Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/07/1993PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CITY OF APPLE VALLEY April 7, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Alan Felkner called the Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 1993 to order at 730 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Members Present: Chairman Alan Felkner, Frank Blundetto, Jeannine Churchill, Jim Norris and Len Miller. Staff Present: Richard Kelley, Meg McMonigal, Scott Hickok, Keith Gordon, Dennis Miranowski, Annette Margarit and Dennis Welsch. Others Present: See the sign -in sheet. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A. The agenda was approved with the following corrections: Item 2B will be the introduction of new member, Len Miller. Item 4A will be previously identified Item 6B (Valley Middle School Addition). Item 4B will be previously identified Item 6C (Greenleaf Elementary School Portable Classrooms). Item 5A2 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Remove Temporary Sand and Gravel Designation) will be postponed and another hearing scheduled at a later date based on the applicant's request. With the above mentioned amendments, the motion to approve the agenda was approved unanimously. B. Introduction of New Planning Commission Member Len Miller Chairman Alan Felkner welcomed new Planning Commission Member Len Miller and invited him to participate fully in the meeting. Planning Commission Members introduced themselves. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 1993 Member Blundetto noted that on page 8 - paragraphs 2, 3, and 4; the minutes correctly read that he had abstained from the vote on the particular motion. 1 4. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: Member Norris moved, seconded by Member Edgeton to recommend approval of the building permit and site plan authorization for Valley Middle School Addition (PC93- 015 -B) as per the staff report. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Member Norris moved, seconded by Member Edgeton to recommend approval of building permit and site plan authorization for Greenleaf Elementary School Portable Classrooms (PC93- 014 -B) as per the staff report. The motion carried unanimously. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS Al. Continued Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning from "A" to SG ", and Conditional Use Permit for Sand & Gravel Mining on 300 Acres. LOCATION: South of County Road 42 along Pilot Knob Road PETITIONER: Fischer Sand and Aggregate Company (PC93- 006 -PZC) Chairman Alan Felkner reopened the continued public hearing on the Fischer Sand & Gravel request and asked the staff to provide a brief summary. He also asked the petitioner to be prepared to provide details regarding the request. He then planned to open the meeting for further public comment. Chairman Felkner noted that no decision will be made this evening by the Planning Commission. City Planner Richard Kelley provided a brief summary of the project and the past comments received by the Commission at their March 7, 1993 meeting. Tony Gleekel, an attorney representing Fischer Sand & Gravel, introduced consultants for the Fischer Sand & Gravel request: John Voss, Planner; Kristen Regina, Engineer, David Breslau, Sound Consultant; James Benshoof, Traffic Consultant; and Tom Smith, Williams Pipeline Representative. Mr. Gleekel explained that the conditional use permit terms and conditions, if approved, will regulate the applicant in the operation of a Sand & Gravel Mine. He noted that by comparison the current operation is under no condition or regulation but rather a court order. The proposal would mine only one 25 acre cell at a time under the terms of a conditional use permit. Each cell must be reclaimed before opening another cell. John Voss illustrated the 350 -400 acre existing Fischer operation and compared it with the proposed 292 acre site. He illustrated the residential development adjacent to the existing 400 acres, which began in the 1970's. Voss explained the central operation area and the mining of each 25 acre cell with a reclamation to occur prior to opening another 25 acre cell. Mr. Voss described the comprehensive plan requirements of closing areas north of County Road 42 as areas south of County Road 42 are opened. He stated that gravel is a regional resource, the next available areas are 50 miles further south. He suggested that gravel mining is a better development alternative for end uses because: A) It would provide more varied and expensive residential development such as Lac LaVon. 