Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/16/2019••• •••• ••••• •••• Apple II Valley Meeting Location: Municipal Center 7100 147th Street West Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 October 16, 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 October 2, 2019, Regular Meeting 4. Public Hearings A. Apple Valley Golf Course Comprehensive Plan Amendments - PC19-09-P Consider Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments Re - designating .5 Acres From "PR" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density Residential) and 22.5 Acres From "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential) Location: 8661 140th Street West (Northwest Corner of 140th Street West and Garden View Drive) Petitioner: Joel Watrud B. Planned Development No. 1053 Sign Ordinance Amendments - PC19-16-Z Consider Amendments to Article 37 of Chapter 155 -Appendix F to Allow for Additional Signage in Zone 1 of Planned Development Designation No. 1053 Location: Northwest Comer of 150th Street West (CSAH 42) and Johnny Cake Ridge Road Petitioner: Menard, Inc. C. Bogarts Entertainment Center - PC19-17-C Consider a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment to Store Volleyball Sand Over the Winter Location: 14917 Garrett Avenue Petitioner: Alan Loth - Bogarts Entertainment Center D. Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendment - PC19-18-0 Consider Ordinance Amending § 155.382 Expanding Provision for Accessory Dwelling Units to All Residential Zoning Districts Location: City-wide Petitioner: City of Apple Valley 5. Land Use / Action Items 6. Other Business A. Review of Upcoming Schedule and Other Updates Next Planning Commission Meeting - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - 7:00 p.m. Next City Council Meeting - Thursday, October 24, 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 App Valley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 3.A. October 16, 2019 Consent Agenda Description: Approve Minutes of October 2, 2019, Regular Meeting Staff Contact: Joan Murphy, Department Assistant Department / Division: Community Development Department ACTION REQUESTED: Approve minutes of regular meeting of October 2, 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 OCTOBER 2, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Vice -Chair Burke at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Tim Burke, Keith Diekmann, Jodi Kurtz, Paul Scanlan and David Schindler. Members Absent: Tom Melander and Ken Alwin. Staff Present: City Attorney Sharon Hills, City Engineer Brandon Anderson, Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Planner/Economic Development Specialist Alex Sharpe and Department Assistant Joan Murphy. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice -Chair Burke asked if there were any changes to the agenda. MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the agenda. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. 3. CONSENT ITEMS MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Kurtz, approving the minutes of the meeting of September 18, 2019. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Pennock Center — PC19-13-CVB Vice -Chair Burke continued the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. (Public hearing was opened at the September 4, 2019, Planning Commission meeting and continued) Planner/Economic Development Specialist Alex Sharpe stated the public hearing for the application from Java Capital Partners, LLC, property owner, remained open while staff and the applicant addressed concerns about the site plan. Minor site improvements were proposed after the applicant submitted civil drawings, which will be required to be updated prior to a final review by City Council. Staff is recommending the proposed actions as significant improvements have occurred since the initial Planning Commission review. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 2019 Page 2 of 5 The application remains a 6,100 sq. ft. building with three tenants and a CUP for the drive through for a coffee user. The other two tenants have yet to be identified. The applicant noted in their application that they intended to lease to a nail salon and a quick service restaurant. Due to the size of the building, and the limited parking field, staff and the Planning Commission, expressed concerns on September 4, about the parking demand and the potential for the site to be unable to accommodate required parking. Working with the applicant, they have amended their application and stated that the quick service restaurant could become a retail tenant, which has a lower parking demand. With this new use, and the owner being aware of their tenant mix, staff feels the site can meet parking requirements. The site is constrained by size, shape, and a large utility easement for a public sewer. Due to these constraints staff is comfortable with the proposed setback variances, however, these variances may have impacts in the future as other sites in the area redevelop. He reviewed the new plans, fire vehicle operations and building elevations. Vice -Chair Burke asked if the setbacks are similar to what other buildings in the area have. Mr. Sharpe answered yes. Vice -Chair Burke thanked Mr. Sharpe for working with the applicant to come up with a new traffic plan. Commissioner Scanlan asked if there was any concern on the entry point. Mr. Sharpe responded that the angled parking gives drivers a clue. Commissioner Kurtz asked if the 1st entrance was for the drive-through and the 2nd entrance was for the parking. Mr. Sharpe said yes and that there would be striping and directional signage for the traffic flow. Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist commented he would like to see some wayfinding direction from the applicant before this goes to City Council. City Engineer Brandon Anderson said some additional one-way markings need to be made clear. Commissioner Schindler inquired what could be done to make traffic direction more clear. Mark Krogh, Java Companies, agreed it is a challenging site. He will work the City Engineer and they have a large budget for directional signage. Commissioner Schindler commented he is very pleased with the changes from the last design. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Vice -Chair Burke closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler, recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through in association with a Class III Restaurant on Lot 1, Block 1, Apple Valley Square 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction shall occur in conformance with the site plan dated September 26, 2019. 2. All signage associated with the drive-through window service shall adhere to Section 154.04 (J)(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) by separate review and approval. 3. Site uses shall comply with parking requirements. Potential uses may be limited by overall site parking requirements. Ayes -5 -Nays -0. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler, recommending approval of a building setback variance on the north property line from 50' to 28' on Lot 1, Block 1, Apple Valley Square 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction shall occur in conformance with the site plan dated September 26, 2019. Ayes -5 -Nays -0. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler, recommending approval of a parking setback variance on the north property line from 15' to 6' on Lot 1, Block 1, Apple Valley Square 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction shall occur in conformance with the site plan dated September 26, 2019. Ayes -5 -Nays -0. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler, recommending approval of a parking setback variance on the west property line from 15' to 6.5' on Lot 1, Block 1, Apple Valley Square 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction shall occur in conformance with the site plan dated September 26, 2019. Ayes -5 -Nays -0. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler, recommending approval of Site Plan/Building Permit authorization for an CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 2019 Page 4 of 5 approximately 6,100 sq. ft. building on Lot 1, Block 1, Apple Valley Square 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction shall occur in conformance with the site plan dated September 26, 2019. 2. Building Elevations shall be required to meet the Apple Valley Downtown Design Guidelines, updated elevations shall be provided prior to review by City Council. 3. All necessary mechanical protrusions visible to the exterior shall be screened or handled in accordance with Section 155.346 (3)(a)(b) of the city code. 4. Construction shall occur in conformance with the landscape plan dated September 24, 2019; subject to minor revisions and submission of a detailed landscape planting price list for verification of the City's 21/2% landscaping requirement at the time of building permit application. 5. Site grading shall occur in conformance with a Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP) which shall include final grading plan to be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. 6. The infiltration basin and underground storm water infiltration system shall be constructed in conformance with the City standards and approval from the City Engineer. 7. The property owner shall execute a maintenance agreement or other suitable agreement to be filed with the deed that ensures the perpetual maintenance of the underground storm water infiltration system. 8. Any site lighting shall consist of downcast, shoebox lighting fixtures or wallpacks with deflector shields which confines the light to the property. 9. Subject to all conditions noted in the Building Official's memo dated August 27, 2019 and to all conditions noted in the City Engineer's memo dates September 26, 2019. 10. A separate application and signage plan in conformance with the sign regulations must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the erection of any signs. Ayes -5 -Nays -0. 5. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS -NONE- 6. OTHER BUSINESS A. Apple Valley Golf Course Update Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist stated that on September 26, the City Council reviewed the Apple Valley Golf Course (AVGC) application and the Planning Commission's denial of high density (HD) and medium density (MD) designations. The Planning Commission acted on August 7, 2019. The City Council, by resolution, directed the Planning Commission to review a CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 2, 2019 Page 5 of 5 modified application from the applicant that removes HD designations from further evaluation. A public hearing is scheduled for October 16, 2019. B. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates. Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist stated that the next regular Planning Commission meeting would take place Wednesday, October 16, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Vice -Chair Burke asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Commissioner Schlinder moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, to adjourn the meeting at 7:31 p.m. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. Respectfully Submitted, Joan Murphy, Planning Department Assistant Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commission on Tom Melander, Chair App Valley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 4.A. October 16, 2019 Public Hearings Description: Apple Valley Golf Course Comprehensive Plan Amendments - PC19-09-P Staff Contact: Thomas Lovelace, City Planner Department/ Division: Community Development Department Applicant: Joel Watrud Project Number: PC19-09-P Applicant Date: 5/22/2019 60 Days: 120 Days: ACTION REQUESTED: Open the public hearing, receive comments and continue the public hearing to the November 6, 2019, Planning Commission meeting. SUMMARY: 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 22.5 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential) This is an amended request from their original, which called for re -designation of 14.5 acres to "MD" (Medium Density Residential) and 8 acres to "HD" (High Density Residential). 