Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/1987CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 18, 1987 Minutes of the meeting of the Apple Valley Planning Commission held Wednesday, March 18, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. at the Apple Valley City Hall. PRESENT: Chairperson Robert Erickson.; Commission Members Frank Kleckner, Phillip. Peterson, Virginia Sterling, Arleigh Thorberg (7 :35); Staff Members Rick Kelley, Meg McMonigal, Keith Gordon; sixty -eight members of the public. ABSENT: Marcia Gowling. 1. Chairperson Erickson called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. 2. Approval of Agenda. Mr. Kelley suggested that Item 13 a. Small Lot Single Family be added to the agenda for this evening's meeting. AGENDA MOTION: of Sterling, seconded by Kleckner, to approve the agenda as amended. VOTE: Yes, 4; No, 0. 3. Public Hearing for Rezoning in Planned Development #342 (Zone 2) and Preliminary Plat for 99 apartment units. PH REZONING LOCATION Southwest Corner of Pilot Knob Road & 142nd St. W. PD 1342 (Zone: PETITIONER Minnesota Financial Development Corp. PREL. PLAT FO] 99 APARTMENT Chair.. Erickson opened the Public Hearing- with the standard UNITS opening remarks with Mr. Kelley presenting the petition for Preliminary Plat and Rezoning Amendment to a PUD district to allow up to 99 multiple residential dwelling units in an area currently limited to 66 units. A. maximum of 66 multiple residential dwelling units could be constructed on this site utilizing a 3 -story building design with underground parking. An increase to 99 units as proposed would allow a density on the site equivalent to an M -3 zone, a full step below the City's highest density zone of M -4. The overall density of the entire Scottsbriar Planned Development is 5.1 dwelling units /acre, which is at the low end of the Comp. Plan range of 5 -12 units /acre. At the two informational meetings for neighborhood residents to explain the proposal (held by the developer), most residents indicated that they were not informed when they purchased their homes that this site was designated for a multiple residential use of such a density. Mr. Jim Klungas of Minn. Financial Development Corp. indicated they plan parking as close to Pilot Knob Rd, as possible with plans for buffering the area to minimize the impact of the buildings to the single family homes and landscaping around the ponding area. Ms. Sterling was told the two - bedroom units would rent for approximately $650.00 per month.Mr. Kleckner asked that since their original intention was for 66 units why the request for an increase to 99 units. The architect for the project indicated there could be 42% more green space with the use of 3 three -story buildings versus than the 66 units in a townhouse configuration. He indicated they are trying to deal sensitively with the site. Mr. Erickson indicated if 66 units were built, they could still be utilizing 3 -story buildings with underground parking. They woul be built as 99 separate parcels but utilized as apartments (rental units) and could later converted to condominiums if the market place indicated this as the PLANNING COMMIIISSION MINUTES March 18, 1987 Page 2 best alternative. Ms. Sterling indicated she is concerned about surface parking particularly in view of the additional units and the (additional) guests that would be visiting. No doubt they would utilize parking on the other streets with the possibility of conjested conditions. Mr. Thorberg was told a 5' berm with 8' evergreen trees would buffer the apartment units from the single family homes. In terms of traffic, comparing a 99 -unit apartment to a 66 -unit townhome proposal, 180 additional trips per day would be generated and there would be about six additional children. Chair Erickson expressed concern about the fact that this was a planned develop- ment which included apartment buildings (multiple) and persons on the Planning Commission voiced their concern that everyone who buys into the area know this information. But in fact Chair Erickson had many letters and there was a room filled with people indicating they had been lied to concerning multiple in this area. The representative from Brooke Park Realty indicated that they told the agents that sold the land that this particular area would be townhouses with sketch plans on their walls indicating this information. The agents were never told this would all be single family and he did not know what else they could hav done to prevent this type of situation. Chair