2 B) It would provide more amenities such as lakes and varied topography as shown in the final EIS Land Use Plan. C) It would allow for early development along County Road 42. D) It would provide for one planned unit development for a large area as per the final EIS Land Use Plan. He also described how the gravel operations will take land out of the development process, thereby reducing the needs for public services and schools. Mr. Voss described the operations, noting that only the gravel central processing area and Phase I would be active at any one time. The central gravel operations area will be connected via depressed conveyor in a trench under Pilot Knob Road to the northeast corner of the site. The conveyor would be recessed 30 feet in the ground and the conveyor trench would range from 140 to 200 feet in width. It would take one year to complete the trench, estimated to be the equivalent of 2 million cubic yards of material. It will take another year to arrive at the first mine face in the northeast corner of the site. Mining will be set back 300 feet from any property line until such time as the mining cell is reclaimed for other use, at which time the operator will mine up to 100 feet from the property line. Grading (not mining) will occur along County Road 42 first, and then the site will be reseeded for development. The first cell will be reduced in height from 970 to 930 feet above sea level. The mining operation will be no closer than 1000 feet from the Wensman addition and 1000 feet from Apple Valley East. It will be 800 feet from the nearest home in other areas. Kirstin Regina, Geologist and Civil Engineer with Sunde Engineering, representing Fischer Sand & Aggregate, stated that the geology of the area illustrates a prime gravel resource. She described the central processing area composed of 17 acres with crushers, washers a ready mix plant, and a scale building. In addition, two sedimentation ponds would be created which would have a two day sediment cycle. Water would be recycled through the second pond and used again for washing the material. A well is needed on the site. A Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriations Permit is necessary for the Fischer operation. The conveyor and haul road will use the same route to Pilot Knob Road and will have a 1% haul slope for the first 800 feet. Storm Water Management will be concentrated in the central processing area. Ponds there will hold runoff from the site as well as the wash water at a capacity of 25 acre feet. This capacity is for a 10 year, 24 hour storm. Diversion dams will be constructed to keep adjacent storm water from flowing into the central processing area. Mss Regina stated that the storm water management plan is consistent with the Dakota County surface water guidelines. John Voss described the screening of the site. He noted that the central operations area will be 1300 to 1500 feet north of County Road 42. A permanent berm will screen all of the operations with the exception of the ready -mix plant tower. Mining will be set back 600 feet from the Lebanon Cemetery with berms that are parallel with County Road 42. The berms will be 10 feet high earthen berms with a 6 foot high fence combined with landscaping. The mined area will be reclaimed prior to beginning a new mined area because stripping of the next mine cell will require removal of the topsoil and placement of the topsoil on adjacent mined out areas. The mined out areas will be revegetated immediately. 3 Kirstin Regina described the dust generation and dust control plans which include: 1) Strip the site as quickly as possible. 2) Create berms at a 2:1 slope and stabilize them with seed and mulch. 3) Strip only during the cooler months. 4) Limit the stripping to 20 acres or less. 5) Restore the site immediately. 6) Provide erosion control throughout the site. 7) Water the stockpiles above the berm lines on a weekly basis. 8) Pave the first 300 feet of the haul road. 9) Water the haul roads daily through the mining season. 10) Increase the watering of the haul roads as requested by the City. 11) Create a general depression for all mining operations that will reduce windblown dust. 12) Comply with the Minnesota PCA Air Quality Standards and obtain an Air Emissions Control Permit. 13) Remove organic topsoil which has the majority of allergic organic reactions and reduce the irritant sand which also creates a reaction. Regina submitted a letter of clarification regarding the difference between organic and inorganic dust from Doctor Mary Keating dated April 2, 1993 (attachment). Kirstin Regina and Tom Smith of Williams Pipeline described the pipeline contacts locally and in Tulsa. She stated the relocation would occur within 10 to 20 years and that a portion of the pipeline would have a tunnel under it to provide a culvert below the pipeline for conveyor systems. George Otey of Williams Pipeline provided a letter dated April 1, 1993, in which he described Williams Pipeline's interest in mining and pipeline realignment (attachment). Fischer's emergency response plan for an oil pipeline rupture was described by Regina as being 1) prevention and 2) contact with Williams on an immediate basis. Regina stated Fischer will adhere to the setbacks of Williams Pipeline easement. David Braslau, Noise Consultant for Fischer Sand & Aggregate, described the noise issues from the gravel and from the trucks. He stated the concerns of the noise impact could be mitigated primarily by keeping the trucks in commercial areas as much as possible and reducing night activity. He stated that the Fischer operation will not violate the Minnesota Noise Standards for daytime activity. The daytime activity is described as L10, the equivalent of 65 decibels and L50, the equivalent of 60 decibels. The L10 level of noise is exceeded 10% of the time. The L50 level of noise is exceeded 50% of the time. He explained recommended daytime setbacks and noted