HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/04/2019•••
••••
Apple II
Valley
Meeting Location: Municipal Center
7100 147th Street West
Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124
September 4, 2019
PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE AGENDA
7:00 PM
1. Call to Order
2. Approve Agenda
3. Approve Consent Agenda Items
Consent Agenda Items are considered routine and will be enacted with a
single motion, without discussion, unless a commissioner or citizen requests
to have any item separately considered. It will then be moved to the land
use/action items for consideration.
A. Approve Minutes of August 7, 2019, Regular Meeting
4. Public Hearings
A. Amendments to Sections 155.075 and 155.076 of Chapter 155 of the City
Code Regulating Uses in the Multiple -Family Residential Zoning Districts
- PC 19-14-Z
Consider Ordinance Amendments to Sections 155.075 (Purpose) and
155.076 (Permitted Uses) in the Multiple -Family Residential District to
Allow Townhouse Dwelling Units in the M-7 Zoning District
Location: Citywide
Petitioner: City of Apple Valley
B. Pennock Center - PC19-13-CVB
1. Conditional Use Permit for a Drive -Through in Association with a
Class III Restaurant
2. Parking Set -Back Variances on West, North and East Sides
3. Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization for Approximately 6,100
Sq. Ft. Building
Location: 7668 - 150th Street W
Petitioner: Java Capital Partners, LLC
5. Land Use / Action Items
6. Other Business
A. Review of Upcoming Schedule and Other Updates
Next Planning Commission Meeting - Wednesday, September 18, 2019 -
7:00 p.m.
Next City Council Meeting - Thursday, September 12, 2019 - 7:00 p.m.
7. Adjourn
Regular meetings are broadcast, live, on Charter Communications Cable Channel
180 and on the City's website at www.cityofapplevalley.org
l
App Valil
ley
ITEM:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
SECTION:
3.A.
September 4, 2019
Consent Agenda
Description:
Approve Minutes of August 7, 2019, Regular Meeting
Staff Contact:
Joan Murphy, Department Assistant
Department / Division:
Community Development Department
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve minutes of regular meeting of August 7, 2019.
SUMMARY:
The minutes of the last regular Planning Commission meeting are attached for your review
and approval.
BACKGROUND:
State statute requires the creation and preservation of meeting minutes which document the
official actions and proceedings of public governing bodies.
BUDGET IMPACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 7, 2019
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: Tom Melander, Ken Alwin, Tim Burke, Keith Diekmann, Jodi Kurtz, Paul
Scanlan and David Schindler.
Members Absent:
Staff Present: City Attorney Sharon Hills, City Engineer Brandon Anderson, Community
Development Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace and Department
Assistant Joan Murphy.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the agenda.
MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, approving the
agenda. Ayes - 7 - Nays - 0.
3. CONSENT ITEMS
MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the
minutes of the meeting of July 17, 2019. Ayes - 7 - Nays - 0.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
-NONE-
5. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS
A. Apple Valley Golf Course Comprehensive Plan Amendment — PC19-09-P
City Planner Tom Lovelace stated Mr. Joel Watrud, the owner of the Apple Valley Golf Course
located at 8661 140th Street West, is requesting the following amendments to the City's
Comprehensive Land Use Map:
1. Re -designate .5 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density Residential)
2. Re -designate 14.5 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential)
3. Re -designate 8 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "HD" (High Density Residential)
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
August 7, 2019
Page 2 of 5
The 23 -acre golf course property is located at the northwest corner of 140th Street West and Garden
View Drive. Adjacent uses include single-family residential to the north, single-family, two-family
and multi -family residential to the west and south, and multi -family to the east.
A public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment requests was held on June
19, 2019. The hearing was opened, comments taken, and the hearing was closed. He addressed the
comments and concerns raised by the public.
Chair Melander inquired if the ponds could be relocated.
Mr. Lovelace said yes and that the City Engineer may know better how this could be done.
Commissioner Alwin commented that when they look at the proposals for the medium and high
densities as they had in past developments, they pay a lot of attention to the flow and the transition
from one density to the other. When he looks around this neighborhood there is a lot of low density
and surrounding this site looks like all low density including the townhouse development to the
east. He had concern that when you put the medium and high density right in the middle, then you
lose the concept of the easy transition from one density to the other because you have a lot of low
and then all of a sudden you have medium and high density which seems inconsistent with what
was done in past developments. He talked about natural features like big grade differentials in other
neighborhoods but he does not see that natural break here that makes for an easy transition. He said
services are limited and located on the other side of McAndrews.
Mr. Lovelace answered there is a hierarchy of buffering in the medium density that would transition
into low density. Staff feels the roadway could act as the transition point.
Commissioner Schindler said that he would like to see low density throughout and is not in favor of
medium or high density. It is surrounded by low density which allows you to do multi -family with
some townhomes. He thought there is enough product available in low density and this entire area
is basically low density. He believes they are taking away a lot of open space and if any of this re-
designation is denied, it puts the property owner in a place where they really do not have any usable
use of the property. He stated it is unfortunate that the situation is what it is for everybody involved
and feels it is not appropriate to go any higher than low density in this particular situation.