Erickson indicated it adds credibility to the residents concerns that this number of people were told this would be a single- family developmen��RjM ethe Planned Development was approved multiple was indicated. The representative indicated they admonished their agents quite often to indicate to buyers this would be multiple residential on this parcel and they had maps with townhouse units indicated. At the two neighborhood meetings, the majority of the complaint were from persons who did not know it was zoned for multiple. Chair Erickson reiterated that the plan was approved from the beginning to includ the multiple residential. Jt Ms. Sterling went on the site and talked to four realtors and two builders— one/ told here there would be two -story town homes and the builders both said apartmen would be constructed. Mr. Erickson indicated he also talked to a realtor who tol him maybe there would be townhouses, but they were proposing apartments. Mr. Kleckner indicated he recalled when the proposal came in and was approved and if the intent was for apartments in that location, a row of townhouses next to the single family homes would be more appropriate; he could fully understand the concerns of the residents. Speaking from the Public: 1. Mr. Dennis L. Labs, 14383 Europa Ave., AV: listed his concerns -- safety of tb children walking with no sidewalks provided in the area; marketability of the units; increase of crime in the area; traffic volume; proposal rental rates o $600 rather than the Apple Valley norm of $400; apartments should be adjacent to townhomes to single family; and aesthetics of three story - apartment buildings over single family homes. 2. Mr. Richard J. Oswald, 5650 W. 144th St., AV: expressed concern over the fact that an area around LacLavon was rezoned from M -3 to RC -1 at the request of the developer so why couldn't this be rezoned at the request of the residents. He felt they were being asked to absorb the 18 outlots i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 18, 1987 Page 3 the developer was losing because of the Eastview Complex -- people are being dealt with, it is not a numbers game of allowing the developer more units- - 99 units would be too many. The comment regarding green space, indicated Mr. Oswald, is very deceiving. There will be at the very least 33 more car During his comments, Mr. Oswald made an erroneous remark regarding City Planner Kelley which Mr. Erickson clarified to him by saying that the agreement regarding LacLavon was between the City and the developer -- Mr. Kelley understands legally what the City agreed to-- that this rezoning was done at the request of the property owner. Each proposal, indicated Mr.. Erickson, is judged on its own merit. LacLavon was rezoned for less density, not an increased density - -a decrease in one area with an increase in another area within the same development. This particular proposal at Scottsbriar does not have a trade off area. The developer indicated that they sold the parcel that contained 18 lots for the Eastview Complex, but it is not required that the zoning be uped because of this and there never was such a trade off as Mr. Oswald alluded to. Mr. Kelley indicated that the park was acquired by the City which did decrease the total dwelling units in the entire development, but this did not predicate the request for the increase from 66 units to 99 units. Mr. Oswald stated that he did not want this zoning increase approved. Ms.. Sterling was told by the developer that the price he sells the land for does not matter regarding whether 66 or 99 units are built. Further comments by Mr. Oswald indicated some people were told townhouses would be built, some were told single family homes, but never had they been told three -story townhomes. Mr. Erickson expressed his understanding of their feelings, but said that the only option the Planning Commission has is to say whether 99 units would be feasible. Mr. Peterson commented that as Mr. Oswald indicated most homeowners expecte multiple in the form of townhomes rather than apartments. There are no sidewalks on Euclid Avenue which will cause safety problems with this many apartment dwellings. 