that County Road 46 is currently slightly below the Minnesota Noise Standards, whereas County Road 42 is slightly above the Minnesota Noise Standards. Jim Benshoof, Traffic Engineer Consultant for Fischer Sand & Gravel, reviewed the proposal for traffic management. He stated there will be no net increase in Fischer trucks since the Fischer operation would simply move from the north side of County Road 42 to the south side of County Road 42. He said the haul road would enter onto Pilot Knob Road and that the County Engineer has given preliminary approval to this location. Benshoof noted that the County Road system completely encircles this site. The trucks will use county roads almost exclusively except for deliveries in the local area. The Fischer operation will provide an active management of truck traffic. Eighty percent of the trips are controlled by Fischer dispatching. 0 The central dispatching monitors each route and each truck and chooses the route for the truck. Fischer central dispatch directs trucks to use County Road 42. The other 20% of the trips will be given maps and directions how to leave the site. Tony Gleekel described the property impacts and property values issues. He stated the final EIS statement described the Martin- Marietta quarry study in Maryland in which no detrimental decline in value of single family or multifamily areas was detected adjacent to quarries. The FEIS study for the Fischer area concluded that the Greenleaf addition and a control group 1/2 mile away had no appreciable change in value based on Fischer's existing mining operation. Gleekel also listed the landfills in Anoka County as another operation which was determined to have no detrimental impact. Chairman Felkner asked for clarification from Gleekel noting that the end use plan looks good but it is speculative and it assumes that all the property owners take part. He stated the City has accepted the FEIS but did not give it's blessing for the final end use plan. The project will go on for more than a few years as described by Mr. Gleekel. Felkner stated that 50 years of agriculture uses will not be continued on the site. There will be lawns installed on the site within that 50 years and comparisons with agriculture uses are inconsistent. Chairman Felkner asked for clarification from Tom Smith of Williams Pipeline regarding the width of easements along the proposed mining area. Smith responded that widths vary from 33 feet to 66 feet to 100 feet and ultimately to 200 feet. Felkner asked why there were surface regulations but no underground regulations. Smith responded that under Department of Transportation regulations, Williams Pipeline must control the surface and must inspect every 21 days. He stated that above ground and under ground rights may not be the same in all areas. Chairman Felkner asked for clarification regarding noise requirements in that a continuous concrete mix and pour operation in the evening would create significant noise. He asked if it would violate the nighttime noise standards. Member Blundetto asked what the easements around the pipeline are used for. Smith responded they are used for maintenance, emergencies and inspections. Member Norris asked for clarification regarding the timing of the phase out of operations north of County Road 42. John Voss responded that in the area north of County Road 42 there is just enough material remaining to cover the mined area up so that utilities could be installed on the site. City Engineer Keith Gordon stated that 15 feet of cover is necessary over the bedrock and that mining north of County Road 42 is currently at the bedrock. The concrete plant would have to be in use on the north side of County Road 42 as the operation moves to the south side of County Road 42. Member Blundetto asked the consultants for a list of definitions of terms used, including "move operation" -- does this mean the concrete plant would remain or move south, "processes" and "reclaim north of 42." Blundetto asked whether the area north of 42 will be reclaimed before the operator begins all mining in the area south of County Road 42. Chairman Felkner asked for clarification regarding the real estate study: what was the length of time between the beginning of the landfill or pit and the actual study. He stated there may be an impact immediately after the pit is begun but not after it has been in operation for a number of years. 5 Jeff Gorman, 6219 161st Street West, described his concern regarding property values and distributed a letter (no date, attached to Minutes) from Realtor Laurie King of Edina Realty in which she stated that property values would be impacted by gravel. Gorman stated that the Civil Engineers feel gravel is a valuable resource but that the people who live in the area are a more valuable resource. Robert Erickson, City Administrator of the City of Lakeville, distributed a booklet entitled "Request Evaluation of Sand and Aggregate" dated April 1993 completed by the City of Lakeville and its Planning and Sand & Gravel Consultants. He asked that the booklet be made part of the record (attachment). David Licht, Planning Consultant for the City of Lakeville, summarized the Lakeville report and described the business objectives, the City's Comprehensive Plan