Commissioner Burke asked for clarification that based on the site between the pipeline and
wetlands that the land left would be 8 acres.
Mr. Lovelace said they could be down to about 8 acres of property and that is an estimate. That
would occur at the time the development would be submitted for review.
Commissioner Burke referred to the mature trees within those 8 acres that could influence and
would be impacted. If this was to move forward any plans would have to come before the Planning
Commission as far as placement and materials.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
August 7, 2019
Page 3 of 5
Mr. Lovelace said if this was to move forward, any re -designation of the property, the next step
would be the subdivision of the property. If it was a single-family development, that limits some of
the requirements as far as materials, landscaping and things related to a single-family development.
Once you get into a multi -family development there are more restrictions in the ordinance related to
exterior finish materials and landscaping on the site. Single-family is less restrictive with materials
whereas, with a planned development, the City has the ability for some negotiating as far as what
the exterior materials may be.
Commissioner Diekmann asked with the medium density (6-12 units/acre) if that also included the
wetlands, pipeline and any roads.
Mr. Lovelace answered yes, for the Comp Plan designation, but once you get into the zoning issue
then you factor out some of the natural features like the wetlands.
Commissioner Diekmann said that even at medium density you would struggle to get 12 units per
acre given all the obstructions on the property.
Mr. Lovelace agreed that the site is challenging.
Commissioner Scanlan inquired as to why only the .5 acre was requested to become low density.
Mr. Lovelace said there is a natural progressions next to the other low density area.
Commissioner Scanlan commented he would like to see low density mix more than medium
density.
Commissioner Kurtz asked how many houses would fit on this land if the 8 acres were low density.
City Engineer Brandon Anderson responded if there would be 1/4 -acre lots for low density, there
could be 32 houses.
Mr. Lovelace added that is not a definitive number because that could change. If a development
was made with straight single-family is would need to be served with public roadways. Multi-
family developments can be served with private streets and the design of those streets can be much
different with the roadway widths and right-of-way.
Chair Melander commented that the Commission does not talk about this application outside of this
meeting. City Council makes the final decision. He said it is unusual to get an application with this
in mind. When they get an application it usually includes drawings and plans. The application does
not include what would be developed on this property. He referred to a public comment in the staff
report and said they are prohibited by law to consider economic impacts and that planning is land
use determination. With land use it has to fit. This land is bisected by a pipeline and wetlands and
then you add setbacks. He sees that the property it is surrounded by low density. He said anything
beyond single-family is going to be a problem.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
August 7, 2019
Page 4 of 5
Peter Coyle, Larkin Hoffman, representing the Watrud family, believes the analysis was fair and
provided a good insight into the potential for the use of this property. They disagree with some of
the comments because the landowner gets a say in this too. He understands from the Commission's
comments that the Commission believes low density is right for this site and he offered the
perspective that this may be the only one large undeveloped track on this half of the city north of
County Road 42. This is a Comprehensive Plan not a subdivision application. To him the Comp
Plan is supposed to demonstrate some vision. He was not suggesting that low density is not a
vision. It is obviously reflected in other parcels around the property but it seems to him that if that
is what the Commission is advocating, and he realizes it is a recommendation, he feels it is a missed
opportunity. Their proposal may not be perfect but thinks it is a proposal that provides the most
flexibility to the city, to a future developer, should there be one, and to the applicant, to try to put
something on the property that will work and be attractive and will be desirable to the community.
He added, because at the end of day, it does not matter what we ask for, if it cannot be sold. He said
staff has done a great job of acknowledging how this property is going to be chopped up by other
restrictions that already exist. So the notion that this is just going to be pancaked with housing is
just not even close to real. If the planning designation is limited to low density, it is going to be a
very lot of housing. That would be a missed opportunity for this reason, that some of your family or
kids will want to live in Apple Valley, go to ISD 196, retire in Apple Valley near churches or their
grandkids. A lot of those people do not want to buy single-family homes. They want to buy either
an attractive, modern townhome if they can and for them it is a good opportunity. It is sitting on
140th Street and Garden View Avenue and they think high density is appropriate for the corner for
this reason. It is close to Valley Foods in Burnsville and close to the high school. There is a bus
that stops there and picks up people, maybe randomly, but still picks them up. By putting too low
of designation on the property, you are just going to miss an opportunity to do something creative,
attractive and successful.
Mr. Coyle urged the Commission to adopt the proposal they had submitted. They think it is a good
proposal. The application for subdivision is subject to the Planning Commission's controls. If the
use that comes in is too dense, or just does not seem to fit, the Commission still has the control to
say "no thanks". They will figure out something else. But if only low density is allowed, they are
left with almost no options in terms of what can be done. Then the landowner has to decide
whether or not the existing designation, which really only leaves him a church as a private use of
the property, then we are back to that. To them that would be a horrible outcome because they think
that would not be an appropriate use of the property but it would be allowed as a permitted use.
MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann recommending
approval of the re -designation of Outlot B, Cobblestones I from "PR" (Private
Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density Residential). Ayes - 7 - Nays - 0.
MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann recommending
approval of the re -designation of Outlots A and C, and the north .25 acres of Outlot
D, Cobblestones I and the north 13.5 acres of a 14.5 -acre parcel from "PR" (Private
Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential). Ayes - 2 - Nays - 5. (Alwin,
Kurtz, Melander, Scanlan, and Schindler)
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
August 7, 2019
Page 5 of 5
MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann recommending
approval of the re -designation of south .1 acres of Outlot D, Cobblestones I, the
south .9 acres of the north parcel and seven (7) acres of the south parcel from "PR"
(Private Recreation) to "HD" (High Density Residential). Ayes - 0 - Nays - 7.
MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann recommending
approval of the re -designation south .1 acres of Outlot D, Cobblestones I, the south
.9 acres of the north parcel and seven (7) acres of the south parcel from "PR" (Private
Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential) due to the following findings:
1. The topography, presence of natural features, its proximity to the adjacent
collector roadways and land uses.
Ayes - 2 - Nays - 5. (Alwin, Kurtz, Melander, Scanlan, and Schindler)
6. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates.
Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist stated that the next regular Planning
Commission meeting would take place Wednesday, August 21, 2019, at 7:00 p.m.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Melander
asked for a motion to adjourn.
MOTION: Commissioner Schlinder moved, seconded by Commissioner Kurtz to adjourn the
meeting at 7:56 p.m. Ayes - 7 - Nays - 0.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Joan Murphy
Joan Murphy, Planning Department Assistant
Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commission
on
Tom Melander, Chair
...
....
••••
..•
l
App Valil
ley
ITEM:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
SECTION:
4.A.
September 4, 2019
Public Hearings
Description:
Amendments to Sections 155.075 and 155.076 of Chapter 155 of the City Code Regulating
Uses in the Multiple -Family Residential Zoning Districts - PC19-14-Z
Staff Contact:
Thomas Lovelace, City Planner
Department/ Division:
Community Development Department
Applicant:
City of Apple Valley
Project Number:
PC19-14-Z
Applicant Date:
60 Days:
120 Days:
ACTION REQUESTED:
Open the public hearing, receive comments and close the public hearing. The general policy
of the Planning Commission is not to act on a public hearing item the night of the public
hearing. However, If no public comments are received requiring additional study, staff is
recommending the following actions:
1. Recommend the approval of an amendment to Section 155.075 (G) to read as follows:
• The M-7 districts are intended for those areas, which are designated for "high
density" in the comprehensive guide plan, where a high density of townhouse and
apartment dwelling units is expected. Property within these districts is
characterized by relatively level topography, relative absence of significant mature
vegetation and close proximity to arterial or community collector roads.
2. Recommend the approval of an amendment to Section 155.076 (B) to read as follows:
• Townhouse dwellings, M-1, M-2, M-3, M 4, M-5, M-6 and M-7 only, provided
they are serviced by public sanitary sewer and water systems and provided that no
single structure contains in excess of six dwelling units in M-1 and M-2 zones or
12 dwelling units in M-3, M-4, M-5, M-6 or M-7 zones.
SUMMARY:
For consideration are two proposed zoning amendments to Sections 155.075 (Purpose) and
155.076 (Permitted Uses) to allow townhouse dwelling units as a permitted use in the "M-7"
(Multi -Family Residential/12-20 units per acre) zoning district. The zoning ordinance
currently allows apartment dwellings only in the "M-7" zoning district. The proposed
amendments would allow townhomes to be constructed at a density of greater than 12 units
per acre.
The area requirements, height regulations, building coverage and setback requirements for the
"M-7" zoning district will not change with these amendments. Any townhome development in
the zoning district will be required to meet all minimum area and setback requirements, and
will not be allowed to exceed the maximum height and building coverage requirements.
BACKGROUND:
There is 131.2 acres (1.2%) in the city currently zoned "M-7". Property within this zoning
district include the Apple Valley Estates and Cedar Knolls manufactured home parks, which
encompass 105.4 acres; Hidden Ponds Apartments (5.69 acres), Boulder Ridge Apartments
(6.39 acres), and the Huntington Run Villa condominiums (13.72 acres).
These proposed amendments are being proposed for a couple of reasons. The first is that it
allows for an additional housing type in the zoning district.
The second reason is to allow the Pulte Group, Inc. to construct the first phase of their
Shores townhome development. This proposed development is generally located north of
157th Street West and east of Johnny Cake Ridge Road. The developer has proposed the
construction 101 townhome on approximately 9.86 acres for a density of just over 10 units
per acre. The property is currently guided a mix of "LD" (Low Density Residential/2-6 units
per acre) and "HD" (High Density Residential/12+ units per acre) and is zoned "SG" (Sand
and Gravel). The developer submitted an application requesting that the property be re-
designated "MD" (Medium Density Residential/6-12 units per acre), rezoning from "SG" to
"M -6C" (Medium Density Residentia1/6-12 units per acre), subdivision, conditional use
permit for exterior finish materials and site plan/building permit authorization.