3 . Ms. Felicia Broker, 14354 Europa Ave., AV: was told there would be only single family homes in this area. Ms. Broker had done extensive research regarding the different apartment units in Eagan, AV and presented her findings to the Commission. She questioned the high rents relative to services planned for, did not feel three story buildings were conducive to the terrain in that area, likes living in AV and feels this type of building could lead to the future degradation of the area. She would like to see two story (or lower) buildings going into the area. This would be an easy compromise. MS. BROKER FEELS VERY CHEATED ABOUT BEING LIED TO REGARDING THIS BEING AN ENTIRE AREA OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. Her main concern is the three story building; at the first meeting by the developer they were shown three 22 -unit story buildings with underground parking. 4. Mr. Chris Codine, 14821 Echo Way, AV: indicated at the second meeting they were shown two story buildings. Concern was voiced over increased traffic particularly in view of the location of the school and the convenience store just across the street. Ms. Charlotte Tompkins interjected her thoughts - -it would be a poor place to have that many children crossing the street; it is "our" tax money goin{ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 18, 1987 Page 4 for this and we have to "guess" if our children safely cross the street each day. With there being no sidewalks along Euclid, children would be walking in the street during snowy conditions. Chair Erickson indicated he, too, was concerned over the safety of the childr Also, comments made regarding upkeep of the apartments gi?d safety were addressed: the owners of the apartment buildings would /feet RR gfst h Weres and reports from the police department indicate that in AV the number of call from apartments is the same as in other areas. 5,. Mr. Robert Kennedy, 1417 Elmira Ct., AV: does not feel there is enough area for parking. There would probably be about 2 cars per unit which would not allow enough parking for guests resulting in parking on the street and in the school parking lot. Mr. Kelley indicated that based on City requirements, adequate parking is shown. Mr. Kennedy f elt it was probably adequate for 66 units, but not for 99. It was noted that the City Council could erect additional "No Parking" signs as needed. Mr. Kenney felt the ordinance should be changed before the parking problem becomes "real" as he expects; he was advised to gather statistics and provide this information to Staff with the proposal as to how he would want the ordinance changed. 6. Mr. Allen.Brunswold (and Ms. Cheryl Brunswold), 14342 Europa Ave., AV: commented that he wondered why access could not be off Pilot Knob Road because of safety. He is concerned about children crossing 142nd St. and having all that traffic coming across. Mr. Kelley commented that 142nd has a 30 mph speed limit as a collector street. He also asked about the safety of the pond with Mr. Gordon. commenting that it will usually be 3 -4' deep and in extreme conditions will rise up another 4'. There are over 100 of these ponds in the City and they are not fenced, but are built with gradually sloping sides to make them as safe as possible. Mr. Brunswold was told when they purchased their home it would be a single family development. It was explained to him why the City could not let this be rezoned below the 5 units per acre. The three entrances to the athletic field was discussed; probably 250 trips per day will be generated by this park facility.` 7, Mr. Kirk Bruso, 5678 W 142nd St., AV: indicated that his personal opinion of the proposal is that it is out of place in this location. With the emphasis made on berming /landscaping, it appears the developer is trying to cover up or hide something offensive. He asked how members of the Commission would feel with this large complex being proposed for their backyards. 8. Mr. Barry Calderwood, 14339 Euclid Ave., AV: commented on two -story building versus three - story units with the feeling there is no reason to erect 3 -story buildings when only 66 units would suffice; there is no reason to go to 99 un when the two story town home type of complex would be preferable. 9. Ms. Valerie Christopher, 14393 Europa Ave., AV: commented that the increase from 66 to 99 units would be 540 total trips per day plus the 250 trips per day resulting in park usage for a total of 790 trips per day in that area not including the school traffic, and other residential traffic. Mr. Kelley commented that as a collector street, 142nd is designed to handle PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 18, 1987 Page 5 about 3,000 trips per day. Ms. Charlotte Tompkins emotionally commented regarding the safety of their children walking to school. Mr. Kleckner said the road was constructed with a designated capacity and the concern may not be relative to what is seen in other parts of the City. Mr. Brunswold said that does not necessarily make it a safe situation. 