Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/2020 MinutesCITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Melander at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Chair Tom Melander, Tim Burke*, Keith Diekmann *, Jodi Kurtz, Paul Scanlan, and David Schindler. Member(s) Absent: None City staff members attending: City Attorney Sharon Hills, Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Planner Kathy Bodmer*, Planner/Meeting Organizer Alex Sharpe*. * Present via remote technology 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the agenda. CD Director Nordquist said yes to changes. Remove from "Consent" to "Land Use / Action Items": 3.13. Pennock Retail Center CUP, Site Plan and Building Permit Authorization, and Variance Extension to 5.B. due to requesting a change from six months to one year. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the move of 3.13. to 5.13. on the agenda. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays - 0. Chair Melander asked for approval of amended agenda. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the revised agenda. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays - 0. 3. CONSENT ITEMS MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the Consent Items of the agenda (minutes of the meeting of October 7, 2020). Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays — 0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - None 5. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Tempo Homes Residential Lot Split — PC20-09-SV CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 2020 Page 2 of 7 Planner Kathy Bodmer is requesting consideration of Subdivision by Preliminary Plat of existing parcel into two lots and variance from minimum lot width abutting right-of-way to create new lot for residential development. LOCATION: 12936 Galaxie Avenue PETITIONER: Property owner Tina Tran and petitioner Calvin Tran, Tempo Homes Bodmer presented information concerning the request from Tina Tran and Calvin Tran for two actions: 1) Subdivision by Preliminary Plat to split existing residential lot into two residential lots; and 2) Variance from §153.55 reducing lot width fronting a public street from 50' to 25.84'. The parcel is presently 33,175 square feet according to the county and is bounded by 3 streets: Galaxie Avenue on the west, Horace Court on the northeast, and 129th Street to the southeast. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the site for " LD", low density residential, with 3 — 6 units per acre. This proposal creates a density of less than 3 units per acre with 2.6 units an acre, which is lower than the comp plan designation requires. The comp plan has an acknowledgement in cases of in -fill development that densities of less than 3 units per acre may be needed due to mature trees, difficult topography or other difficult neighborhood characteristics. The proposed development does complies with the comp plan. The property lies within the "R3", single-family residential zoning district, with the minimum lot size of 11,000 square feet. The house on the subject parcel was constructed on a rural estate lot in the 1970s. In 1989, the owners, the Brown's, worked with their neighbors, the Fenner's, to subdivide their 2 large single-family parcels into 12 single-family lots — now the Browner Woods Subdivision. The Brown property home was encompassed within lot 3 and remained an oversized parcel being 3/4 acre in size. The Brown's, at the same time, petitioned the City to maintain their single gravel driveway out to Galaxy Avenue until such time the property was sold. The City agreed with that and approved. With the sale of the property to Tempo Homes, it is time to remove the gravel driveway from Galaxie and reconstruct a paved driveway either to Forest Court or 1291h Street. The Planning Commission reviewed the initial development plan at the public hearing held on August 19, 2020. That layout proposed a flag lot requiring significant grading and retaining walls. Utilities for one of the lots crossed over via the other. There were a number of concerns and issues related to that layout. Based on feedback received from the public hearing, the petitioner revised the layout of the subdivision. The layout was redone to create a more triangular shape. Parcel "A" on the west is proposed to have its driveway accessed to the northeast, Forest Court. Parcel "B" will gain its access or driveway connection on the east off of 129th Street. The lot areas remain very close to the original plan. Parcel "A" goes from 19,409 square feet to 19,841 square feet. Same with CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 2020 Page 3 of 7 Parcel "B", 13,756 square feet to 13,324 square feet. So it is very close to what was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will remember that the previous layout, the petitioner was looking to construct an attached garage onto the south -end of the garage then wanted to do a driveway and make the connection to 129th Street. This would have made a flag lot situation or a lot that had a very narrow connection to a public street. One of the things the Planning Commission asked was what the Fire Department felt about the