On January 16, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed development and
recommended approval of the five items. The City Council authorized the submittal of
Comprehensive Plan amendments to the Metropolitan Council at their February 14, 2019,
meeting. Staff submitted the amendment request to the Metropolitan Council on February
19, 2019, who subsequently sent a letter back to the City informing that any amendments
submitted after December 31, 2018, would not be considered until the City's 2040
Comprehensive Plan Update has been approved. The City continues to work with the
Metropolitan Council issues with the Plan and in the meantime Pulte has not been able to
begin their development project.
A revised development plan has been submitted that shows the development of 45
townhomes on 3.7 acres which will have a density of 12+ units per acre making it compatible
to the current "HD" Comprehensive Plan designation. However, construction of the
townhomes cannot commence without the proposed zoning code amendments because the
zoning ordinance does not currently allow townhomes in the "M-7" zoning district and
rezoning the property, as requested, to "M-6" would not be compatible to the existing "HD"
designation.
BUDGET IMPACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance
Ordinance
Map
Site Plan
Preliminary Plat
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 155 OF THE CITY CODE REGULATING ZONING BY AMENDING
SECTIONS 155.075 (PURPOSE) AND 155.076 (PERMITTED USES) IN THE
MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
The City Council of Apple Valley ordains:
Section 1. Section 155.075 of Chapter 155 of the Apple Valley City Code is hereby
amended by changing Section 155.075 (G) to read as follows:
(G) The M-7 districts are intended for those areas, which are designated for "high density" in
the comprehensive guide plan, where a high density of townhouse and apartment dwelling units is
expected. Property within these districts is characterized by relatively level topography, relative absence
of significant mature vegetation and close proximity to arterial or community collector roads.
Section 2. Section 155.076 of Chapter 155 of the Apple Valley City Code is hereby
amended by changing Section 155.076 (B) to read as follows:
(B) Townhouse dwellings, M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4, M-5, M-6 and M-7 only, provided they are
serviced by public sanitary sewer and water systems and provided that no single structure contains in
excess of six dwelling units in M-1 and M-2 zones or 12 dwelling units in M-3, M-4, M-5, M-6 or M-7
zones;
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication.
PASSED this --th day of , 2019.
Mary Hamann -Roland, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela J. Gackstetter, City Clerk
APPENDIX B: REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIPLE -FAMILY DISTRICTS
(A) Units per acre. In the multiple -family residential districts, all improvements and
lands shall be subject to the following minimum area and dimensional requirements.
One or Two Story
Three Story
District
Square
Feet of
Land
Per
Unit
Maximum
Units Per
Acre
Minimum
Units Per
Acre
Square Feet
of Land Per
Unit
Maximum
Units Per
Acre
Minimum Units
Per Acre
M-1 A
BorC,
14'530
3
3
(With
bonus)
(10,890)
(4)
(3)
M-2 A,
BorC
12'445
3.5
3
(With
bonus)
(8'710)
(5)
(3)
M-3 A
BorC,
10'890
4
3
(Wish
bonus)
(7'260)
(6)
(3)
M-4 A
BorC,
7'260
6
6
(With
bonus)
(5,455)
(8)
(6)
M-5 A,
B or C
7'260
6
6
5,445
8
6
(Wish
bonus)
(5,445)
(8)
(6)
(4,335)
(10)
(8)
M -6A
B or C,
5810
7.5
6
4335
10
8
(Wish
bonus)
(4,335)
(10)
(6)
(3,630)
(12)
(10)
M-7 A,
B or C
3'630
12
12
2,720
16
12
(With
bonus)
(3,110)
(14)
(12)
(2,180)
(20)
(12)
M-8 A
15
M-2 A, B or
C
2
30
20
M-3 A, B or
C
B or C,
3'630
12
12
2,180
20
15
(With
bonus)
(2,970)
(15)
(12)
(1,815)
(24)
(15)
NOTES TO TABLE
M-7A,Bor
C
* - Additional density allowed
as a conditional use. See § 155.078.
(C81 Code, § A1-33) (Ord. 291, passed 4-21-83; Am. Ord. 436, passed 2-23-89; Am.
Ord. 465, passed 10-26-89)
(B) Height regulations and coverage percentage. In the multiple -family residential
districts, all improvements and buildings shall be subject to the following height
requirements and building site coverage.
Zoning
District
Maximum Number
of Stories
Maximum Feet
Above Ground
Maximum Building
Coverage (in percentage)
M-1 A, B or
C
2
30
15
M-2 A, B or
C
2
30
20
M-3 A, B or
C
2
35
25
M-4 A, B or
C
2
35
25
M-5 A, B or
C
3
45
25
M-6 A, B or
C
3
45
25
M-7A,Bor
C
3
45
30
M-8 A, B or
C
5
65
35
(C81 Code, § A1-33) (Ord. 291, passed 4-21-83; Am. Ord. 436, passed 2-23-89; Am.
Ord. 465, passed 10-26-89)
(C) Setback requirements. The minimum setbacks from adjacent property and
public streets shall be as follows, measured in feet.