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. The site is relatively level with the exception of a couple of small elevation changes near the second and ninth greens, and along the north and eastern edges of the property. The site abuts single-family residential to the north and west, and two community collector streets to the south and east. Three wetlands are located on the site as well as mature vegetation established as part of the golf course operation. These features were established as part of the development of the golf course. Any development on the site would need to adhere to regulations related to wetland management and tree removal and replacement. This request was considered by the City Council at their September 26, 2019, meeting. The Council reviewed the application and the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of "HD" (High Density Residential) and "MD" (Medium Density Residential) and voted to direct the Planning Commission to review an amended request from the petitioner that removes the "HD" designation from further evaluation and requested that a residential designation be further considered. On October 2, 2019, staff reported back to the Commission on the City Council's decision and provided some background information to be considered prior to the public hearing on October 16. This included the makeup of the existing housing within a quarter mile of the golf course property. Staff found that of the 634 housing units counted, there are: • 237 homes (37%) in R-2 and R-3 single-family detached low density zones; and • 397 homes (63%) in R-5, M-3 and M-4 that are attached low density zones To be clear "zoning" is not being reviewed and discussed at this time. Rather, the future land use designation to 2040, should identify the low and medium density designations in the neighborhoods and guide the estimated potentially developable 8.5 acres of land for housing with open space, wetlands, storm water, ponding as amenities, and pipelines that this site of 23 acres offers as both constraints and opportunities. Staff also provided some questions to ponder as part of the discussion during the public hearing on October 16, 2019: • What land use designation offers assurances to the neighborhood of low/medium density single family and attached forms like the neighborhood? • If 12 units per acre is too high, what is the possibility at all or a portion of the acreage at 6, 8, or perhaps 10 units an acre that offers new housing choices being developed in the marketplace and sought by residents. • If attached and cluster and villa homes emerge in the future as a development direction, again similar to those in the neighborhood, how can that be best described as a broader land use? • Is there a hybrid attached housing area that encourages a low to medium unit count cluster type arrangement similar to the neighborhood and housing types in the market place? As with its unique interim "PR" designation and existing conditions, it may be appropriate to consider a special land use designation that would combine elements of the "LD" and "MD" designations. This special designation would recognize adjacent land uses, existing and future land constraints and attached unit qualities that presently are not offered. This designation would encourage development of detached townhomes, a variety of townhomes, and other multi -family housing units that would complement existing housing in the area. This designation would also acknowledge the site's proximity to abutting road system, as well as wetlands, topography, and existing easements. If the Commission concurs, staff would ask that they be directed to prepare a draft of a "LD/MD" designation for their review. If so, staff would recommend that the public hearing remain open. BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Plan: The property is currently designated "PR" (Private Recreation). The 2030 Plan created this designation of "Private Recreation" to recognize the current use of the subject property as a privately owned public golf course. This is the only property in the city with this designation. The property has the same designation in the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. It was recognized in 2009 and again in 2018, that the Apple Valley Golf Course may face challenges in the future, primarily financial, similar to the challenges faced by other small golf courses in the Metropolitan Area. It was understood during the preparation of the 2030 and 2040 Plans, that these challenges might cause the property owner to seek a change in land use. The 2030 and 2040 Plans go further to state that any change in land use must be carefully considered for the ability of the property to support the proposed use, the fit with the surrounding area and the overall plans for Apple Valley. The current Institutional zoning designation best reflects the present use and numerous alternative uses may be allowed in the future. The golf course is surrounded by residential uses that might also be evaluated for comparison as to their density and value if a change is requested. Commercial uses are not encouraged unless those businesses have a residential character and are integrated in a mixed-use urban design. As stated previously, the applicant is requesting Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendments that would re -designate .5 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density Residential) and 22.5 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential). This is an amendment to the petitioner's original request, which included a request for re -designation of eight (8) acres to "HD" (High Density Residential) The "LD" (Low Density Residential) designation consists of areas in the city with primarily single-family, detached dwellings. This is the single largest land use in Apple Valley. A large base of owner -occupied homes promotes neighborhood stability by reducing resident turnover and encouraging homeowner investment in private property. Limiting conflicts with high-intensity uses ensures that property values are protected over time. Protected property values help maintain stable neighborhoods and directly benefit local citizens through contributions to the municipal tax base. Low-density neighborhoods benefit from a variety of services and institutions, including parks, playgrounds, schools, religious institutions, and appropriate -scale commercial. A system of safe and well-designed sidewalks and trails is essential to connect with schools, parks, downtown, and other destinations in the community. A variety of housing types may be built in Low Density Residential areas including single-family detached dwellings, duplexes, twin homes, townhomes, and other types of attached housing at densities of 2-6 units per acre. Compatible zoning include "R-1", "R-2", "R-3 or "R -CL" (Single -Family); "R-5" (Two - Family) "M-1", "M-2" and "M-3" (Multiple -Family), and "PD" (Planned Development) designations. Outlot A, Cobblestones I addition is a .5 -acre outlot that is currently used as a tee box for hole #2, which has characteristics commonly associated with the "LD" designation. The "MD" (Medium Density Residential) designation provides for single-family living options which is becoming an increasingly attractive option for aging baby boomers seeking a transition to a living environment that offers independence without the maintenance requirements and a property tax bill associated with conventional single-family detached housing. In addition, Medium Density Residential typically provides housing at a lower price point than low density residential and helps enable the City to meet its share of regional affordable housing requirements. "MD" land uses could include townhomes, other attached single-family dwellings, and low-rise apartments and condominiums at densities that range from 6-12 units per acre. This designation fits with the "M-4", "M-5", "M-6", and "PD" zoning districts. These zoning districts would restrict the height of any building to 35-45 feet and number of stories to three. Zoning: The zoning ordinance is used to create zoning districts, identify uses that are allowed in each district. It also identifies area standards and performance standards that regulate such things as the minimum lot area, size and location of a building or structure, building setbacks from property lines, building height, lot coverage, maximum impervious surface within a particular zoning district. The property is currently zoned "P" (Institutional). Institutional districts are area designed to serve the public and quasi -public uses. Permitted uses include schools, public libraries and art galleries, parks and playgrounds, recreational facilities or athletic fields, religious facilities, cemeteries, government facilities, non-profit clubs and lodges, public hospitals and acre facilities, and golf courses. Any re -designation of the property will require a change in its current zoning. The majority of the property in the city currently designated "LD" (Low Density Residential) are zoned "R-1", "R-2", "R-3" or "R -CL", which area districts that permit detached single- family dwellings This designation also allows for "R-5" (Two -Family Residential) and "M- 1", "M-2", and "M-3" (Multi -Family Residential), and "PD" (Planned Development) zoning districts. Property designated "MD" (Medium Density Residential) include townhomes, other attached single-family dwellings, and low-rise apartments and condominiums at densities that range from 6-12 units per acre. This designation fits with the "M-4", "M-5", "M-6", and "PD" zoning districts. Preliminary Plat: Approximately 14 acres of the subject property is unplatted with the remaining nine acres platted as outlots. Any development will require the subdivision of the property. Some of the required elements of a subdivision include the dedication of right-of- way, public drainage (including storm water ponding) and utility easements, and park dedication in the form of land and/or cash -in -lieu of land dedication. Availability of Municipal Utilities: Public utilities are available to the site. Development of the property would include the extension of public utilities within the site. Storm water management will be an important issue with any type of development on this property. Onsite management and discharge will be essential to any future development. A wetland delineation report has been prepared for this site. Three wetlands have been identified and delineated. Any development will be subject to all applicable federal, state, and local wetland regulations. It should be also noted that an 80 -foot wide pipeline easement bisects the property. The location of this utility will impact any development as it is generally understood that uses over a pipeline easement are restrictive and no buildings or landscaping shall be placed within an easement of this type. The City Engineer has provided additional information regarding public utilities and wetlands in his attached memo. Street Classifications: The site abuts Garden View Drive on the east, 140th Street West on the west and Hollins Court on the north. Garden View Drive and 140th Street West are major collectors, which are designed to collect traffic from neighborhoods and employment centers and distribute it to the city arterial system. Hollins Court is a local street, whose primary use is to serve local transportation needs such as gaining access to the property bordering it. Local streets will likely serve any on-site development. Improvements to the abutting collector roads will be evaluated as part of any development project on this property. The City Engineer has done a preliminary analysis on traffic impacts related to future development of the subject property and his findings are included in the attached memo. Public Hearing Comments: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the initial request on June 19, 2019. Staff is providing a synopsis of the comments and staffs responses from that hearing. Concerns were raised that the proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendments were in conflict with the City's mission statement to promote the health and well-being of its citizens and all that visit the city. Staff Response — The City's mission statement is the following: The City of Apple Valley is pledged to promote and enhance the health, safety and general well-being of its citizens and all who visit the city. In achieving this goal, the City will: • Provide a full range of municipal services; • Encourage active participation; • Promote quality development; • Provide a balance of residential, commercial, and public uses; • Promote employment opportunities within the community; • Experiment with new ideas in the delivery of public services; and Transmit to future citizens a better and more beautiful community. The City utilizes many available tools to ensure the ongoing health, safety and general welfare of its residents and guests. Those tools include the comprehensive plan, as well as the subdivision control, natural resources management and zoning chapters