Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/07/2019 MinutesCITY 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. Rest ectfully Submi tted, .=G17+jj4.. t Jt 7u Murphy, Planning DI part' nt Assistant Approval y t e Apple Valley lanning Commiss on 19 Tom el t der, Chair