(C81 Code, § A1-33) (Ord. 291, passed 4-21-83; Am. Ord. 436, passed 2-23-89; Am.
Ord. 465, passed 10-26-89)
Multiple Residential
Buildings
Parking
Lots
Garages; Accessory
Buildings
A
B
C
A
B
CA
B
C
Along principal or minor
arterial
100
75
50
25
20
20
75
50
50
Along community or
neighborhood collector
75
50
40
25
20
20
50
50
40
Along any other public street
50
40
35
20
20
15
40
35
35
Along any side or rear yard
40
30
25
15
10
5
25
15
10
Abutting an R district
75
50
40
25
15
10
50
20
10
From multiple- residential
buildings on the same lot
See § 155.080
20
20
10
25
25
15
(C81 Code, § A1-33) (Ord. 291, passed 4-21-83; Am. Ord. 436, passed 2-23-89; Am.
Ord. 465, passed 10-26-89)
c
0
21
c c
0 0
xoc
Condominiums
z
J
L!J
V;
W
ce
Q
1
tip
W
1
Q
1' 1d AHVNINII13Hd
WG11W9f1S 1' 1d AHVNINII13Hd
910910010 '0311VA 31ddV
S3HOHS 3H1
9
3
818891%00000S
01100030 11V tl3A0 11431135VA111I1N ONV30VNNH0
9.99
9 NJ
Z
019
ob
G
Oa
T9
9 )13
Zw
019
ob
11
9 101100 30 11V 110605
1N3113S03 1111110 OW 30001300
998 19999DG
o
Ow
b NJ
Ol9
.56 0000.05
bo
91O11f1O
£ NJ
Z
019
0 101100 30 110 0390 133113SV3 0111110 030 300N000
00999 1!!0a009S
y M
U
[1" 0
e=a
=l
1691
ON
L11 59, 1G5
01 5,r
M., ov0
v m
(No I10f101BN00 O3ON11) 0900 3oai0 33490 ANNHOf
NO111009 HJOflOd SONOd 999Vf1O
157TH STREET WEST
399 309100393
REGENTS POINT SECOND ADDITION
0
0900 30 OH
33499 ANNHOf
0
Z
w
J
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
m
•
6900019 — 6100 /3306V06616106100811091AT61d 696916616161\ 016 95 9610V01100168100V19 196969 496 0
...
....
••••
..•
l
App Valil
ley
ITEM:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
SECTION:
4.B.
September 4, 2019
Public Hearings
Description:
Pennock Center - PC19-13-CVB
Staff Contact:
Alex Sharpe, Planner and Economic Development Spec.
Department / Division:
Community Development Department
Applicant:
Java Capital Partners, LLC
Project Number:
PC19-13-CVB
Applicant Date: 7/26/2019
60 Days: 9/24/2019
120 Days: 11/23/2019
ACTION REQUESTED:
Open public hearing, receive comments, and continue the public hearing. It is the policy
of the Planning Commission to not take action on an item the night of its public hearing.
SUMMARY:
Java Capital Partners, LLC, property owner, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
for a drive-through in association with a Class III restaurant at 7668 150th street west. The
site is known as Pennock Place and is located in the south east comer of CSAH 42/150th
street and Pennock Lane.
In 2016 the a CUP for a drive through with a Class III restaurant was granted, however a
condition of approval required that the permit begin use within one year from the date of
approval. At that time the owner did not proceed with the approved site plan and use and thus
the CUP has lapsed.
The current application is for a 6,100 sq. ft. three tenant building with a drive through for a
coffee user. The other two tenants have yet to be identified, however the applicant has
provided information that one will be a nail salon, and the other a quick service restaurant.
The current building would be demolished, and must of the existing pavement would be
removed for construction of the new building.
Staff has been working with the applicant for several months on site plan configurations.
Several challenges impact the site, including a drainage and utility easement on the west side,
an irregular lot shape, and small lot size. Due to these impacts redevelopment of the site is
challenging and has taken several iterations of site plans. The current plan still has some
substantial issues to address, which the Planning Commission can provide direction on.
These issues will be detailed below.
BACKGROUND:
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
The site is guided "C" (Commercial) and is zoned "RB" (Retail Business). A Class III
Neighborhood Restaurant is consistent with the comprehensive guiding and the retail business
zoning. When redeveloping a property the Comprehensive Plan provides guidance and states
the following:
The City recognizes that market forces, suitability of buildings and sites, and other factors
will continue to create opportunities for redevelopment. The City will work with property
owners to facilitate redevelopment that enhances the community and helps achieve the
objectives of the plan.
Class III restaurants are neighborhood oriented and include users such as coffee shops,
doughnuts, bagels, or sandwiches. A drive-through in association with any of these uses
requires a CUP and must meet CUP requirements.
Site Plan
The site plan shows that access will be from a shared internal driveway on the south side of
the site shared with the Apple Valley Square Shopping Center. The drive through is located
on the east side of the site, and similarly with other approved projects is includes an escape
or double lane.