and the gravel areas north of County Road 42 to be retained. He stated that the summary of the report is to determine whether the City of Apple Valley wants to prolong mining in the City for 50 -60 years. Licht noted that 1/3 of the City of Apple Valley is undeveloped, and of that, 1/3 will be used for gravel mining. He noted that all parties to the consolidated end use have not been involved in the rezoning request. When all users are included, the gravel mining activity may extend 60 -100 years. Licht reviewed the MUSA Urban Services Allocation and potential relief to the Empire Treatment Plant. He noted that the end use plan states that the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Interceptor would be halted at County Road 46, thus depriving Apple Valley of sewer. Licht stated that the current plans by Fischer do not follow the final EIS in that the pipeline diversion will require approval of adjoining neighbors and that the pipeline will cost a minimum of $4 million to move. He also stated that the berming around the central processing plant is not on Fischer property and will involve adjoining properties. The screening of the Fischer plant would simply be done by stockpiles according to Licht. He stated the application as he reviewed it is not complete at this time. Roger Knutson, Lakeville City Attorney, stated that a City that issues a conditional use permit does not have much discretion in the issuance of the permit. However, the City has much more discretion in the change of a Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning since they are legislative in policy decisions made by the elected officials. They are rarely second guessed by the courts. He stated that the City can regulate nonconforming land uses such as pre- existing sand and gravel operations as has been proven in recent court cases in Chanhassen. Robert Erickson, Lakeville City Administrator, stated that the report distributed to the Planning Commission has been endorsed by the Lakeville City Council. He reminded the Planning Commission that 25% of the City of Lakeville population is just south of the proposed gravel area. Lakeville will place a value on the adjoining Lakeville residential properties and will hold Fischer Sand & Gravel accountable for lack of growth in property values. Chairman Felkner asked City Planner Rick Kelley to report to the Planning Commission whether the application is complete. Chairman Felkner described the City previous court cases regarding sand and gravel. Frank Curry, 14747 Endicott Way, President of the Valley Way Village Homeowners Association, expressed concern regarding dust and allergies in the area and stated the land in question should be used for residential or small business uses. He also expressed concern regarding reduced safety on local streets because of gravel trucks and safety issues near schools. E Debra Mull, 14877 Lower Endicott Way, stated that air irritants and diesel fumes do cause allergic reactions. She supplied a letter dated April 7, 1993 from Dr. Ken Pallas (attachment). Mr. Mull, 14877 Lower Endicott Way, stated that in his review of the site plan, the pipeline would have to ultimately go through the middle of a proposed lake and that the gravel mining would have to shift in order to accommodate the pipeline and the lake. He asked that the Planning Commission allow the operators to complete what is currently open and leave town -- not open additional areas. Nancy Farancik, 14898 Endicott Way, provided letters from a doctor to be added to the record regarding air quality and noise. She also described the noise currently received in the Endicott Way area from the Model Stone operations one mile to the south. She asked the Commission to consider a written value guarantee from the operator. Larry Howe, 14850 Lower Endicott Way, asked for clarification regarding the frequency of noise. He stated that low frequency heavy equipment noise will be very difficult to stop. He also expressed concern regarding carbon monoxide levels at Pilot Knob Road and County Road 42, as well as the wind patterns from the sand & gravel operations. Chairman Felkner declared a 10 minute recess. Chairman Felkner reconvened the meeting and asked for questions from the Planning Commission. Member Len Miller asked Civil Engineer Regina to describe in more specific details the impacts. Rather than using "if and may," it may be more appropriate to use the words "shall or must or will." Kurt Simmons, 6129 161st Street, asked for clarification regarding the FEIS. He handed out a citation from the FEIS, referring to page 683 of the Occupational Health Journal in which a quote was taken out of context. He stated that on page 681 of the same article, quartz and mining are considered irritants. Brian Sullivan, 13629 Findlay Avenue, stated there is airborne dust from the trucks and that the sifting of aggregates will add to the dust level. He stated that neighbors have moved from the area because of the Fischer Sand & Gravel pits and the dust. Jason McCuen, 6039 Lower 161st Street, stated that he was opposed to the pit because there were no benefits to the community. He stated that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (from Speck). He also provided a petition from the Valley Park Addition