of the city's code of ordinances. All of these tools will be used when considering future development on the subject property. Comments were received about the impact this request would have on the schools. Staff Response — The ISD 196 demographer estimates that the average student population is .58 students per single-family unit, .34 students per townhome unit and .32 students per apartment unit dwelling unit. These are estimates that the school district would use for their planning purposes, and these numbers may vary when other factors are taken into consideration. Elementary students would attend Westview Elementary, middle school students would attend Falcon Ridge Middle School, and high school students would attend Apple Valley Senior High School. School officials informed staff that all three schools would be able to accommodate the increase in student population generated by development on the property. The school district was provided notice of the proposed amendments for review and comment. The district commented that the proposed amendments were not anticipated to impact the district's operations. Concerns were raised regarding the impact on real estate values of adjacent properties. Staff Response — Because many different factors contribute to the value of a home, it is not possible to attribute impacts of property value on a single adjacent land use. Property values are impacted by overall City development patterns and not one specific land use. The Urban Land Institute's "Higher -Density Development Myth and Fact" and "The Case for Multifamily Housing" documents cite academic studies that show that multi family developments do not negatively impact existing adjacent single-family home values. In some studies, they have indicated that multi family residential adjacent to single-family homes can have a positive impact on property values. Possible reasons for positive impact are the following: • Multi family developments can make an area more attractive than nearby communities with fewer housing choices. • They increase the pool of potential future homebuyers. • Professional companies who are hired by a homeowners association or a apartment management company usually ensure the ongoing maintenance of multi family properties. Any future building construction on the golf course property will be in compliance with the City's exterior design requirements, zoning and subdivision codes, and State Building Code requirements. Concerns were raised about the increase in traffic generated by future residential development on the golf course property and the impact to the existing road system. Staff Response — See the attached memo from the City Engineer. Concerns were raised about the potential loss of mature trees on the site with a development project. Staff Response — Any development on this property will require the submittal of a tree inventory that will idents the size, species, condition, and location of each significant tree. A significant tree is defined as any healthy deciduous tree measuring eight inches or greater in diameter, or any coniferous tree measuring six inches or greater in diameter, at four and one-half feet above grade. As with any development, a developer will be required to identify all the significant trees to be preserved as well as any that will be removed, or lost as a result of any land -disturbing activity. The City's ordinance requires that 10% of the total number of significant trees removed must be replaced with caliper inches within the development. Also, approved landscape plans shall be required for any multi family development on this site. These plans shall include size, location, quantity and species of all plant materials and method of maintenance. The minimum cost of the landscaping installed shall be 21/2% of the estimated building(s) construction cost. Concerns were raised about loss of green space and the City should preserve the open space with the purchase of the property for a public park. Staff Response — The City promotes diverse recreational opportunities, services, facilities, and trails through the Parks and Recreation Department. There are currently 54 public parks of various types distributed throughout the city. These include neighborhood parks, community parks and special use parks. The neighborhood parks serve residents with a half -mile radius and offers a variety of services from basic recreation, such as a playground, small playfield, and a picnic shelter. Sunset and Wildwood parks are such parks that are located within a 1/2 -mile of the golf course neighborhood. The area is also located near two community parks, which are designed to serve a larger population. These parks provide intensive activity such as ballfields, several picnic shelters, one or two playground areas, and open space areas. Examples of this type of park is Hayes Park, a 25 -acre park, located within a mile of the subject property and Alimagnet Park, an 85 -acre park that has areas for both passive and active recreation. Access to this park is within a 1/2 -mile of the golf course property. Like all development projects in the city, the development of this property will require park dedication. The City will have a choice of taking the dedication in land, cash -in -lieu of land or a combination thereof This will be determined at the time of approval of the subdivision of the property. Concerns were received about adding more multi -family residential units when there are existing units that are unoccupied in the city. Staff Response - On June 14, 2019, staff attended the Minnesota Real Estate Journal State of the Residential Market Conference. Marquette Advisors provided a comprehensive review of multi family units throughout the metro, and community specific information. The following points illustrate the main trends in the market: • The multi family market has increasingly low vacancies, between zero and 2 percent for most units, with high demand for additional units. • Rents in the suburbs have risen significantly, particularly in the suburbs. Rents metro wide increased by 6.7% from the first quarter in 2018 to first quarter in 2019. • This type of rate increase, despite lower job growth numbers, means the market is still in need of additional multi family units. A survey of 1,977 multi family dwelling units in the city was completed in early 2019. The survey reviewed the average rents and vacancy rates for all types of units in the city. The vacancy rates for the first quarter of 2019 was 1.5%. A comment was received referencing a Supreme Court decision of the City of Mendota Heights vs Mendota Golf LLC regarding the conflict between the City of Mendota Heights Comprehensive Guide Plan designating 18 acres as "Golf Course" (GC), while the city's zoning ordinance designated the property as "Residential" (R-1 one family residential). Staff Response — See the attached memo to Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist from City Attorney Michael Dougherty. BUDGET IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Background Material Background Material Memo Correspondence Location Map Comp Plan Map Map Background Material Background Material APPLE VALLEY GOLF COURSE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS Property Location: 8661 140th Street West Legal Description: Comprehensive Plan Designation "PR" (Private Recreation) Zoning Classification "P" (Institutional) Existing Platting 14 acres are unplatted with the remainder platted as outlots Current Land Use Golf Course Size: 23 acres Topography: Varying, typical of a golf course Existing Vegetation Grasses and vegetation associated with a golf course Other Significant Natural Features Presence of wetlands Adjacent Properties/Land Uses NORTH Single -Family Residential Dwellings Comprehensive Plan "LD" (Low Density Residential) Zoning/Land Use "R-3" (Single Family Residential) SOUTH Single and Two -Family Residential and Townhome Dwellings Comprehensive Plan "LD" (Low Density Residential) Zoning/Land Use "R-3" (Single Family Residential), "R-5" (Two Family Residential), and "M -3C" (Multiple Family Residential) EAST Wildwood Townhomes and Private Open Space Comprehensive Plan "LD" (Low Density Residential) Zoning/Land Use "M -3C" (Medium Density Residential) and "P" (Institutional) WEST Single Family Residential Dwellings Comprehensive Plan "LD" (Low Density Residential) Zoning/Land Use "R-3" (Single Family Residential) Dougherty Molenda Attorneys Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A. MEMORANDUM To: Bruce Nordquist, Community Development Director From: Michael G. Dougherty, City Attorney Date: June 26, 2019 Re: Amendment to Comprehensive Guide Plan Application of Apple Valley East Golf Course 14985 Glazier Avenue, Suite 525 Apple Valley, MN 55124 (952) 953-8820 Direct (962) 432-3136 Office (952) 432-3780 Fax Mdougherty@dmshb.com Email At the June 19, 2019 Planning Commission hearing, a resident spoke of a Minnesota Supreme Court case: Mendota Golf, LLP vs. City of Mendota Heights.' A member of the City Council has asked that we opine as to the relevance of Mendota Golf in relation to the application before the Planning Commission. In doing so, we want to note that the facts and circumstances surrounding Mendota Golf are unique. The substantive value of the Court's decision can be more fully understood in the decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Wensmann Realty Inc. v. City of Eagan 2 (which will be discussed later in the memo). MENDOTA GOLF DECISION The genesis of the conflict found in Mendota Golf stemmed from the City of Mendota Heights Comprehensive Guide Plan designating 18 acres as "Golf Course" (GC), while the city's zoning ordinance designated the property as "Residential" (R-1 one family residential). In 1995, the Minnesota Legislature adopted a statute directing cities to reconcile conflicts between comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances by requiring zoning ordinances to be brought into conformance with the comprehensive plan.3 In 2003, the owner submitted an application to change the comprehensive plan designation of the property from golf course to low density residential. The City Council unanimously denied the application. The property owner brought suit asking the Court to issue a writ to require the city to amend the comprehensive plan, arguing that the city had a duty to amend the plan and that the city acted arbitrarily by failing to adopt a rational justification for denying the amendment. The Supreme Court held that the city did not have a duty to amend the comprehensive plan to correlate with the zoning. Rather, it held that the city's duty was to "reconcile" the conflict between the comprehensive guide plan and the zoning regulations, which could be accomplished by amending the zoning regulations. With respect to whether the city acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, the Supreme Court found that the city properly considered and articulated a legitimate interest in protecting open and recreational space, as well as reaffirming the historical use of the property. The matter was sent back to district court to issue a writ directing the city to reconcile the conflict between its comprehensive guide plan and zoning regulations (which the city acknowledged it had to do.) One of the key outcomes of Mendota Golf stemmed from the dissent authored by Justice Barry Anderson. Justice Anderson concurred with the decision to reconcile the comprehensive guide plan and the zoning. However, he August 1, 2019 Page 2 of 2 also opened the issue as to whether the city's rationale to retain open space and recreational opportunities constituted a taking which required the city to pay the owner just compensation. Justice Anderson noted that the owner had not asserted a taking, but invited an amendment to the pleadings to allow such to occur. Ultimately, the City acquired the property following the approval by its voters to spend 2.8 million dollars. WENSMANN REALTY The year after Mendota Golf, the Minnesota Supreme Court was faced with the issue raised by Justice Anderson in his dissent. In Wensmann Realty, the Court first considered whether the City of Eagan' s denial of a comprehensive plan amendment was supported by a rational basis. The city's articulated reasons were: to preserve open and recreational space, to reaffirm the historical use of designations; to avoid the disruption of surrounding neighborhoods due to increased traffic; and to avoid burdens on the school systems. Based on its holding in Mendota Golf and a review of the record, the Supreme Court concluded that Wensmann Realty had failed to establish that the City lacked a rational basis for its