The site configuration creates dead-end areas for patrons, which may cause confusion and
traffic flow issues. A turn around parking space has been added on the western side of the
site, however this would require patrons to back up into the drive through exit. Additionally,
the turn around location in the other dead-end area utilizes the handicap space clear zone.
Patrons are unlikely to be able to make the turns required for this to be effective, and the
handicap clear -zone spaces are not intended for turnaround. The City Engineers memo
emphasizes this conflict.
The drive through lane as proposed is 18' wide, similar lanes on redevelopment sites have
been been wider to accommodate emergency vehicles. Auto turn drawings are required to
ensure vehicles are able to traverse the site. The City Engineer has provided suggestions and
requirements for internal traffic circulation in their memo dated August 30, 2019.
Required Parking Spaces
The prior CUP was issued for a 5,200 sq. ft. building with two restaurants. The parking
requirement at that time was 52 spaces which they were not able to provide on site. A
condition of approval was that the applicant be required to obtain a shared parking agreement
with neighboring properties, which did not occur. The number of parking spaces required is
based on the number of seats in a restaurant and the sq. ft. of the nail salon. The site plan has
37 parking spaces, but staff is unable to determine the exact parking requirement without
interior plans. When cases such as this present, staff utilizes the most intensive use permitted
on the site. The applicant has provided the total number of seats or spaces required for each
space, which will be included below.
Staff has researched other approved projects and found that generally the number of seats in
spaces of similar size is higher than provided, which would require the City to enforce the
total number of seats in a restaurant. A table summarizing the spaces is below.
Business Seats Sq. Ft. Parking Spaces Available
Proposed Coffee 20 2036 37
Proposed QSR 40 2036 37
Proposed Nail Salon 14* 2036 37
Starbucks at 147th/Cedar 32 2320 38
Caribou at Cobblestone 51 1991 50+
Panda Express 58 2357 63
Five Guys Burnsville 51 2558 39
Jersey Mikes Burnsville 34 2586 39
Jimmy Johns 26 1846 50+
The applicant supplied information on one of their recently completed project in Burnsville,
which are the Five Guys and Jersey Mikes noted in the table. This development was just
completed in 2019 and has less parking spaces than some of the older developments.
However, it is also adjacent to a large field of parking and may have cross access agreements
that are not in place with this development.
The total number of parking stalls on the site is a concern for staff. The City would be
required to enforce the total number of seats in each restaurant space to those presented if
parking became an issue. A variance could be required in the future if tenants submit building
permits showing additional seats. The City has been supportive of parking variances in
redevelopments, however a variance cannot be evaluated without proper information.
Parking Setback Variances
The applicant has requested parking setback variances on the north, west, and east sides of
the site. A 20' setback is required on the north side adjacent to CSAH 42, and is requested to
be reduced to 6'. A 5' parking setback is required for interior lot lines, such as those on the
east side of the site and is requested to be reduced to 0', and a 15' parking setback is required
from the west lot line and is proposed to be reduced to 8'.
Staff has some concern over the eastern lot line setback to 0' as this could impact the
neighboring property. However, redevelopment of a site such as this can be challenging and
variances are often required. If the site is able to accommodate it's own drainage and snow
storage there may not be any negative impacts.
Grading Plan
The site is relatively flat, and grading and drainage issues will need to be evaluated to ensure
drainage is treated on the property. The City Engineer's memo provides additional comments
and conditions on grading.
Building Elevation Plans
The exterior elevations indicate that the building materials will primarily be EIFS panels with
aluminum panels, and rock face concrete block. Code requires that all four sides of the
building be constructed with equally attractive materials. The eastern building face as
proposed does not have any decorative elements and will be required to make small
additions.
Landscape Plan
City Code requires that landscape materials be installed with a minimum value of 2.5% of
the means cost of construction value of the building. Several shrubs and trees are shown on
the western portion of the site, however these primarily lie within a drainage and utility
easement where the City has large utilities. The City cannot allow large vegetation within
easements, but will allow the parking lot. There is limited additional green -space on the site
for landscaping. The City has been supportive of the installation of private art, improved
materials for patios, and murals as a way to meet this requirement. The applicant will be
required to present to the Planning Commission a way to meet code.
Site Utilities
The applicant is proposing to treat stormwater through an underground system. The design of
this system will be required to be approved by the City Engineer and a maintenance
agreement will be required.
BUDGET IMPACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Map
Site Plan
Plan Set
Landscaping Plan
Elevations
Memo
Memo
Memo
s
- IN MN
Q I MP
� ARB
2 a
wr III �
Q z
0a
o 148TH ST W
4A z 149THiiL RB o in1
w b.