in opposition to the gravel operation and support of a boycott of Apple Valley businesses. Member Edgeton asked why Apple Valley retail businesses should be held responsible for gravel mining. Bob Johnson, 6321 W. 162nd Street, asked for more detail regarding the watering of dust. He noted that in one hour on a hot summer day the effects of watering are eliminated. He also expressed concern about the use of trucks to haul in raw cement for use in the concrete plant. He stated that the concrete plant will be in operation from 5:00 am. to 9:00 pm. and sometimes on a 24 hour basis, which would exceed the noise standards. Carl Forsberg, 16409 Garcia Lane, a member of the Lakeville Planning Commission, asked for the Commission to consider what is voluntary versus what is required compliance. 7 He asked the Commission to make certain that a contractual agreement is completed and that some method of compensation for medical problems, wells, and property values is included. He also expressed concern regarding energy differences and the continued levels of noise. He stated if the Commission is to make a decision, it should err on the side of the City and its residents. Chuck Trumaine, 14930 Echo Lane, explained that Fischer's past record has been poor. He expressed concern regarding pipeline location and the cost to be borne by Fischer, not the City. He opposed placing the pipeline adjacent to County Road 42. He felt there had been no firm commitment from Fischer. Robert Weiler, 6111 161st Street West, stated that the Fischer property is the only land of the proposed FEIS which is being considered and that the central operating plant is not central to the remaining operations. He asked for clarification regarding how long it will take for the 90 foot processing tower to be placed at its lowest level. He was opposed to using County Road 46 as a truck route. He questioned the accuracy of the Martin - Marietta Study. He explained that a 10 decibel change will change volume 100 %a Jay Davis, Apple Valley -Apple Ponds resident, expressed concern with the beautification of the community. Rich Herview, 16005 Excel Way, Lakeville, expressed concern regarding Fischer's control of water and how it would be controlled in Lakeville. He also expressed concerns regarding prevailing winds. He stated that Apple Valley needs to hear from Lakeville resident experts. He stated that Lac LaVon would not have been completed without the use of lawsuits. Carl Forsberg stated that he would boycott Apple Valley businesses to demonstrate frustration with the Planning Commission and City Council actions. Steve Oxley, 16235 Fairgreen Avenue, asked why gravel trucks make deliveries in residential areas along County Road 46. Chairman Alan Felkner closed the public hearing and took a 10 minute recess Members of the audience turned in written comments regarding the sand and gravel operation. Mr. Allen and Mr. Moeller, who were part of the audience, described on a map that their properties, according to the EIS, are currently owned by Fischer. They stated Fischer does not own or control their properties. Another citizen submitted notes in which he asked that the Planning Commission consider covering the conveyors to reduce the amount of noise and dust or utilize a water slurry system. He also asked the Commission to consider sealed water ponds in order to create better water storage and recycling and reduction in groundwater pollution. 5B. Comprehensive Plan, Rezoning from "RB" to "GB" or "GB -1" and Site Plan and Building Permit Authorization for an Office/Warehouse LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Pennock Avenue & 146th Street West PETITIONER: Seeland Property Company (PC93- 001 -PZS) Chairman Alan Felkner opened the public hearing and asked the City Staff to provide a background report. City Planner Richard Kelley provided a background report in which he E;1 reviewed the existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning for the site and the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning for the 2.2 acre site which is surrounded on three sides by roads. Kelley also explained the existing uses in the area and noted that the proposed use is office salesroom warehousing. He also described the project as being reduced in size from previous approaches and parking access reorganized to provide access on all three streets. Through the joint Planning and City Staff review of the project, joint driveways on the south side would provide safer access to this project and the Granada Fourth Addition retail building to the south. Kelley recommended that screening be placed along the south side of the project in order to reduce the visual impact of loading areas, and that the exterior of the buildings be brick, designed in such a manner to reflect the retail character of the area. Member Norris asked if the exterior of the building would still retain a glass and street front appearance. Staff responded it would. Tom Baker, representing Seeland Properties, stated the applicant is asking for the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning changes, but not for site plan or building permit approval at this time. City Planner Kelley responded that the Commission should see the building and the site plan to