decision in denying the application. However, unlike the property owner in Mendota Golf, Wensmann Realty also included a claim that the city' s action constituted a taking. The bulk of the Wensmann Realty decision centered on whether the city' s denial resulted in a regulatory taking under the Minnesota Constitution. The Court noted that the citizens of Eagan clearly valued the open space that the golf course in question provided, but if the property owner is forced to leave the property undeveloped for the benefit of neighborhood land owners, without an opportunity to pursue a reasonable use of the property, the city is, in essence, asking the property owner to carry a burden that in all fairness should be borne by the entire community. Ultimately, the Court found that it could not determine from the record whether the city' s denial left the property owner with any reasonable use of the property. The Supreme Court then remanded the matter back to the district court for proceedings consistent with its opinion, thereby requiring a determination of whether there remained a reasonable use of the property or whether the city had effected a regulatory taking. Similar to the outcome in Mendota Golf, the City settled the lawsuit. APPLE VALLEY EAST GOLF COURSE The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Unlike the facts in Mendota Golf, there is no existing conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations with respect to the use of the property. Should the City amend the Comprehensive Plan designation for the property, the City is required to amend the zoning regulation within nine months, so as to eliminate any conflict with Comprehensive Plan.4 As in all of its land use decisions, the City must have a rational basis for its decision that is supported by the facts in the record. Should the City' s decision leave the landowner without a reasonable use of the property, the decision may result in a claim that a regulatory taking has occurred. ' Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006). 2 Wenzman Realty Inc. v. City of Eagan 734 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. 2007). s Minn. Stat. §473.858, Subd. 1 (1995). 4 Minn. Stat. §473.865, Subd. 3 (2019). www.dmshb.com Dougherty Molendaill Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A. ••• vies* ••• CITY OF Apple Valley MEMO Public Works TO: Tom Lovelace, Planner FROM: Brandon S. Anderson, PE, City Engineer DATE: October 9, 2019 SUBJECT: Apple Valley East Golf Course Comprehensive Plan Amendments Traffic 1. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates both Garden View and 140th as Major Collectors. The posted speed limit on 140th Street is 45 mph, while Garden View Drive is posted at 40 mph. a. The capacity of a 4 -lane undivided urban roadway (140th Street) is 24,000 — 28,000 ADT. 2018 Volumes on 140th Street are at 10,740 ADT with 2040 projected volumes to be 14,700 ADT. b. The capacity of a 2 -lane undivided urban roadway (Garden View north of 140th) is 14,000 — 15,000 ADT. 2018 Volumes on Garden View (north of 140th) are at 2,652 ADT with 2040 projected volumes to be 4,000 ADT. c. The capacity of a 2 -lane undivided urban roadway (Garden View south of 140th) is 14,000 — 15,000 ADT. 2018 Volumes on Garden View (south of 140th) are at 4,708 ADT with 2040 projected volumes to be 6,100 ADT. 2. See table below for the estimated roadway impacts from three different scenarios. The trips were generated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition daily estimates for medium density residential developments. The scenario for which trip generation was completed includes the applicant proposed scenario (Table 1). Table 1. Applicant Proposed Scenario Trip Generation with Full Build out of Site Type of Units Acres Units Per Acre Trips/Unit Total Trips Low Density 0.5 2 9.5 9.5 Medium Density 22.5 12 7.5 2025 High Density 0 24 5.5 0 Total Trips 2035 3. The trips were then distributed to the area roadways based on a directional distribution that was estimated based on existing volume patterns and engineering judgement. It was assumed that the proposed development would have one access point to 140th Street (outside of the single low density unit on Hollins Court). Impacts were then developed based on the trip generation and distribution. The potential roadway impacts were then evaluated, included the amount of new trips expected on the roadway segments and a check of the capacity of those segments. The analysis was completed for the Applicant proposed scenario (Table 2). Table 2. Applicant Proposed Scenario Roadway Impacts with Full Build out of Site Public Roadway Systems Impact Roadway Cross Section Ex. AADT Estimated AADT Increase Proposed Future AADT Percent Change in AADT Roadway Capacity Volume to Capacity Ratio LOS Garden View Drive N of 140th Street 2 Lane Undivided Urban 2650 310 2960 14% 10000 0.30 A 140th St S of McAndrews Road 4 Lane Undivided Urban 10900 1225 12125 13% 28000 0.43 B 140th St W of Garden View Drive 4 Lane Undivided Urban 10300 815 11115 9% 28000 0.40 B Hollins Court 2 Lane Residential* 100 10 110 10% 1000 0.11 A *Typical roadway capacity of residential roadways is estimated as 1000 trips per day. Other roadway capacities obtained from the City of Apple Valley Comprehensive Plan 4. Public Roadway Systems Impact a. The daily traffic expected to be generated with the proposed change to land use is expected to be approximately 2,035 Total Trips assuming all 22.5 acres are developed. b. The roadways are expected to be able to accommodate the 9-14% increase in traffic. A separate operational and intersection analysis will need to be completed at the time of a land use application for review of access spacing needs and traffic mitigation. Sanitary Sewer 5. Public 8" Sanitary Sewer is available within the 140th Street ROW which drains to a Trunk Sanitary sewer within Garden View and ultimately discharges to an MCES meter connection at the Lakeville/Apple Valley border near Cedar Avenue and 160th Street. The available capacity in the trunk system varies from 40-60% remaining capacity. Water main 6. Public 8" water main is available with 140th Street ROW north of the 138th Street Intersection. Water main would need to be extended to the southeast along 140th Street and connected to the Garden View 12" Trunk Water main to adequately serve the site. Current available Fire Flow at 20 psi is <1,500 gpm. Average pressures are ±61 psi within the Middle Pressure Zone. Storm water Management 7. The site is located within the Alimagnet Lake Watershed. Alimagnet Lake is currently listed as impaired for Excess Nutrients. In accordance with 2018 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), several storm water policies would need to be addressed for new or redevelopment of the site: a. Policy 6.1 The City requires compliance with all applicable post -construction water quality criteria for new and redevelopment activity adopted by the Black Dog Watershed Management Organization and the Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization, as described in the BDWMO Watershed Management Plan (2012, as amended) and VRWJPO Standards (2016, as amended). b. Policy 6.2 The City requires that all new, redeveloped, or expanded commercial, industrial, multiple residential, or institutional development provide infiltration for a volume equivalent to 0.5 inches of runoff over the area of the development. c. Policy 6.3 The City requires that new and redevelopment activity of 0.2 acres or more shall be required to achieve no -net -increase in average annual total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP) loading compared to the pre - development condition of the site. d. Policy 6.4 The City may require additional treatment measures as needed for any development or re -development activity to protect downstream receiving waters, including, but not limited to, additional measures in TMDLs or WRAPS watersheds plans. 8. The site is also located adjacent to where areas of localized flooding has occurred during the 10- and 100 -year, 24 hour storm events: a. Holyoke Path and Holyoke Lane b. Garden View Drive just south of 140th Street W. 9. In accordance with SWMP policy 1.5, the city requires that new development and redevelopment activities do not increase peak runoff rates relative to pre -project runoff rates for the 1 -year, 2 -year, 10 -year and 100 -year critical storm event. The City may impose more stringent rate control requirements if the capacity of the downstream system is limited. a. The downstream system (AL -P5 and AL -P6) from the site is limited in storm water capacity and any new or redevelopment will require more stringent rate control requirements. Natural Resources 10. Three (3) Wetlands were identified on site per the Wetland Delineation Report submitted to the City of Apple Valley on July 25, 2018. a. All 3 wetlands were determined to be Manage 2 wetlands and in accordance with Wetland and buffer policies within the 2018 SWMP. The following policies would need to be addressed for new or redevelopment of the site: i. Policy 4.4 The City requires water quality treatment of all storm water prior to discharge to wetlands. ii. Policy 4.5 The City requires that hydrologic impacts to wetlands resulting from development and redevelopment activities do not exceed the following: Wetland Classification Allowable bounce Allowable inundation period (1 -year event) Allowable inundation period (2 -year event) Allowable inundation period (10 -year event) Protect Existing Existing Existing Existing Manage 2 Existing + 1.0ft Existing + 2 days Existing + 2 days Existing + 14 days iii. Policy 4.6 The City requires vegetated buffers zones adjacent to wetlands to be established for development and redevelopment activities. Required buffer zone widths from the delineated edge of the wetland are based on the type of development and wetland classification, as follows: Development Type Wetland Classification Average buffer width (ft) Minimum buffer width (ft) Minimum building setback from buffer (ft) New developments and subdivisions Manage 2 30 25 10 iv. Policy 4.7 The City requires that protective buffer zones be established consistent with the procedures and criteria established in City ordinance chapter 152.57. The protective buffer zone shall be memorialized in perpetuity by a written document approved by the City and a certified survey of the property which shall be recorded by Dakota County. The document shall establish the location of any buffer zones, restrictions, allowances, and management requirements. Lovelace, Tom From: Murphy, Joan Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 1:58 PM To: Lovelace, Tom Subject: FW: comment on Public Hearing for proposed amendments From: Joel Ronningen < _ _ Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 1:56 PM To: Murphy, Joan <JMurphy@ci.apple-valley.mn.us> Subject: comment on Public Hearing for proposed amendments Folks My wife and I live across the corner from the golf course under consideration for rezoning. One of the primary reasons we purchased in this location is because of the low housing density, quiet of the neighborhood, and beautiful green spaces. Developing the land there will undo most of those benefits, and likely lower the desirability of our home for resale. Perhaps the city can buy out the owner and develop the land as a park instead? At any rate, I object to any rezoning of the indicated property. Joel Ronningen 14036 Heywood Path, Apple Valley, MN 55124 i z EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION 1/41S trOPSVJMEi ���T= al Man A.V. GOLF COURSE PROPOSED COMP PLAN DESIGNATION Figure 3 - National Wetlands Inventory dt/IN 3NIl3dId 3911103 3149 A311VA 3lddd App Valley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 4.B. October 16, 2019 Public Hearings Description: Planned Development No. 1053 Sign Ordinance Amendments - PC19-16-Z Consider Amendments to Article 37 of Chapter 155 -Appendix F to Allow for Additional Signage in Zone 1 of Planned Development Designation No. 1053 Staff Contact: Thomas Lovelace, City Planner Department/ Division: Community Development Department Applicant: Menard, Inc. Project Number: PC19-16-Z Applicant Date: 9/13/2019 60 Days: 11/11/2019 120 Days: 1/10/2020 ACTION REQUESTED: Open the public hearing, receive comments and close the public hearing. It is the policy of the Planning Commission not to act on a public hearing item the night of the public hearing. SUMMARY: Menard, Inc. is requesting amendments to Planned Development Ordinance No. 1053 to allow for additional signage for their new Menards building materials store, garden center and lumber yard located at 6055 150th Street West. City code currently allows a retail business to have a ground or pylon sign, which shall not exceed 110 sq. ft. or a height of 24 feet; and building signage that cannot exceed 500 sq. ft. The petitioner is requesting the following signage: 1. 