots below these standards would only be permitted if innovative building and platting techniques are employed, such as true zero lot -line units, building line easements, staggered front setbacks, varied garage orientation, additional public /private amenities to compensate for reduced yard area, etc. A starting point for discussion of small lot standards has been prepared by the City's Planning Consultant. These suggested standards are as follows: 1. Interior lots - 70'x130' (9100 sq.ft.). 2. Corner lots 75'x130' (9750 sq.ft.), 3. No more than 25% of the lots in any subdivision shall be below the standard lot size (R -1C standards). MOTION: of Cowling, seconded by Thorberg, to adjourn at 11:00 p.m. VOTE: Yes, 6; No, 0. , Z ,4 -- , - SECRETARY , ►1