10. Mr. Larry Gruseth, 5650 142nd St. W., AV: said that he was the first person to live in Scottsbriar and was told it would be a single family development in the entire area. The area of the new sports complex, he was told, would also be single family. If the cut were made from 99 to 66,one -th of the cars would also be cut. If parking is not adequately provided for, overflow parking will go into 142nd St,, or worse yet, the school parking lot. Eventually with this increased traffic, something will happen to the "peace of the community" or to one of its citizens. 11. Mr. Bob Hagan, 14330 Ebony, AV: if the Commission could prevent the developer from putting 99 units in the area, this is desirable. People would rather see two story townhomes, 66 units, rather than 3 -story units. Mr. Kenney commented these situations could be avoided if. original plans indicated a transition from apartments to townhomes to single family. He does not feel apartment buildings fit with the "rural atmosphere" of the area. Chair Erickson closed the Public Hearing with the standard closing remarks. 4. Public Hearing for Preliminary Plat of Commercial Property. LOCATION Between C. R. 1142 & 151st St. W., 283 ft. east of PH, PREL PLAT Galaxie Ave. COMMERCIAL PR PETITIONER C & D Properties. Chair Erickson opened the Public Hearing with the standard opening remarks. Mr. Kelley presented the preliminary plat to create 3 commercial lots sharing a common driveway. Phase 1 development would entail the construction of a motor vehicle tire /service facility upon Lot 1, Block 1. There are no intended uses for the other two lots at this time. No comments from the public were received; therefore, Chair Erickson closed the Public Hearing with the standard closing remarks. 5. Public Hearing for Rezoning to "R -1C" and Preliminary Plat-- Foster's Addition, LOCATION West Side of Galaxie Ave. at North City Limits. PH, REZONING PETITIONER Anthony Foster. R -1C & PREL. PLAT, FOSTER' Chair Erickson opened the Public Hearing with the standard ADDITION opening remarks. Ms. McMonigal presented the petition for rezoning from "A" to "R -1C" and Preliminary Plat for three single family lots. The area is planned for 1 -6 units per acre, but this plat shows slightly more than 1 -6 units per acre since the rugged topography prohibits the creation of any more lots. Mr.. Gordon explained utilities and driveway access (joint driveway between Lots 1 and 2 to Safari PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 18, 1987 Page 6 Circle with Lot 3 accessing off Safari Pass). Lot 1 has an 85' frontage on Galaxie Ave. Speaking from the Public: 1. Mr. Scott Erie, 4978 Safari Circle, Eagan: indicated he just wanted to learn what was going to be built in the area; it was explained that the homes would be within the covenants of the Safari Ct, area The gas company that will be utilized has not yet been decided. There were no additional comments from the Public; therefore, Chair Erickson closed the Public Hearing with the standard closing remarks. 6. Setback Variance for Garage Addition. LOCATION 5880 130th St. Ct. PETITIONER: Allen Pearson. SETBACK VAR. GARAGE ADD. Ms. McMonigal presented the petition for variance to frontyard setback requirements to add on to a garage; on the south side, a 4' variance is requested which would bring the garage 26 feet from the property line. Ms... -Sandy Pearson indicated they are updating their home and this addition would not be "sticking out.' There are no objections from the neighbors to the north and straight across the street. She will check with the neighbors to the south. Mr. Kleckner indicated it may be appropriate to have something in writing from the neighbors. MOTION: of Thorberg, seconded by Kleckner, to recommend the approval of the requested 4' setback variance to build on to the front of the existing garage with the reservation that when this request comes before the City Council written statements from the neighbors indicating there are no objections to this variance (particularly the neighbors on the north and south sides). VOTE: Yes, 5; No, 0. 