279.5 -sq. ft. building sign with a 71.9 -sq. ft. red and yellow swoosh. 2. 100 -sq. ft. pylon sign, which 23 feet tall. The sign will be located along the east of the CSAH 42 entrance into the site and will be located 16 feet from the south property. 3. Several informational signs on both sides of the lumberyard entrance/exit area. 4. A 1'-2" x 40'-0" (46.67 -sq. ft.) slogan sign that will be located between the two entrances to the store. 5. A 2'-0" x 15'-1 1/4" (30.2 sq. ft.) garden center sign the will located just to the east the Garden Center entrance. 6. Eight signs on the front elevation that will identify different departments within the store. The signs will be two feet high and will vary length depending on the number of letters. The building sign with the swoosh and pylon sign appears to be in conformance with the City's sign regulations. Simple modifications can be made to the lumberyard informational/directional signage to bring those into conformance. Amendments to the planned development ordinance will be necessary to bring the slogan sign, garden center sign, and the department identification signs into compliance. In recent years, the City has amended two existing planned development ordinances to accommodate additional signage on the front of a large retailer's building. These planned developments are the locations of the Southport Target and Apple Valley Walmart. The stores were remodeled and part of that remodel included the addition of a second and third entrance and the retailers were seeking additional signage that would identify the entrances to certain departments within the store. In Planned Development No. 244, which is the location of the Southport Target, the ordinance was amended to read as follows: • In Zone 1, a business occupying a tenant spaces over 150,000 square feet which has two different business operations within the space, shall be allowed signage in addition to the primary business sign to direct customers to the business operations within the tenant space. The additional signage shall not exceed 55 square feet and must be located above the entrance to each business operation. Only two additional business operation identification signs shall be allowed per tenant space. In Planned Development No. 341, which is the location of the Apple Valley Walmart, the ordinance was amended to read as follows: • A business occupying 150,000 square feet or more of interior building space, which has more than one type of retail service component to its business operations (e.g., general merchandise, grocery, garden and/or pharmacy), may have a building sign, in addition to the primary business building sign permitted by this code, to direct customers to each separate retail area within the business space. Each additional sign shall not exceed 55 square feet, and shall be located over the building entrance into the retail service component of the business for which the sign relates. No more than three building signs for the retail service components of the business shall be permitted. The petitioner has not indicated any unique circumstances that would afford them additional signage than what is currently allowed other large retail operations. It should also be noted that they made a similar request for department signage on the front of their existing building, which was not approved. The petitioner has not provided any information on why the new location should be allowed signage that was not approved at the existing site. Therefore, the City may want to consider amending the planned development ordinance to allow additional signage consistent with what is allowed in Planned Development No. 244 and 341. With regard to the slogan sign, there was an issue with the slogan sign being located outside of the front elevation's sign band area at the current location. Menards worked with the City to relocate that sign, which brought it into compliance with the sign regulations. Staff would like to have the opportunity to do the same at the new location. BACKGROUND: N/A BUDGET IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Applicant Letter Site Plan Elevations MENARD 0 September 13, 2019 VIA HAND DELIVERY City of Apple Valley Community Development / Planning Attn: Tom Lovelace 7100 147th St. W. Apple Valley, MN 55124 Re: Menards PD Amendment - Signage. Dear Mr. Lovelace, Please find enclosed the application materials for the Menards Signage Amendment: 1. Land Use / Development Application Form; 2. Zoning Amendment Fee ($680); 3. Deposit Agreement; 4. Land Use / Development Escrow Funds ($1,068); 5. Zoning Report, including Abstractor's certificate, legal description, and mailing labels; 6. Three (3) 24" x 36" and Two (2) 11" x 17" copies of the Site Plan, Store Elevation Plan, and Store Signage Plan; 7. Flash Drive containing the PDF's of the plans. The plans depict the signage request specific to the Menards Lot. The pylon sign located in the southwestern corner of the lot is proposed to be 23' in height and 100 sq.ft. in area. This remains in conformity with the underlying Zoning requirements. The PD Amendment is necessitated by the proposed building signage. Menard, Inc. is requesting a series of departmental signs across the front facade of the stores, along with a series of directional / informational signs on the canopy structure that provides entry to the lumberyard. These departmental signs have been designed to fit within the tan brick "rectangles" located along the storefront of the store, as well as one centered above the garden center overhang. We believe the tan brick "rectangles" and accompanying departmental signage helps to break-up the expanse of the store. I am available to discuss the request. I believe this submittal should allow the proposed PD Amendment to proceed to the Planning Commission on Wednesday, October 16th. I would appreciate your confirmation. Sincerely, Meard, Inc. Tom O'Neil Senior Real Estate Representative Menard, Inc. 5101 Menard Drive Eau Claire, WI 54703 0: 715.876.2810 C: 715.579.9668 toneilO_Dmenarcl-it-c.com 5101 MENARD DRIVE EAU CLAIRE, WI 54703-9625 PHONE (715) 876-5911 FAX (715) 876-2868 VD8-3DIE DiV 3ANNH8f cna ce CR 42 (150TH, ST \\ 8-.N F .h -,EI .0 .0-. 0 2-.8T Ns\ 42(150TH, ST. W,) J 0 i ! i A R A 0 t 1 +� a X S X s yy g $ 5 5 4 A $ a` Ls 1 1 1lflIji 1 1i $ipirl� #331 1 • 1.4 15. 1 it 1111 tii t! VD8-3DIE DiV 3ANNH8f cna ce CR 42 (150TH, ST \\ 8-.N F .h -,EI .0 .0-. 0 2-.8T Ns\ 42(150TH, ST. W,) J 0 8 ©0 ce LJ J ial co C -s- N ELEVATIONS SIGN LEGEND N -___aa_maa�� s - .n = = t i � 4 u n, a b w n t. __ o r gg Fho . g yy kk 3aou Nt. AdONn3 3.9 z gt z ANCE SIGN SCALE, ue = r -o• W J W ... :•• ...• App Valley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 4.C. October 16, 2019 Public Hearings Description: Bogarts Entertainment Center- PC19-17-C Staff Contact: Alex Sharpe, Planner and Economic Development Spec. Department / Division: Community Development Department Applicant: Alan Loth - Bogarts Entertainment Center Project Number: PC19-17-C Applicant Date: 9/18/2019 60 Days: 11/17/2019 120 Days: 1/16/2020 ACTION REQUESTED: Open the public hearing, receive comments and close the public hearing. Though it is the policy of the Planning Commission not to act on an item the same night as its public hearing, staff believes the proposal can move forward if there are no adverse comments received. If the Planning Commission concurs, staff recommends approval of a Conditional Use Permit amendment for Bogarts Entertainment Center subject to the following conditions: 1. The Conditional Use Permit shall apply to property legally described as Part of Lot 2, Block 7 of Apple Valley Commercial Addition lying south of a line beginning at the west line 530 feet north from the southwest corner, then east at a right angle 406.25 feet to the east line and there terminating. 2. The conditional use shall be conducted in conformance with the site plan received in City offices on February 19, 2013, on file at the City Offices, and attached hereto as "Exhibit A". 3. There shall be no more than two (2) outdoor volleyball courts measuring 45'x80' (3,600 sq. ft.) each located at the southwest corner of the building. 4. The 20'x90' (1,800 sq. ft.) sundeck and 10'x20' (200 sq. ft.) service bar shall be located north of the courts compact and contiguous to the building. 5. No more than 24 parking spaces shall be occupied by the outdoor volleyball courts and sundeck/service bar. 6. The outdoor volleyball courts and sundeck/service bar shall not be operated except during the period of the last full week in April to the first full week in September. Installation of the temporary outdoor volleyball courts and sundeck may occur three weeks prior to operation. All materials associated with the temporary outdoor volleyball courts shall be removed from the parking lot and stored inside the primary building or removed from the site no later than September 30th of each year. 7. The volleyball courts shall not be in use except during the following periods: 6:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Mondays through Thursdays; and 10:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. Fridays through Sundays. 8. The property owner shall pay all necessary SAC and WAC charges prior to use of the sundeck/ service bar areas. 9. No alcoholic beverages shall be possessed or consumed outside of the delineated area of the outdoor volleyball court facility and sundeck/service bar area. No sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages shall occur within the outdoor volleyball court facility or sundeck/service bar area unless the proper on -sale alcohol license has been issued by the City permitting on -sale of alcohol within the outdoor volleyball court facility or sundeck/service bar areas. 10. The outdoor volleyball courts shall be fenced with a woven mesh netting not to exceed 17' in height as measured from parking lot grade, and temporary lights shall be mounted on perimeter poles. Said lights shall be arranged so as not to cause light trespass at the property line, or cause glare onto adjacent roadways. 11. The outdoor volleyball court facility or sundeck/service bar area shall be delineated with a temporary physical barrier subject to minimum area requirements pursuant to the Fire and Building Codes. 12. The perimeter boards must contain sand from escaping at the base. The perimeter boards must placed high enough to contain the sand to prevent spillage. 13. Any sand migrating out of the volleyball courts onto the pavement shall be swept immediately and/or upon notice by the City. 14. All sand or material shall be properly covered and maintained throughout the season when not in use. 15. Provide and maintain perimeter sediment control BMPs such as rock or compost filter logs along the perimeter boards to prevent sediment runoff from reaching parking lot and stone sewer for the life of the application. 