approve the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Baker stated that he needed the zoning in place in order to get tenants to commit to the site. After commitments from the tenants he will be able to acquire financing for the project. Member Edgeton asked if the Commission could approve the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning but still address the site plan and building permit issues at a later date. Brad Johnson, owner of the Granada Fourth Addition Retail Center, which is located directly south of the site, explained the tenants concerns for this project. He stated that the docking which faces the south does not have a retail appearance and encouraged the Commission to review exterior finishes before approving the project. He stated he was opposed to the project as presented. Member Miller clarified the exterior finishes of this proposed project and the adjacent R'berry's project. Member Edgeton commented that semi's that load and unload in the downtown are frequently visible along 147th Street in the area surrounding this project and Mr. Johnson's property. Chairman Felkner asked City Planner Kelley to discuss the details of the project with Mr. Johnson at a future date. There was no further public comment. Chairman Felkner closed the public hearing. No action was taken. Chairman Felkner skipped Items 5C & 5D to describe Item 6A. 6. LAND USE /ACTION ITEMS A. Building Permit and Site Plan Authorization for Best Buy Store LOCATION: 15300 Cedar Avenue adjacent to Target Greatland PETITIONER: Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. (PC93- 018 -B) Community Development Director Dennis Welsch provided a background report regarding the Best Buy proposal to construct a 36,000 square foot building located on three acres directly E adjacent to the south edge of the Target Greatland complex within the Southport Centre project. Welsch reviewed the parking, landscaping, signage, frontage, walkways from 153rd Street, Tax Increment Financing Agreement, and architecture for the site. In addition, the project will require a subdivision of land. He recommended that the Planning Commission provide additional direction and allow the developer and the staff to complete the details before appearing at the next Planning Commission meeting. William McHale, Vice President of Ryan Construction, provided background details regarding the site planning and architecture of the Best Buy proposal. He stated he will work with Staff and appear again at the next Planning Commission meeting with final details. A general discussion ensued regarding signage on the site. Mr. McHale will work with the Planning Staff to resolve the allowable signage for the Best Buy operation and potential additional stores south of Best Buy. No action was taken. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Sketch Plan Review - Single Family Residential Development LOCATION: Northeast Corner of Pilot Knob Road and 140th Street PETITIONER: Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc. Associate Planner Meg McMonigal provided a background report in which she reviewed the 75 acre proposal to create 135 single family housing lots located at the northeast corner of 140th Street and Pilot Knob Road. The developer is Lundgren Brothers Construction. She noted that the land uses in the area allow for low and moderate density residential uses. The medium density designation on the Comprehensive Plan surrounds the corner of the site. The current zoning on the site is agriculture. A change in the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning is required for this project. She described the alignment of the road system and the spacing of entrances onto existing roads. Brian Olson, Director of Land Development for Lundgren Brothers, reviewed the road systems, sanitary sewers, vegetation, steep slopes, wetlands, and adjoining neighbors. He stated the proposed plan would have two entries, cul -de -sacs in the wooded areas to protect the woodlands, avoidance of construction on steep slopes, 1.3 acres of parkland to be added to the Summerfield Park, a private recreation area to include tennis courts, outlots to allow for a more distinguished area surrounding the main entrances, and lot widths that vary from 100 feet in the woods to 75 feet in the non- wooded area. Member Blundetto asked for clarification from the Assistant Public Works Director Dennis Miranowski regarding maintenance and snow plow removal problems. Mr. Miranowski stated that this project is no different than the Heritage Hills development. Member Blundetto asked for clarification regarding homeowners associations and the experience the City has had with such organizations. City Planner Kelley responded that in the past the City has had problems with homeowners associations in single family areas wherein the associations request the City to take over common areas and maintain them. Chairman Felkner asked whether the change from multifamily as designated on the Comprehensive Plan will impact the remainder of the City's comprehensive housing plan. W Associate Planner McMonigal described the housing plan as being 67% single family within the City. Currently there are 345 single family housing units undeveloped within the community. There are