layout. After the public hearing, we did make a point of talking to fire. At that time, they did not objector have an issue with the lot layout but they did note it was a very long driveway for Parcel "A". It was a concern but not an official concern. Based on feedback received, the petitioners revised the layout. By doing this orientation, they are able to maintain the current utility connections for the home on the west to Forest Court. All that is added is a driveway with minimal disturbance to the neighbors on the northeast. The driveway to the new home would be connected to the south. Utilities would be gained from the south to 129th Street. Most of the utilities are outside of the road bed, which will minimize disruptions to the adjacent neighborhood. One of the benefits from a public safety standpoint, the lot layouts are easier to understand so that will make it more efficient for the Fire Department and other safety needs. The remodel of the home originally added to the south. The revised plans, call for adding the garage onto the existing home on the northeast side of the home with the driveway going to the northeast. The site plan review authorization isn't required for single-family. This is information for the Planning Commission so you can see what the developer is thinking. These are images of the exterior of the new home. The exterior elevations gives the sense of what the petitioner is thinking of a modern design, which is his preference. He prefers developing in this style. The Original Tree Plan only showed tree removal for the western lot, which was a deficiency. At that time they identified 30 significant trees, 17 would be preserved, and 13 would be removed. Again, there was no way to evaluate the trees on the lot to the east. A Revised Tree Plan was submitted. Identified were 48 significant trees on both lots with 30 trees being preserved and 18 will be removed. More trees will be preserved. A natural resources management permit is required before any site disturbance, tree removal or land disturbing activity. The last thing the petitioner is requesting is a variance from the subdivision requirements. On § 153.55 Lot Dimensions states that lot dimensions should meet the minimum requirements of the zoning district but in any event should be no less than 50 feet in width. The western lot will meet that requirement but the eastern lot will get its frontage or its driveway connection will be to the southeast so they will need a variance for it is a reduction from 50 feet down to 25.84 feet. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 2020 Page 4 of 7 The issues include: 1) the existing gravel driveway must be removed from Galaxie Avenue and anew paved driveway constructed on Forest Court or 129th Street West; and 2) Subdivision cannot be accomplished without a variance, but variance helps minimize impacts to neighboring properties, removes flag lot and improves emergency access to the properties. With that Mr. Chair, staff is recommending approval of the development with the approval of the subdivision and variance with a number of conditions. These will be performance standards we will be reviewing in more detail as they move forward with the building and natural resources management permits. In terms of the variance, we are recommending approval of the variance so the property owners can place the second driveway on 129th Street which will help reduce impacts to neighboring properties. No construction or land disturbing activity may occur until assurance of a Natural Resources Management Permit (NRMP) or building permit has been issued. Then any other findings the committee may find. With that Mr. Chair, I'm happy to take any questions with there are any? Chair Melander asks if there are any question from the commissioners. Commissioner Burke — Could you speak to the 8 foot bituminous trail? I didn't know if there is a trail in the neighborhood. Response by Planner Kathy The bituminous trail is required on both sides of Galaxie Avenue. This development will be impacted on the east side. We have been taking escrows for the trail until we are able to work with adjacent property owners to pickup the missing segments. Right now they will be required to dedicate escrow then at such time the City is ready we will be constructing trails along Galaxie. CD Director Nordquist stated that handed out tonight with this agenda addition that Huett from the neighborhood had no objections to the site as the property shown. This was received yesterday and that one of the neighbors to the north did not have an objection to this proposal. Property developer Calvin Tran Property needed extensive remodeling and rehab to be on par with the neighborhood. Calvin stated that what was provided by Kathy is what they proposed. Ben Simon, 12987 Forest Court —I live to the east behind it. My concern are the trees. Kathy claimed that the new proposal takes out less trees but looking at the literature are all of the large trees that are being taken out. Looking at the house will be basically looking at each of the houses now. We never assumed the lots would be clear cut and we would be staring at two new houses. Response by property developer Calvin Tran We do have a