16. The Conditional Use Permit may be revoked if the permittee does not comply with the terms of conditions #2 through #15 above. SUMMARY: Bogarts Entertainment Center is seeking a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) amendment for their sand volleyball courts. In 2018, the City approved an Interim Use Permit (IUP) to temporarily allow the storage of the sand over the winter. As there have not been any negative impacts from the storage, the applicant is seeking to amend their CUP to allow the storage permanently, and not require a yearly application/review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff has determined that the storage of the sand over the winter season did not negatively affect the storm water system and is supportive of the application. The ability to store the sand year-round allows for a more permanent installation, creates opportunities for unique winter activities, and saves the applicant the cost of removal and placement each year. Additional conditions have been added to the CUP to address the year-round storage which will help address run-off issues. BACKGROUND: History of Volleyball Court Request In 2013, Apple Place Bowl/Bogarts Nightclub was issued a CUP to allow outdoor sand volleyball in the parking lot on the site. A condition of this use was that the volleyball courts, including the sand and lights be removed from the site each year prior to September 30th. In 2018 The site came under new ownership who sought to retain the sand on site during the winter months. They would do so by taking half of the sand and placing it on the other half of the court, essentially folding the southern half and placing it onto the northern half. This allows for additional parking during the busy winter even/bowling months. Bogarts will continue to utilize the sand for unique winter activities such as ice sculptures, slides, etc. When the 2013 CUP was issued there were two primary concerns with retaining the sand on site, which led to the requirement that it be removed each year. The first was to prevent sand from entering the storm water system. The second was ensuring the site had adequate parking during its busy winter months. Storm Water Protection The Public Works and Natural Resources Departments have evaluated the sand storage for the 2018-2019 season and found that the impact is no more than having the sand present in the summer. Additional requirements to prevent sand running off with the storm water are being added as conditions to the CUP. These will be on site improvements, that can help address sand spilling from the enclosure. Parking Having the site meeting parking requirements was the second concern noted in the CUP in 2013. As constructed, the site is 30 parking spaces short of requirements, but has a cross access parking agreement with Fit Academy, and the Commons II building. When the volleyball courts are in place they remove 24 parking spaces. To store the sand on site for the winter the total spaces removed will be 12. The CUP report in 2013 noted that while the total parking for the sites do not meet code, they are able to meet parking demands due to staggered use of the sites with vastly different peak demand times. Fit Academy and the Commons II building have peak uses in the morning, and during the business day. Whereas Bogarts demands are evenings and weekends. Staff has not noted parking concerns since the establishment of the volleyball courts in 2013 and did not note any parking concerns last winter. BUDGET IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Area Map Site Plan Applicant Letter TAY • - .21 _ 147TH-S-rV Li= J g 11111L MM. a aft . .a• a.ada. --GIA-21t1TAVE I _ _ J r air] lir r _ 1 ,,, To,.. -i -,i, iii,ii,,-,4-7, _., qv kir ,-;:k ii Oder] I bi [ it 151:ITJH ST W — 15./1 t oaf 11 iii tit . iivi.weeill • .,...f, ,../41M2,-Wilalffill 111 Tr% /OP Ale. EMMA libiktr --L0111Ar -'d Orr'. 4 tk'etrit ocair,"1 1.,,poiDe to, --i 0.: OmItais&-ii trtillat.Latig 7 ,hoririw-wrii wriast-4 PL 41104 am Alhi 1 --- ruir7 _ell rlIIjilnlF- P-rillowErailm, um 11."alArlaitillm-.- Kg ki 1240.4 a le0P-N01111101E111 di 01 fril.mrab, ightlitan.ra, Cr - U BOGART'S ENTERTAINMENT CENTER 14917 GARRETT AVE. APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124 „0,5-17 Q Lu • s NTS BOGARTS ENTERTAINMENT CENTER CITY OF APPLE VALLEY LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 7100 147TH STREET WEST APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124 August 28, 2019 BOGART'S ENTERTAINMENT CENTER PROJECT DESCRITION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR VOLLEYBALL AREA IT WOULD BE OUR DESIRE TO CONTINUE TO USE A PORTION OF THE OUTSIDE VOLLEY BALL AREA IN THE FALL AND WINTER SEASON. WE ARE PROPOSING TO "DOUBLE UP" THE VOLLEYBALL AREA TO HALF OF THE SUMMER SPACE. WE WOULD MOVE THE SAND ON COURT A ON THE DIAGRAM AND MOVE IT ON TOP OF COURT B. THIS WOULD REDUCE THE AREA IN HALF TO APPROXIMATELY 80'X45'. IT IS OUR INTENTION TO EXPLORE SOME OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES TO GO ALONG WITH OUR WINTER SEASON OF BOWLING AND ENTERTAINMENT. WE ARE CONSIDERING WINTER SNOW VOLLEYBALL, SOME CHRISTMAS SEASONAL ACTIVITIES (WEATHER PERMITTING), AND A POSSIBLE ICE RINK. THIS WILL ALSO ALLOW US TO KEEP OUR SAND FOR NEXT SEASON OF VOLLEYBALL AND ACTUALLY IMPLROVE THE SURFACE WITH AN EXISTING BASE AND NEW HIGHER QUALITY SAND LAYER ON TOP. WE WILL REMOVE ALL ELECTRICAL LIGHTING AS ANY ACTIVITY WILL BE DURING THE DAY. THE NEAREST STORM DRAIN IS ABOUT 300 FEET TO THE EAST OF THE VOLLEYBALL AREA ON THE FAR EAST SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY. SINCERELY, 2 ALAN LOTH OWNER 952-432-1515 ... :•• ...• App Valley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 4.D. October 16, 2019 Public Hearings Description: Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendment - PC19-18-0 Consider Ordinance Amending §155.382 Expanding Provision for Accessory Dwelling Units to All Residential Zoning Districts Staff Contact: Kathy Bodmer, Al CP, Planner Department/ Division: Community Development Department Applicant: Gregg Rudolph Project Number: PC19-18-0 Applicant Date: 60 Days: 120 Days: ACTION REQUESTED: Open public hearing, receive comments, close public hearing. It is the policy of the Planning Commission to not take action on an item on the same night as its public hearing. SUMMARY: Application Request: The City is the applicant for this ordinance amendment based on previous City Council, Planning Commission and Urban Affairs Advisory Committee direction. The City received a Sketch Plan request to consider amending § 155.382 of the City Code to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the "R-3" (Single family residential, 11,000 sq. ft. minimum lot) zoning district. The interested property owner, Gregg Rudolph, 4777 -137th Street West, would like to remodel the lower level of his home to create an ADU, a separate accessory living unit for aging parents, and perhaps to rent out to others in the future. Because the requested amendment was consistent with previous City Council direction, staff decided that the City should initiate the ordinance amendment. What is an ADU? An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a separate living unit created on a single family property, either within, attached or detached from the primary structure. Other names for these units include "mother-in-law apartments" or "granny flats." An accessory dwelling is a second, but subordinate, living unit. The purpose of the ADU is not to split a single family home to create a duplex or two-family home, but is to create a smaller, supplemental separate living unit where the property owner remains on the property, living in either the primary dwelling or the ADU. The ADU provides private living space within a single family home structure. Currently, ADUs are only permitted in two zoning districts in the City of Apple Valley: 1. In 2001, Cobblestone Lake Single Family. Planned Development Zone 703, Zone 1, Cobblestone Lake, was established to allow accessory dwelling units as a permitted accessory use. The ADU may be within, attached or detached to the primary home. The units may not exceed 900 sq. ft. and are limited to one occupant unless City Council permission is given for two occupants. At least one detached garage was constructed with a living unit above and served as the Cobblestone Lake development sales office. To staffs knowledge, the unit above the garage is not currently used as an ADU. Because ADUs are permitted by right in the zoning district, there may be other ADUs in Cobblestone Lake that have been constructed that required no additional permitting or review by the City. 2. In 2003, the City enacted § 155.382 which allows ADUs in the R-1 (Single family residential, 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot) zoning district, by conditional use permit (CUP), subject to a number of conditions. ADUs may be within or attached to the primary dwelling unit; no detached ADUs are currently permitted in the R-1 zone. Since 2003, two conditional use permits have been issued for ADUs in connection with large home reconstruction and expansion projects. In the two CUP requests noted above, ADUs were proposed to be occupied by family members. Needed Amendments: In order to allow ADUs in other single family zoning districts, the following amendments will need to be considered to the existing code: 1. Include ADUs in "R-2" (Single family, 18,000 min. lot), "R-3" (Single family, 11,000 min. lot), "R -CL" (Residential Cluster) and PD zoning districts. 2. Impervious surface coverage max. 35% should be amended to reference the updated impervious surface coverage requirements which vary depending on lot size. 3. The maximum number of tenants allowed in the ADU is three which may be better suited in the larger single family districts only. Maybe reduce to one or two tenants in the smaller single family zoning districts. 4. There is currently no maximum size ADU permitted. Limit the size of the ADU to 900 sq. ft.? Maybe include size restriction in smaller single family zoning districts. 5. The ADU ordinance currently allows a second garage to be constructed as part of primary structure. The City may wish to limit this allowance to the R-1 zone. 6. Should City consider allowing second driveway leading to a parking pad to accommodate ADUs? BACKGROUND: Planning Commission Discussion: The Planning Commission reviewed the Sketch Plan at its September 18, 2019, meeting and raised a number of questions and comments for discussion. The discussion points are listed along with initial staff responses on the attached background report. Current Conditions of Approval of ADU CUP in R-1 Zone : Currently, the ADU ordinance in the R-1 zoning district has the following performance standards: 1. Minimum lot size 40,000 sq. ft. 2. Owner must reside in either the primary structure or the ADU a minimum of 180 consecutive days during the year. 3. A lot with an ADU may not be subdivided or condominiumized. 4. Size of the ADU may not exceed 40% of the footprint of the primary structure or no less than 300 sq. ft. 5. The lot must be able to meet the impervious coverage requirements of Sect.155.350. 6. The ADU must be designed to be compatible in shape and overall design with the primary structure. 7. An ADU may be located within the existing structure or attached to the existing structure. No detached ADUs are permitted. 8. May convert garage space to ADU space only when room available for 2 -car garage remains on the lot. 9. Maximum size of ADU 2 bedrooms and 3 people. 10. ADU must have a minimum of two off-street parking spaces available. No more than 4 vehicles may be parked outside a home with an ADU. 11. Maximum three ADUs within a 1/2 mile radius. 12. Home occupation allowed in either the primary residence or the ADU, but not both. 13. The entrance to the ADU must not be obtrusive to the front entrance to the home. 14. An ADU will only be allowed when demonstrated that such unit will not negatively impact the existing neighborhood. 15. An additional garage is permitted if only one garage is visible from the street. Scope of the Ordinance Enacted in 2003: When the ADU regulations were first discussed in 2003, the City Council preferred to enact the ordinance on a limited scale before adopting it city-wide. The ADU provisions were allowed in the R-1 (Single family, 40,000 min. lot) and PD -703, Zone 1, zoning districts. The City has received no complaints and has had no issues related to the three ADUs that are officially permitted in the City. If the ordinance is amended to allow ADUs in the R-3 zone, the City should also explore expanding the ordinance to allow ADUs in other "R" zones and single family PD zones. BUDGET IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Background Material Memo Ordinance Ordinance ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROJECT REVIEW Planning Commission Sketch Plan Review Comments: At its meeting of September 18, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed a Sketch Plan request to amend City Code §155.382 to allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the "R-3" (Single family residential, 11,000 sq. ft. minimum lot) zoning district. The Planning Commission raised a number of issues and questions at the meeting that are highlighted below. The preliminary staff responses are based on current policy and ordinance requirements. 