a
ri ocK
z a
w o
R
147TH ST W
RB
150TH ST W 150TH ST W
FRONTAGE RD
SITE
J W
0
CEDAR AVE
3
2
J
Q
CC
W
Q
W
D
Ci
J
m
0
elosauuiyj 'AeIIen aiddy 'lawn 420SL 999L
3333OD A311VA 3lddV
STREET W
dun
f
le
,..3a 53.n3,Oa, .ner .nW
914SS NW ') Vd SIfOI 1S 'OOZ 31IfS '133211S H1SE 1S3M 1E64
311133i11S H10SL 899L
Si13NJ. Vd ltllldVO YAW
PUSS NW 612115131ddV 'MIS H10S1- 8991
2131N3O NOONN3d road
EROSION CONTROL NOTES:
SEE S'aPPP ON SHEETS SW1.0.S,71.3
REMOVALS LEGEND:
I
REMOVALS PLAN
0
0
914SS NW ')19Vd SIflO11S 'OOZ 31If1S '133211S H1SE 1S3M 1E64
311133i11S H10SI 899L
Si13NJ. Vd 1tllIdVO YAW
PUSS NW 'A311VA 31ddV 'MIS H10S1- 8991
2131N3O NOONN3d road
0
L N
N 0
CO. RD. 42
150 TH ST W
SITE PLAN LEGEND:
914SS NW ')19Vd SIflO11S 'OOZ 31If1S '133211S H1SE 1S3M 1E64
311133i11S H10SL 899L
Si13NJ. Vd ltllldVO YAW
PUSS NW '131151 31ddV 'MIS H10S1, 8991
2131N3O NOONN3d road
V4ILL BE PROVIDE.FTE.SOIL REPOR
LE
GRADING PLAN
0
M
U
914SS NW ')19Vd SIflO11S 'OOZ 31If1S '133211S H1SE 1S3M 1E64
311133i11S H10SL 899L
Si13NJ. Vd ltllldVO YAW
PUSS NW 612115131ddV 'MIS H10S1- 8991
2131N3O NOONN3d road
UTILITY PLAN
0
0
914SS NW ')19Vd SIflO11S 'OOZ 31If1S '133211S H1SE 1S3M 1E64
311133i11S H10SI 899L
Si13NJ. Vd 1tllIdVO YAW
PUSS NW ',OLIVA 31ddV 'MIS H10S1, 8991
2131N3O NOONN3d road
LL
LANDSCAPE PLAN
0
N—
J
9lbSS NW ')121Vd SIfO1 IS'00Z 311fS '1332110 1-110£123M l£617
3111332l1S H1061 899L
S2l3NINVd ltllldVO YAW
00199 NW 131100 31ddV 'M IS H1091 8990
2131N30 NOONN3dosorOad
LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANT SCHEDULE - ENTIRE SITE
0
,N<x;H LE;oEN.FL, F0.1
0
J
El
elosauuRN 'AaileA aiddv 'lawn (10L 999L
33AJOD A311VA 31ddV
2 en
Z
e. 0
0 >
0
LT;
flF
E 0
1111112
0
>
c
C
0
0
0
`D•
2,333303 ArrIVA 31.tl 33.03 A3-11VA 31.tl zewoualt3
4
Il
7
.
:.1
----
TENANT k2
•• II
8
1
PI
- 1
li
c
C
0
0
0
`D•
2,333303 ArrIVA 31.tl 33.03 A3-11VA 31.tl zewoualt3
00600
.600
0.0
City of Apple
Valley
MEMO
Public Works Department
TO: Alex Sharpe, Planner
FROM: Brandon Anderson, City Engineer
DATE: August 30, 2019
SUBJECT: 7668 150th Street West — Pennock Center
Alex, following is comments on the Pennock Center site plan Revised July 28, 2019. Please include
these comments as conditions to approval.
General
Site
• Provide a narrative and site plan showing how the expansion will be constructed and any
impacts prior to building permit authorization. The narrative and plan shall include the
following:
o Material storage and staging
• All material storage to be onsite and indicated on plan.
o Haul routes to and from the site.
o Contractor and subcontractor parking locations
• Onsite trade parking should be provided.
• Provide a copy of the executed Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Met Council, Department of Labor and any other required permits prior to
Building permit authorization.
• A Natural Resource Management Permit (NRMP) will be required prior to any land
disturbing activity commences.
• Proposed use is consistent with previous applications and traffic study needs. No
additional mitigation is required on Pennock Avenue. The previous Traffic Impact Study
indicates the need for a WB left and right leaving the site in the shared entrance off
Pennock has been provided on the site plan. Striping plans and layout shall be approved by
City Engineer.
• Proposed parking layout does not encroach into future ROW needs along Pennock Avenue.
• A 30' drainage and utility easement shall be provided over the existing public sanitary
sewer.
• The 18' width for the drive thru and bypass is not wide enough to provide full circulation
of vehicles around the site. The drawing indicates cars tight to or overlapping one another
while in the two lanes.
• Provide additional drawing showing Auto turn turning movements to verify site circulation
and layout requirements for planned vehicle usage to be used onsite. Please indicate (or
show vehicle) stacking distances on the plan.
• Show truck movement with Auto turn entering site to ensure emergency and service
vehicles can maneuver within the site.
• Given the radius required to maneuver the drive thru (no bypass or service lane is provided)
as proposed, a service, emergency or commercial vehicle will have a difficult time
maneuvering. The drive through lane should be modified to prevent vehicle conflicts.