Tree Plan in place but we do not have a landscaping plan in place where we expect to place the new trees. We do plan to keep both properties private. So we do plan to inject new taller trees around the perimeter to keep it secluded. The trees that are being taken out are for the driveway. There is just no way to exclude CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 2020 Page 5 of 7 those trees. Shane Myre, 12894 Forest Court — I live to the northeast. First, a couple times during the process we heard that there was a sale for the new property and lot. I continuously checked the current county property tax records. It has never been updated. No sale date and transaction price is zero. I wonder if the petitioner would provide information on the transaction date, price and what type of instrument was used to transfer the property to him so we could have that for the record. The second is I noticed there is a fence that goes right between the two parcels (A & B). I want to make sure how the property is going to be occupied or if parcel B is going to be owner occupied by the petitioner, put on the market, developed and sold or if it is going to kept and additional to their property. Response by property developer Calvin Tran Do I need to answer about the sale being that is part ofpublic record? Chair Melander (to Legal) requests clarification on answering that part of the question. Attorney Sharon Hill No not in respect to the sale or purchase issue. This is not a zoning issue. Chair Melander — So it seems to me that this split makes a lot more sense than the previous one of the flag lot. It is in accordance with the goals of the comprehensive plan to split the lot this way. I'd hate to lose that driveway to Galaxie which is problematic in several aspects. Property developer Calvin Tran Yes, we understood initially when purchasing that one driveway had to come off Forest. Chair Melander — Any other questions or comments. Commissioner Scanlon. Commissioner Scanlon — Mr. Chair this one is for Kathy. With the removal of the mature trees, is there anything as a requirement to replace some of those in some fashion? Kathy Yes, the natural resources management ordinance does not prohibit the removal of trees but when trees are removed they have to be replaced at 10 percent of the caliper inches removed. There were some more technical language about which trees were counted on that within the building pad. I rely on our natural resources staff on that but yes, they will need to replace at 10 percent of the caliper inches removed. Chair Melander — Thank you Kathy. Okay is the commission comfortable making a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moves to recommend the approval of Subdivision by Preliminary Plat to split existing residential lot into two residential lots in compliance with all city codes as the conditions outlined in staff's report, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays - 0. Commissioner Burke clarified discussion about the configuration of the lot split is a much better plan. MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moves to recommend the approval of variance from § 153.55 to reduce the minimal lot width of parcel B adjacent to the right away from 50' to 25.84' subject to conditions as outlined in staffs report, seconded by Commissioner Burke. Reason for the variance is based on the finding that the CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 2020 Page 6 of 7 variance allows the property owner to place the second driveway on 129th Street which will minimize impacts to neighboring properties. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays - 0. Chair Melander stated that the (Request for Variance) can move onto City Council, which is to be scheduled at a future date. B. Pennock Retail Center CUP, Site Plan and Bilding Permit Authorization and Variance Extension CD Director Nordquist stated that in the staff report there was a request for a six-month extension. A letter that was received late last week requested the extension be for one-year and not six months. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moves to recommend the approval of the extension of the application for six months, seconded by Commissioner Burke. Rollcall vote: Ayes -6—Nays-0. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moves to recommend the approval of the variance for the extension from six months to 12 months, seconded by Commissioner Burke. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays - 0. 6. OTHER BUSINESS A. Review of upcoming Schedule and other updates The next regular Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 4 at 7pm. The City Council meets Thursday, tomorrow, October 22 at 7:00pm. 7. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Melander asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan to adjourn the meeting at 8:29 p.m. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 7 - Nays - 0. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes Octol er 21, 2020 Page 7 of 7 Respectfully submitted, r11+01p IA^x7"U Tammy Bernatz, Planning Department Assistant Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commission ill on 12/2/2020 'Tom Melander, Chair