CITY OF APPLE VALLEY

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

NOVEMBER 14, 2001

1.    CALL TO ORDER

       The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Karen Edgeton at 7:00 p.m.

       Members Present: Tim Burke, David Schindler, Karen Edgeton, Tom Melander (arrived at 7:09), Jeannine Churchill, Jim Hadley

       Members Absent: John Bergman

       Staff Present: City Engineer Keith Gordon, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer, Assistant Planner Margaret Milton Dykes, Community Development Director Rick Kelley, City Planner Tom Lovelace

2.    APPROVAL OF AGENDA

       MOTION:  Burke moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the agenda with item 6B being moved to the consent agenda as item 4B.  The motion carried 5-0.

3.    APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 17, 2001 MINUTES

       MOTION:  Hadley moved, seconded by Churchill, to approve the minutes as presented.  The motion carried 5-0.

4.    CONSENT ITEMS

       A. Side Yard Setback Variance for House Addition at 13257 Findlay Court

       B. Rear Yard Setback Variance for House Addition at 7291 Upper 136th Street

       MOTION:  Burke moved, seconded by Churchill, to recommend approval of the consent agenda.  Motion carried 5-0.

      

5.    PUBLIC HEARINGS

       A. Amend Fence Performance Standards

       Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. with the standard remarks.

       Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer introduced the item as noted in the city attorney's memo.  The amendment to the performance standards would clarify acceptable construction materials and maintenance standards.

       There being no other comments, Edgeton closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m.

       MOTION:  Hadley moved, seconded by Burke, to recommend approval of the fence regulations ordinance amendment.  Motion carried 5-0.

6.    LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS

       A. Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Display

       Assistant Planner Margaret Milton Dykes explained the request

       Commissioner Melander arrived at 7:09 p.m.

       Churchill expressed concern with using the west side as a display area, even if it is fenced.  She stated there might be problems if the roadway is not clearly designated as one way and signed for pickup and drop-off.

       The Commission discussed details of the proposed fencing and gate, as well as merchandise to be displayed.

       Gordy Schmitz of Greystone Construction, representing the petitioner, explained that they went with a solid fence as a compromise and have created an internal access to the sales floor from the west side.  Schmitz stated his understanding that if storage occurred, a roof structure would be needed.  If there is a problem with temporary storage of repaired items, the petitioner agrees to display only new and used items for sale in the proposed display area.

       Melander asked about air circulation where engines are being started.  Schmitz replied that a new exhaust system was put in the repair area to address that concern.

       Hadley clarified that wrought iron fencing of the west side display area would be acceptable if only items for sale were displayed there.  Comments by Edgeton and Churchill reflected the importance of something that would lend itself to clear view by the city's code enforcement personnel.

       MOTION:  Churchill moved, seconded by Hadley, to recommend approval of a conditional use permit for two outdoor display areas as shown on the submitted site plan for Ace Hardware with the following conditions:  (a) finished retail merchandise only shall be displayed in the fenced-in outdoor display areas, except where permitted by special outdoor display permit, such as sidewalk sales.  All retail merchandise shall be neatly arranged within the display areas, and any shelves used to display merchandise shall be constructed in an attractive, workman-like manner; (b) the outdoor display areas specifically shall not be used for storage of items left for repair or pickup; (c) fence material for display areas shall be wrought iron or a similar maintenance-free material; (d) traffic flow shall be clearly marked around the building as one way.  Motion carried 6-0.

       B. Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization for Ruby Tuesday Restaurant at Fischer Market Place

       City Planner Tom Lovelace introduced the item.  He reviewed the overall site plan that was originally approved and noted this request includes slight modifications to the site plan and building elevations.

       Edgeton asked if the small plaza for Restaurants C and D is being sacrificed to make this change.  Lovelace answered that the plaza still exists but in a different configuration.

       Lovelace went on to mention possible enhancements to the building.

       Chuck Freiberg of RSP Architects, the petitioner, stated their willingness to work with staff to finalize the building enhancements.  He noted that a column was missing on the elevations that were submitted.

       MOTION:  Melander moved, seconded by Churchill, to recommend approval of the site plan/building permit authorization to allow for construction of a 4,929 s.f.  Restaurant on Outlot D of Fischer Market Place, subject to the following two conditions:  (1) approval shall be contingent upon the approval and recording of the Fischer market Place 7th Addition final plat; and (2) additional architectural enhancements shall be incorporated into the east and south elevations of the building to the satisfaction of City staff.  Motion carried 6-0.

7.    OTHER BUSINESS 

       A. Small Area Plan for Vacant Property at Galaxie Avenue and 153rd Street

       Lovelace spoke of the location and goals of the Small Area Plan. 

       Melander asked about the limits of the city's authority, and whether the landowner was on board with the concept.  Lovelace replied that the landlord is a participant.

       B. Legacy of Apple Valley

       Lovelace introduced the item. 

       Burke asked why this was being looked at while the Small Area Plan is pending, since it falls within that area.  Lovelace explained that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet is required and will take some time.  Regardless of the timing issues, any proposal would have to incorporate the standards adopted through the Small Area Plan and succeeding ordinances.

       Bill Griffith of Hartford Development introduced himself and other members of his team.  He stated his belief that planning for this site can run concurrently with the Small Area Plan.  Griffith pointed out the pedestrian walkways and water features.  Greenspace is significant because of the incorporation of underground parking.  He went on to say that receiving goods in the commercial area offers a design challenge, but that smaller trucks with more frequent deliveries are becoming more common. 

       Griffith described the residential components also.  Senior housing with common amenities is included, as well as rental spaces of both apartments and two-story townhouse style units.  Executive office suites are included in the townhouse style rental units as well.  Approximately 20% of rental units would be set aside for key worker housing.  Hartford has talked to the Dakota County Community Development Agency and the Economic Development Authority, and would request tax increment financing.

       Concerns expressed by the Commission included: long rows of owner-occupied townhomes; retail elevations don't reflect potential of second-story residential or office; retail design doesn't seem to match the residential architecture.

       Elizabeth Kautz of Hartford explained that a series of rectangles provides the best utilization of land, and that traffic was considered in designing the dead-end streets and access points to both the residential and commercial sectors of the development.  Griffith noted that the evolution of the commercial buildings would depend on the retail partners.

       C. Hawthorne Greenes

       Bodmer described the concept proposed.  She noted that most of the fire calls are garage or vehicle fires, according to the Apple Valley Fire Department, so alley access to the garages must meet with the Fire Marshal's approval.

       Larry Frank of Arcon Development stated that Arcon would function as site manager, while Ryland would serve as builder and developer.

       Chris Enger with Ryland described the proposed new urban village concept as a walking community oriented toward front doors.  The single-family homes are 22 feet wide.  Six neighborhoods are identified, being careful to limit the number of units in the townhome buildings.  Enger went on to say that every home has a sidewalk in front of it.

       Concerns and questions offered by the Planning Commission included: looks too busy and too congested; community area not centrally located; parking on one side of the street may be inadequate; whether enough room for snow storage; dead-end alleys; need more diversity of housing designs with such a large number of units; not enough greenspace and yard space for children to play; would welcome another housing type; like the combination of single family and townhomes. 

8.    ADJOURNMENT

       MOTION:  Melander moved, seconded by Churchill, to adjourn the meeting.  Motion carried 6-0.  The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m.