1. Is the City creating an enforcement problem by enacting a city-wide ADU ordinance? What is the difference between a home with a secondary kitchenette and an ADU? Staff response: The concern raised was that it would be difficult to distinguish between a home with a second kitchenette and a full ADU. The City has had to enforce this issue, and while it can be challenging, enforcement is conducted based on the facts. The key is to be able to clearly define and differentiate between a single family home and a two-family dwelling. The City Code defines a "Unit Dwelling" as "A single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation." A home with a secondary kitchenette will continue to function as a single family home. The distinction is made when the home is divided into two separate independent living spaces, and two households are operating independently of each other. The City Attorney memo raises a similar issue in cases when an ADU is rented out to a non -related tenant. The City is notified of secondary units during the building permit process and from neighbor observations. Planning staff and building inspections staff work together to educate the homeowner about the code requirements for single family homes. Ben Pierson, Code Enforcement Specialist, says that from time to time the City has had to pursue code enforcement cases when single family homes have been split up into multiple separate living units. He states that enforcement is conducted the same as any other code enforcement issue. Complaints are investigated and property owners in violation are educated, and in some cases, taken to court, to ensure compliance with City Code requirements. 2. Should an ADU have separate utility connections and separate meters? Staff response: The Public Works Department states that requiring separate utility services and separate meters would place a burden on the Utilities Division. Separate connections would require more upkeep and staff time to monitor and maintain the additional equipment. Requiring separate connections and meters will place an additional cost on the City. Instead, it is preferred that the property continue to operate as a single-family residence with a single service connection and meter. 3. Does the ordinance prohibit expanding the footprint of a home for an ADU? Would allowing ADUs promote construction of "monster" homes that are out of scale and much larger than other homes in the neighborhood? Staff response: Currently the code section regulating ADUs restricts the size of the ADU to 40% of the building footprint, but allows a larger size if the City Council finds that the proposed ADU is clearly subordinate to the primary dwelling; other than that, there is no maximum size limitation for an AUD. The two approved R-1 ADUs were constructed in connection with significant home improvement projects. In the case of the home on Denmark Ave, the approved ADU was 1,400 sq. ft. which was 53% of the primary building footprint, but 24% of the home's total living area. The ADU on Diamond Path was approved at 1,100 sq. ft. which was 46% of the primary dwelling footprint, but 34% of the home's total living area. The City may wish to establish a maximum size of the ADU in the smaller single family zoning districts. In PD -703, accessory dwelling units may not exceed 900 sq. ft. Perhaps a condition could be added to the Code provisions to state that an expansion for an ADU cannot exceed 40% of the homes existing footprint to prevent excessive expansions. This will need to be discussed in more detail. 4. Can an ADU be rented out simply to collect rent money? If so, would an ADU rented out to a non -family member have special construction requirements since it is technically a commercial enterprise? Staff response: ADU's are not required to be occupied by family members. Such a requirement would require an affidavit or regular tracking to monitor. However, if this is something the City finds to be an important consideration, this could be addressed. The Building Official states that whether a single family home is rented or owned, the building code requirements are the same. There are no special building code requirements for rented single family homes. 5. Could a corner lot install a second driveway to a parking pad or direct access to the ADU? Is a driveway limited to accessing a garage? Staff response: The Zoning Code currently restricts driveways to leading to an attached or detached garage, accessory structure, or beside the attached garage. No provisions are currently available for constructing a separate driveway as a parking pad or to provide access to an ADU. The risk with allowing a separate parking pad is that it could become another surface for outdoor storage which can negatively impact neighboring properties. In addition to the Planning Commission comments, the following issues have been identified by staff and will need to be discussed in connection with the ordinance amendment. 6. Should a separate address be established for public safety purposes? This has not been a requirement to date. The Police Department does not think a "list" is necessary, but it would be helpful to let the dispatchers know. Dispatch is on the distribution list for new addresses. 7. An affidavit or other form of documentation will be required to ensure that the owner - occupancy requirements are met. 8. AUDs would not be tracked through the City's rental registration program because the homeowner will remain on the property. 9. Is allowing an ADU essentially allowing a second dwelling in a one -family zoning district? Through performance standards, the zoning requirements will need to be crafted to ensure that the ADU is subordinate and that the property continues to operate like a single family home. Dougherty Molenda Attorneys Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A. MEMORANDUM DATE: October 9, 2019 TO: Kathy Bodmer, Planner FROM: Sharon K. Hills City Attorney's Office RE: Accessory Dwelling Units Zoning Code Regulations 14985 Glazier Avenue, Suite 525 Apple Valley, MN 55124 (952) 953-8844 Direct (962) 432-3136 Office (952) 432-3780 Fax shills@dmshb.com Email In accordance with your request, this memorandum addresses the legal impact(s) of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) under the City's zoning regulations. This memorandum also addresses the enforceability of the ADU regulations as noted by several of the members of the Planning Commission at its September 18, 2019 meeting. An ADU in a single-family home is currently allowed under the City's zoning regulations. However, ADUs are allowed only in R-1 districts. The issue presented to the Planning Commission and City Council is whether the City Code should be amended to expand the residential zones in which an ADU will be permitted (e.g. include R-2, R-3, etc). In reviewing this item, our office noted to planning staff the impact of ADUs in single family districts in the absence of use restrictions for the ADU. In R-1, R-2 and R-3 districts, the "permitted use" is a "one -family detached dwelling." The Code defines a dwelling unit as a "single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation." As an ADU is defined and designed/used, it is a separate "independent living unit," from the primary residential area of the home. In effect, an ADU creates a second dwelling unit in or attached to the single family home, thereby two-family attached dwelling units are on a property zoned for a single family use. Further, there is no regulation prohibiting the rental of one of the dwelling units. In the abscense of such provision, an ADU could be rented out to a non -family third party or via a vacation rental platform. In either case, the ADU is no longer "accessory" to the home but is one of 2 principle uses (two residential dwelling units) on a single-family property (i.e. both units are used as a residence by two family units). Further, if the ADU is used for a vacation rental (Airbnb or VRBO), then it violates the zoning because it is operated as a commercial use (lodging accommodations). Kathy Bodmer, Planner October 10, 2019 Page 2 of 2 With respect to enforcement of a second dwelling unit in a single-family home, this is not a new task for the City's code enforcement division or our office. We have often addressed this issue in the past and it is simply a matter of fact finding and application to the zoning regulations. The presence of a full kitchen in the lower level of a home or a door with a lock dividing the two spaces does not, in and of themselves, determine if it is an unlawful second dwelling unit. We enforce based on the facts presented in each case. SKH/skh Zoning Code Excerpt Accessory Unit Dwelling (AUD) § 155.052 CONDITIONAL USES. (A) Within any R-1, R-2 and R-3 district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses or uses deemed similar by the City Council, except by a conditional use permit: (4) Accessory unit dwelling (AUD) subject to the regulations thereof in the R-1 district only. § 155.382 ACCESSORY UNIT DWELLING. (A) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to permit no more than one accessory unit dwelling (AUD) in a one -family detached dwelling (R-1 district only) by conditional use permit. The R-1 zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet which ensures that additional housing will have less impact on neighboring properties. Because this conditional use will be located in established one -family residential districts (single family home neighborhoods), the installation and use of accessory unit dwelling must be strictly controlled to avoid adverse physical, social, economic, environmental and aesthetic impacts. By allowing only those accessory unit dwellings that are in compliance with all of the performance standards of this section, the character and quality of existing neighborhoods will be protected. (B) Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter the following definition shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. ACCESSORY UNIT DWELLING ("AUD"). A subordinate habitable unit dwelling added to or created within a one -family detached dwelling (hereinafter PRIMARY RESIDENCE) that provides the basic requirements of shelter, heating, cooking and sanitation. (C) Conditional use permit required. No property within a one -family residential district shall have more than one unit dwelling, unless a conditional use permit is first obtained from the city for an AUD. (D) Performance standards. In addition to the provisions governing conditional use permits elsewhere in this chapter, any AUD permitted by a conditional use permit hereunder shall meet the following requirements: (1) The primary residence must be located within an R-1 zoning district and have a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. (2) A property owner, which shall include title holders and contract purchasers, must reside in either the primary residence or the AUD as their permanent residence. The property owner may be absent from the property for a period not to exceed 180 consecutive days, but must reside in the home not less than 180 consecutive days per calendar year, and during which period the subject property continues to be the applicant's legal and principal residence. (3) An AUD may not be subdivided or otherwise segregated in ownership from the primary residence structure. (4) An AUD's total floor area shall be no more than 40% of the primary residence's footprint and an AUD shall not be less than 300 square feet. The City Council may approve a larger floor area where the petitioner can demonstrate that the additional size is clearly subordinate to the principal dwelling, the exterior changes to the house do not substantially alter its single family character and the resulting total floor area and size of the house is consistent with the size of the homes in the immediate neighborhood. (5) The lot area coverage from the primary residence, an AUD and all other impervious surface shall not exceed 35% of the lot or parcel area. (6) An AUD shall be designed and maintained as to be consistent with the architectural design, style, appearance and character of the primary residence as a single- family residence. If an AUD extends beyond the current footprint or existing height of the main building, such an addition must be consistent with the existing facade, roof pitch, siding and windows. (7) An AUD shall be located within or attached to the primary residence and shall not be permitted in structures detached from the primary residence, including, but not limited to, accessory buildings, detached garages, or workshops. (8) An AUD may be created by the conversion of living space within the primary residence, but not by conversion of garage space unless, thereafter, space is available for a two -car garage on the lot without the need for a variance and the converted AUD complies with all state and city regulations and codes. (9) The total number of occupants in the AUD may not exceed three persons. The AUD shall contain no more than two bedrooms. (10) Two off-street parking spaces shall be required for the AUD, in addition to the two off- street parking spaces required for the primary residence. In no case shall more than four motor vehicles be parked outside of the primary residence. (11) A home with an approved AUD shall not be eligible to obtain a permit to park additional vehicles outside of the residence in conjunction with § 155.373(B)(1)(c). (12) No more than one AUD shall be permitted on a lot or parcel. (13) An