Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout081623 PC MINUTESCITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 16, 2023 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chair Kurtz at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Jodi Kurtz, Paul Scanlan, Keith Diekmann, David Schindler, Phil Mahowald, Becky Sandahl and Jeff Prewitt Member(s) Absent: None City staff members attending: City Planner Kathy Bodmer, Planner Alex Sharpe, Community Development Director Tim Benetti, Assistant City Engineer Evan Acosta, City Attorney Sharon Hills, and Department Assistant Breanna Vincent. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Kurtz asked if there were any changes to the agenda. – None. MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the agenda. Roll call vote: Ayes - 7 – Nays – 0. 3. CONSENT ITEMS A. Approval of Minutes of August 2, 2023 MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler, approving the minutes of August 2, 2023. Roll call vote: Ayes - 7 – Nays – 0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING None 5. LAND USE A. Eagle Pointe 2nd Addition Planner Bodmer provided a brief presentation. Chair Kurtz thanked Planner Bodmer for the further details and explanation concerning the addition of the units. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 2023 Page 2 of 6 Commissioner Sandahl also expressed appreciation for the additional information provided. Commissioner Scanlan asked if the variance was still being requested. Planner Bodmer stated that it has been dropped for now. It will be brought back at a later date if requested. Commissioner Prewitt asked if this still meets the zoning and comprehensive plan. Planner Bodmer stated that it does. MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved, seconded by Commissioner Sandahl, to recommend approval of a subdivision by preliminary plat to create a total of 30 villa and townhome units subject to conditions 1 through 10 in the staff report. Roll call vote: Ayes – 7 – Nays – 0. MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, to recommend approval of a site plan/building permit authorization to construct 30 villa and townhome units subject to conditions 1 through 9 in the staff report. Roll call vote: Ayes – 7 – Nays – 0. B. Frykman Impervious Coverage Variance Planner Bodmer provided a brief presentation. The Petitioner, Eric Frykman, provided a brief presentation. Assistant City Engineer Acosta provided some information on the City’s view of impervious surface and stated that pools are not considered pervious, as they take up space in the yard where water cannot infiltrate. Commissioner Scanlan asked if this variance would be premature and if the item should be looked at once the pool permit is remedied. Planner Bodmer stated that the Petitioners would like to move forward. City Attorney Hills stated that the issue with the pool decking is separate from the variance. Chair Kurtz asked if the City would approve something that is not what was initially approved. City Attorney Hills stated that when the applicants requested the pool permit, they were within the impervious surface coverage limits but when it was constructed, it was CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 2023 Page 3 of 6 significantly larger than what the plans showed. The applicants now want to build a third garage stall but have exceeded the impervious surface limit with the pool. Commissioner Schindler stated that if they would have come forward with the 38% coverage currently, they would have been able to use the mitigation methods to get it approved and within the 5%. Commissioner Schindler stated that as long as they can get the coverage within the 40%, the variance would not be needed. They may need to remove some of the pool surround or alter the driveway. He said he would not be comfortable with granting the variance. Commissioner Diekmann asked if they will need to do some type of mitigation regardless of if they build the three-car garage. Planner Bodmer stated yes. Commissioner Diekmann stated that he did not find any practical difficulty to allow the variance. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, to recommend denial of a variance to increase the impervious surface coverage from 35% to 42.2% to allow construction of a 12’x28’ third garage stall. Roll call vote: Ayes – 7 – Nays – 0. C. 12787 Dunham Way Impervious Surface Variance Planner Sharpe provided a brief presentation. Commissioner Diekmann asked when the shoreland overlay district was put in place. Planner Sharpe stated it was put in place prior to the home being constructed but may not have been enforced at that time. Chair Kurtz asked if the homeowners were aware of the zone when the home was purchased. Planner Sharpe said that he did not know. Commissioner Prewitt asked if a third-party engineer has been involved in reviewing the designs by the applicant. Planner Sharpe said there may have been a pool company involved but no third-party engineer. Even with mitigation, there is still concern since they are requesting to go a significant amount above. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 2023 Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Scanlan mentioned that Lake Farquar is under significant pressure in terms of water quality and a lot of time has been spent to ensure water runoff is being handled in other developments nearby. He stated that an engineering firm should look at the mitigation efforts proposed by the applicant to ensure it is something that will work. Commissioner Mahowald asked what mitigation methods are available when it comes to steep inclines. Planner Sharpe stated that he would defer to a third-party engineer rather than the City to come up with potential options for mitigation. Commissioner Mahowald said the basis for his question was that the neighbor’s property appears to be native vegetation and if an engineer could say that it would absorb and do what it is intended to do as opposed to a French drain. Planner Sharpe stated that the vegetation of the subject property is similar to the neighbor’s yard. The slope is severe on the subject property and the park is quite wet and the entire hillside vegetative. There are issues with the lake already on major rain events so the native vegetation is not doing all the treatment that it would need to do, but the City cannot state what would work. Commissioner Schindler stated that he is not in favor of a variance due to the high percentage increase. He asked if the mitigation methods for bypassing some of the impervious surface would be something that would need to be added from a code standpoint. Planner Sharpe stated that it would need to come forward as a variance by each individual person who wants to go over their allowance. Stormwater is unique in that it could possibly be mitigated as opposed to other variances like height or setback variances. The City already has the 5% provision in the other zones available for mitigation measures built-in. Commissioner Schindler asked if a homeowner comes forward with a design from an engineering firm that will increase rainwater treatment, they could go over the impervious surface allowance. Planner Sharpe said that for staff to bring a positive recommendation, they would need to see an improvement upon existing conditions not created by the applicant. Without that, staff would have difficulty providing a positive recommendation as the variance provisions state that the “plight of the applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the applicant”. The way that they could meet potentially meet that is through an engineered design. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes August 16, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Commissioner Schindler said that the next point would be whether the engineer’s design would be enough for Planning Commission to make a judgement call on if that will provide adequate mitigation. The other part is that impervious surface is not only about stormwater retention but also aesthetics and fitting in with the neighborhood. Commissioner Schindler asked if the 5% provision was done because that was what the City thought could be mitigated or was it based on an aesthetic reasoning. Planner Sharpe said that the 5% provision was just added in 2018 and was seen as a way of allowing homeowners to increase their impervious surface without needing to bring forward a significant number of variances before Planning Commission, but still achieving the goal of mitigating stormwater on site from a staff review process. Anything above the 5% would need a variance. Planner Bodmer affirmed that the 5% threshold was what staff was comfortable with. Commissioner Schindler said that without the engineering firm saying the mitigation methods will be sufficient, he did not recommend granting a variance. Commissioner Scanlan pointed out that it’s likely the homes in the area fall within the 25% impervious surface. Planner Sharpe said that would be fairly accurate for this neighborhood. A quarter to a third of the properties will be pushing that limit. The homes are from the 1980s and are larger homes likely closer to 30-35%. Commissioner Scanlan said that approving this variance could entice other properties to want to apply for variances as well and increase pressure on the lake and is not practical. Planner Sharpe stated that the 25% is easier to achieve on the largest zoning designation, R-1, it becomes more difficult in the smaller lots such as R-3. There are several properties that are close to their impervious surface coverage near the lake. Commissioner Prewitt expressed concerns with the request due to the DNR not supporting it as well as previous commentary on the negative water quality in the area and seems like this would be a high risk. Planner Sharpe stated that staff also struggles with the request which is why improvement upon existing conditions would be a mandatory piece. The Petitioner, Scott Mckague, was present and provided a brief presentation. Commissioner Mahowald asked if the calculations provided were done by the Petitioner.