• Parking and site circulation will be problematic when entering the NW corner of the site
as well as the center parking aisles. If cars are in the drive thru and parked in parking lot
there is not turn around available. The parking and drive aisle on the west side of the
building show be modified to provide an adequate vehicle turn around or one-way traffic
circulation only. Angled parking should be provided along the west side of the site to
ensure compliance with one-way circulation.
• The parking in the center of the site would need to allow for circulation.
• Underground Infiltration Basin Construction and Maintenance Agreement will be
required as part of Development Agreement and be privately owned and maintained.
• Additional one way traffic markings may be necessary at drive-through lane.
Storm Drainage and Grading
• Provide soil borings at proposed underground basin prior to building permit approval.
Erosion Control
• Perimeter protection is indicated on the proposed plan.
• Street sweeping shall be provided should tracking occur during construction.
• Rock construction entrance is indicated on the proposed plan.
• Inlet protection, silt fence and other erosion control features shall be maintained throughout
the project.
Utilities
• Final locations and sizes of Storm Sewer shall be reviewed with the final construction plans
and approved by City Engineer.
• Provide storm sewer calculations for storm water requirements. (Rational method including
Hydraulic grade lines).
• Final locations and sizes of Sanitary Sewer and Water main shall be reviewed with the final
construction plans and approved by City Engineer.
• The existing sanitary sewer service should be identified on the plans and shown as either
removed or abandoned in place. The existing wye shall be capped as part of the
removal/abandonment.
• Valves should be shown in the pavement area and not near the building on the patio for
accessibility by Utility Staff.
Natural Resources
• Several of the replacement trees are proposed in the Drainage and Utility easement area.
Trees should not be planted in public drainage and utility easements.
• Protect trees in Dakota County right-of-way throughout construction. These young trees
were replacements provided by Dakota Electric Association.
• One maple tree proposed to be protected on the western edge should be removed — it is
split and may be considered hazardous.
• The three proposed Black Hills Spruce will be 30'+ wide upon maturity. Substitute a
narrower species or alter the planting location — if the maple is removed there is more
green space available.
••.
..••
City of Apple
Valley
MEMO
Building Inspections
TO: Alex , Planning and Econ Dev Specialist 1
FROM: George Dorn, Building Official
DATE: August 27, 2019
SUBJECT: 7668 150th Coffee Drive-thru at Pennock
• A SAC determination is required from Met Council prior to permit issuance from the city.
The occupant load for the outdoor seating will also need to be included in the
determination.
• Geotechnical report boring log and Special Inspector Agreement is required prior to permit
and soil corrections on site.
• Submit plans to Minnesota Department of Labor, Plumbing Division for review of proposed
plumbing, roof drainage, sanitary and storm design.
• Trash area is required per MSBC 2015 1303.1500 Subpart 1 requires recycling space in
accordance with Table 1-A on plans issued for permit.
• Separate sign permits are required. Structural drawings will be required for review.
• The City of Apple Valley has adopted the 2015 MSBC 1306, subpart 3 Special Fire
Protection systems. This section would require the building to have an automatic sprinkler
system installed based on occupancy type and square footage.
• Allowable area and building heights will be determined once the code analysis has been
completed.
• A grease interceptor will be required for this project per City Ordinance Chapter 51.08 (B)
(d).
• Occupant loads for calculating occupancy and plumbing fixture counts shall be in
accordance with the 2015 MSBC Section 1004. In addition the accessible parking counts
will be determined by the total number of parking stalls.
..•
••.••
...
City of Apple
Valley
MEMO
Public Works Department
TO: Alex Sharpe
FROM: Carol Blommel Johnson
DATE: August 27, 2019
SUBJECT: PENNOCK CENTER
Below are comments for the Pennock Center plans dated August 2019.
• The existing water and sewer services must be abandoned at the City main.
• The curb stop installation must include a rod.
• A grease trap is required if food is part of any of the tenant services.
COUNTY ROAD 42
PRIVATE
SANITARY
MANHOLES
PERKINS
CHIPOTLE
PRIVATE SANITARY
SEWER LINE
Sanitary Struc
Sanitary Pipe
• Sanitary Struc Private
Sanitary Pipe Private
• Vvater Struc Private
— — Water Pipe Private
• VVater Struc
VVater Pipe
Vii--11TE CASTLE UTILITIES
April 14 2009
...
....
.....
Apple
ppl ell
Valley
ITEM:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE:
SECTION:
6.A.
September 4, 2019
Other Business
Description:
Review of Upcoming Schedule and Other Updates
Staff Contact:
Joan Murphy, Department Assistant
Department / Division:
Community Development Department
ACTION REQUESTED:
N/A
SUMMARY:
Next Planning Commission Meetings:
Wednesday, September 18, 2019 - 7:00 p.m.
• Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 21, 2019
• Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 4, 2019
Wednesday, October 2, 2019 - 7:00 p.m.
• Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 4, 2019
• Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 18, 2019
Next City Council Meetings:
Thursday, September 12, 2019 - 7:00 p.m.
Thursday, September 26, 2019 - 7:00 p.m.
BACKGROUND:
N/A
BUDGET IMPACT:
N/A