AUD shall not be permitted if three AUDs exist, as permitted under this section, within a radius of 2.640 feet (one-half mile) of the proposed AUD. (14) Home occupations may be allowed, subject to existing regulations, but shall only be permitted in either the AUD or the primary residence, but not both. (15) The primary entrance to the AUD shall be located in such a manner as to be unobtrusive from the same view of the building which encompasses the entrance to the primary residence. (16) An AUD shall comply with all state laws, City Code requirements, and building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, and fire code regulations. (17) The primary residence and AUD shall be created and maintained in compliance with the property maintenance regulations set forth in the City Code. (18) The primary residence and AUD shall be connected to municipal sewer and water. (19) In order to encourage the development of housing units for people with disabilities, the city may allow reasonable deviation from the City Code provisions to install features that facilitate accessibility. Such facilities shall be in conformance with the UBC. (20) AUDs shall be permitted only where it is demonstrated that the accessory unit will not have an undue adverse impact on adjacent properties and where there will not be a substantial alteration of the character of the neighborhood. (21) An additional garage may be constructed, provided only one garage is visible from the public street and complies with all state and city laws and regulations. (Ord. 729, passed 6-26-03) § 155.373 PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. (B) Parking in all residential districts shall be subject to the following requirements: (4) No person shall cause, undertake, permit or allow the outside parking and storage of vehicles on residentially zoned property unless it complies with the following requirements: (a) A property located in the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, and R -CL zoning districts, or planned development districts where the primary use is single- family residences may have a maximum of four passenger vehicles, in addition to any permitted motorcycles, recreational vehicles or trailers, parked or stored outside the residence for the occupants of that property provided all passenger vehicles are parked or stored on the lot as regulated by the city code. A permitted accessory unit dwelling shall not be entitled to park additional vehicles than are otherwise allowed for the primary dwelling unit. Zoning Code Excerpt Accessory Unit Dwelling (AUD) § 155.052 CONDITIONAL USES. (A) Within any R-1, R-2 and R-3 district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses or uses deemed similar by the City Council, except by a conditional use permit: (4) Accessory unit dwelling (AUD) subject to the regulations thereof in the R-1 district only. § 155.382 ACCESSORY UNIT DWELLING. (A) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to permit no more than one accessory unit dwelling (AUD) in a one -family detached dwelling (R-1 district only)'by conditional use permit. The R-1 zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet which ensures that additional housing will have less impact on neighboring properties. Because this conditional use will be located in established one -family residential districts (single family home neighborhoods), the installation and use of accessory unit dwelling must be strictly controlled to avoid adverse physical, social, economic, environmental and aesthetic impacts. By allowing only those accessory unit dwellings that are in compliance with all of the performance standards of this section, the character and quality of existing neighborhoods will be protected. (B) Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter the following definition shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning ACCESSORY UNIT DWELLING (" IUD'). A subordinate habitable unit dwelling added to or created within a one -family detached dwelling (hereinafter PRIMARY RESIDENCE) that provides the basic requirements of shelter, heating, cooking and sanitation. (C) Conditional use permit required. No property within a one -family residential district shall have more than one unit dwelling, unless a conditional use permit is first obtained from the city for an AUD. (D) Performance standards. In addition to the provisions governing conditional use permits elsewhere in this chapter, any AUD permitted by a conditional use permit hereunder shall meet the following requirements: (1) The primary residence must be located within an R-1 zoning district and have a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. (2) A property owner, which shall include 'title holders and contract purchasers', must reside in either the primary residence or the AUD as their permanent residence. The property owner may be absent from the property for a period not to exceed 180 consecutive days, but must reside in the home not less than 180 consecutive days per calendar year, and during which period the subject property continues to be the applicant's legal and principal residence'. Commented [BK11: Expand to R-2 (SF, 18,000 sf min. lot), R-3 (SF, 11,000 sf min. lot) and R -CL (SF, follows R-3)? Or, expand to all single family detached so that PDs don't have to be amended individually? Commented [BK2]: Propose to amend. Commented [BK3]: Most cities call them Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) Commented [BK4]: This is the most restrictive approach. Requires public hearing and review on a case by case basis. Other options include allowing by right, but requiring rental license or ADU registration. Commented [BK5]: How does this get memorialized? Just through the CUP? Work with City Attorney on Affidavit or Report. Commented [BK6]: Ensures no absentee owners. Owners will select tenants who are compatible as next door neighbors. (3) An AUD may not be subdivided or otherwise segregated in ownership from the primary residence structure. (4) An AUD's total floor area shall be no more than 40% of the primary residence's footprint and an AUD shall not be less than 300 square feet. The City Council may approve a larger floor area where the petitioner can demonstrate that the additional size is clearly subordinate to the principal dwelling, the exterior changes to the house do not substantially alter its single family character and the resulting total floor area and size of the house is consistent with the size of the homes in the immediate neighborhood. (5) The lot area coverage from the primary residence, an AUD and all other impervious surface shall not exceed 135% of the lot or parcel areal. (6) An AUD shall be designed and maintained as to be consistent with the architectural design, style, appearance and character of the primary residence as a single- family residence. If an AUD extends beyond the current footprint or existing height of the main building, such an addition must be consistent with the existing facade, roof pitch, siding and windows. (7) An AUD shall be located within or attached to the primary residence and shall not be permitted in structures detached from the primary residence', including, but not limited to, accessory buildings, detached garages, or workshops. (8) An AUD may be created by the conversion of living space within the primary residence, but not by conversion of garage space unless, thereafter, space is available for a two -car garage on the lot without the need for a variance and the converted AUD complies with all state and city regulations and codes. (9) The total number of occupants in the AUD may not exceed lthree persons. 1 The AUD shall contain no more than two bedrooms. (10) Two off-street parking spaces shall be required for the AUD, in addition to the two off- street parking spaces required for the primary residence. In no case shall more than four motor vehicles be parked outside of the primary residence. (11) A home with an approved AUD shall not be eligible to obtain a permit to park additional vehicles outside of the residence in conjunction with § 155.373(B)(1)(c). (12) No more than one AUD shall be permitted on a lot or parcel. (13) An AUD shall not be permitted if three AUDs exist, as permitted under this section, within a radius of 2,640 feet (one-half mile) of the proposed AUD. (14) Home occupations may be allowed, subject to existing regulations, but shall only be permitted in either the AUD or the primary residence, but not both. (15) The primary entrance to the AUD shall be located in such a manner as to be unobtrusive from the same view of the building which encompasses the entrance to the primary residence. Commented [BK7]: Should this be amended to total living area rather than footprint? Commented [BK8]: This provision will need to be updated to reflect the new impervious surface regulations. Should reference that section: § 155.350 DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS. Coverage restrictions vary by zoning district and lot size. Commented [BK9]: Maybe expand this provision to allow detached in R-1 zoning districts with minimum lot area of 40,000 sf and meets impervious coverage requirements???? To discuss. Commented [BK10]: The idea was a couple and a care- giver, if needed. Cobblestone Lake PD -703 restricts to one person unless City Council approves two upon finding the lot has sufficient parking. Maybe restrict to one or two in smaller zoning districts. (16) An AUD shall comply with all state laws, City Code requirements, and building, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, and fire code regulations. (17) The primary residence and AUD shall be created and maintained in compliance with the property maintenance regulations set forth in the City Code. (18) The primary residence and AUD shall be connected to municipal sewer and water. (19) In order to encourage the development of housing units for people with disabilities, the city may allow reasonable deviation from the City Code provisions to install features that facilitate accessibility. Such facilities shall be in conformance with the UBC. (20) AUDs shall be permitted only where it is demonstrated that the accessory unit will not have an undue adverse impact on adjacent properties and where there will not be a substantial alteration of the character of the neighborhood. (21) An additional garage may be constructed, provided only one garage is visible from the public street and complies with all state and city laws and regulations. (Ord. 729, passed 6-26-03) § 155.373 PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. (B) Parking in all residential districts shall be subject to the following requirements: (4) No person shall cause, undertake, permit or allow the outside parking and storage of vehicles on residentially zoned property unless it complies with the following requirements: (a) A property located in the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, and R -CL zoning districts, or planned development districts where the primary use is single- family residences may have a maximum of four passenger vehicles, in addition to any permitted motorcycles, recreational vehicles or trailers, parked or stored outside the residence for the occupants of that property provided all passenger vehicles are parked or stored on the lot as regulated by the city code. A permitted accessory unit dwelling shall not be entitled to park additional vehicles than are otherwise allowed for the primary dwelling unit. (L) Residential driveway width. Residential driveways installed or modified after the date of adoption of the ordinance codified herein shall comply with the following standards: (3) Any driveway approach not directly leading to an attached or detached garage or accessory structure shall be located beside the attached garage abutting the primary structure. Commented [BK111: Is this reference up to date? Discuss reference with George. Commented [BK12]: Maybe confine this to the R-1 district? Commented [BK13]: Amend to allow driveway to access ADU if lot eligible for second driveway? ... .... ..... Apple., Valley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 6.A. October 16, 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, November 6, 2019 - 7:00 p.m. • Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 9, 2019 • Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 23, 2019 Wednesday, December 4, 2019 - 7:00 p.m. • Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 6, 2019 • Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 20, 2019 Next City Council Meetings: Thursday, October 24, 2019 - 7:00 p.m. Thursday, November 7, 2019 - 7:00 p.m. BACKGROUND: N/A BUDGET IMPACT: N/A