currently 300 housing unit sites being actively marketed in the community. She explained the differences between the higher density near the intersection of 140th and Pilot Knob Road and the lower density higher value homes to the northeast on the same site. Mr. Olson stated the market for this project would be upper end buyers. He stated that the inventory of available lots in the City in 1990 was 900. Today the inventory is 300 or less, indicating a lack of diversity in single family lots. Member Blundetto stated that this higher end of housing may add diversity to a housing stock which is primarily middle income housing. Member Edgeton commented on the number of cul -de -sacs in the project. Mr. Olson stated that Lundgren Brothers will hold neighborhood meetings with adjoining property owners to discuss the project prior to returning to the Planning Commission for public hearings and action on the issue. No action was taken on this issue. 5C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Storm Water Policies (PC93 -007- C) LOCATION: Throughout City of Apple Valley PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley Chairman Alan Felkner opened the public hearing and requested the City Staff to provide a background report on the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Utility Chapter Section regarding water quality policies. City Planner Rick Kelley described the NURP Standards for all new storm water pond construction. He also described the MPCA urban "Best Management Practices" for erosion control during site development. Kelley also described the City's commitment to revise shoreland zoning standards consistent with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources guidelines as required in the future. The implementations standards necessary to complete these water quality policies will include a storm water management plan conforming with the Vermilion and the Black Dog Water Management Organization plans including NURP and MPCA. They will also require a resolution revising the land use ordinances to reflect NURP and MPCA Standards by June 1, 1993. Chairman Felkner asked for comment from the Commission and the public. There was none. Chairman Alan Felkner closed the public hearing. MOTION: Member Churchill moved, seconded by Member Blundetto to adopt the Storm Water Policies Amendment to the City Comprehensive Plan as provided by the City Staff. The motion carried unanimously. 11 5D. Comprehensive Plan Amendment - City Profile PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley (PC93- 017 -P) Chairman Alan Felkner opened the public hearing and asked the Planning Staff to provide a background review regarding the profile amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Associate Planner McMonigal provided a background review of the profile as a non - policy portion of the plan. She described the demographics and statistical background for the plan. Chairman Felkner asked for comment from the Commission and the public. There was none. Chairman Felkner asked the Planning Staff to complete typographic changes and submit the plan for approval at the next Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Felkner closed the public hearing. No further action was taken. 7B. Sign Ordinance Revision City Planner Rick Kelley provided a background verbal report regarding a ground sign amendment to the City Sign Code. He referred to the Burnet building wherein two ground signs were requested in lieu of signage attached to the building face. An amendment will be submitted to the City Council in the near future to correct this problem. 7C. Establish Public Hearing for the 1994 -2000 Capital Improvements Plan MOTION: Member Churchill moved, seconded by Member Norris to establish a Planning Commission Public Hearing to review the 1994 -2000 Capital Improvements Plan on Wednesday, May 12, 1993 in the City Council Chambers beginning at 730 p.m. The motion carried unanimously. S. OTHER BUSINESS A. SET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR MAY 12 1993 By consensus of the Planning Commission, the Commission agreed to establish May 12th as the first Planning Commission meeting of the month of May. The second meeting will be on May 19, 1993. B. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING The Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee has requested quarterly meetings with the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Planning Commission Chairman and the Chairperson from the Committee will coordinate meeting dates with the Mayor and City Council and invite the Planning Commission to attend. 12 C. CITY REORGANIZATION Chairman Alan Felkner asked the Planning Staff to provide information on the proposed reorganization of the City Staff and departments. The Staff was requested to invite City Council members to attend a brief informal meeting beginning at 7:15 pm. on April 21, 1993 to discuss the reorganization and the impact it may have on the Planning Commission. D. OTHER BUSINESS Member Norris asked the Planning Staff to review the comments from the public hearing held tonight and to provide a list of questions with answers received from both the public and the applicants. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:37 a.m. `Kj