7. Setback Variance for Garage. LOCATION 14335 Everest Ave. SETBACK VAR. PETITIONER C & S CONSTRUCTION. GARAGE Ms. McMonigal presented the request for a setback variance of one foot on the garage side of an existing house; when the garage was built a measurement mistake was made and the garage built 25' wide instead of the 24' garage planned. MOTION: of Thorberg, seconded by Peterson recommending that the request for a setback variance of one foot on the garage side of an existing house be granted. VOTE: Yes, 4 (Erickson, Kleckner, Peterson, Thorberg); No, 1 (Sterling) 8. Consideration of Preliminary Plat- -Meany Addition. LOCATION Northwest Corner of 135th St. & Garden View Drive. PREL. PLAT, PETITIONER: FRANCIS P. MEANY MEANY ADD. Ms. McMonigal presented the petition for consideration of Preliminary Plat to split a duplex lot for individual ownership- -this replatting would allow a "zero lot -line" duplex. Utility services would be split and separated for each PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 18, 1987 Page 7 MOTION: of Kleckner, seconded by Thorberg, recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat to split Lot 5, Block 4, Cobblestones 1 for individual ownership. VOTE: Yes, 5; No, 0. 9. Review of Environmental Assessment Worksheet -- Huntington. LOCATION Along Pilot Knob Road, Between C. R. 1138 & Diamond Path. REV., ENVIRON ASSESS. WORK- SHEET Mr. Kelley reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, Huntington. The only comment received to date relates to the potential increase of phosphorus content in Farquhar Lake from the increase amount of storm water run -off. 10. Consideration of Rezoning to "M -4 ". LOCATION Northeast Quadrant of Cedar Ave. and future 157th St. CONS. REZONIN PETITIONER City of Apple Valley. M -4. Mr. Kelley presented the consideration of "M -4" Rezoning for approximately 50 -acre parcel of land to an "M -4" high density multiple residential category generally located on the east side of Cedar Ave, between 155th St. West and future 157th St. West. This rezoning was instituted by the City in an attempt to provide for enough permitted density to make up for the loss of future dwelling units which would occur if the small lot "Apple Ponds " development were to be approved. MOTION: of Sterling, seconded by Thorberg, to TABLE consideration of the requested "M -4" rezoning until such time as the revised "Apple Ponds" development proposal is brought to the City. VOTE: Yes, 5; No, 0. 11. Sketch Plan for Single Family Development. LOCATION 7229 132nd Ave. West. PETITIONER Bill Coady. SKETCH PLAN SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Ms.McMonigal presented the Sketch Plan for a single family development of five acres. The cul -de -sac should be redesigned to the teardrop type the City now requires. Mr. Gordon commented that about a month ago sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water mains were ordered to run up to 132 and into 132 Street and also plans are now being developed for paving 132nd S Planning Commission Members commented that the plans look good! 12. Comprehensive Plan Update (verbal). Ms. McMonigal presented plans for preparing the Comprehsive Plan COMP. PLAN Uf DATE in two books - -1. Data and 2. Policies. Discussion followed on how the Planning Commission would like to pursue reviewing this: Ms. McMonigal suggested presenting the information along with the policies relating to this information and reviewing all the data. The idea is to produce a document that can be cross- referenced very quickly. It was decided the 4th or 5th Wednesday of each month would be a work meeting. Following is the meeting schedule for April, Ms. McMonigal indicated it is very important that all Commission Members be present for these meetings. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 18, 1987 Page 8 April 1 Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 7 *Senior Housing Study Meeting April 15 Regular Planning Commission Meeting April 29 Work Meeting -- Comprehensive Plan Update 13 a. Small Lot Single Family Mr. Kelley presented some of the requirements of SMALL LOT neighboring communities regarding lot size: SINGLE FAMILY Eagan, 8,000 sq. ft. with some 60 and 65' wide with 70' being the most generally acceptable. Burnsville, 8,000 sq. ft. area, 65' is allowed but no more than 35% of -the lots can be 65' wide in any one area; 80'width is the normal lot size. CHAIR ERICKSON COMMENTED ON THE NEED TO GET A SPECIFIC DOCUMENT IN PLACE REGARDING SMALL LOTS -- DEFINITE % OF CERTAIN SIZE, NO LOTS LESS THAN 65', SMALL LOTS WILL NOT BE STACKED. This item should be on the next Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. 14. ADJOURN. MOTION: of Sterling, seconded by Thorberg, to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m. VOTE: Yes, 5; No, 0. APPROVED SECRETARY t