Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/2019••• •••• Apple II Valley Meeting Location: Municipal Center 7100 147th Street West Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 November 6, 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 16, 2019, Regular Meeting 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 Corner of 150th Street West (CSAH 42) and Johnny Cake Ridge Road Petitioner: Menard, Inc. 4. Public Hearings A. Applewood Pointe - PC19-10-ZSB Consider Rezoning, Subdivision and Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization to Allow for 3-4 Story/98-Unit Senior Condominium and Seven Townhomes on 10.9 Acres Location: 12444 Pilot Knob Road Petitioner: United Properties 5. Land Use / Action Items 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. Aspen Dental Sign Variance - PC19-19-V Consider Variance to Allow Size of Building Sign to Increase from 40 sq. ft. to 57 sq. ft. on West, North and East Building Elevations Location: 14750 Cedar Ave Petitioner: Chandler Signs/Sign Crafters Outdoors and 14750 Cedar, LLC C. Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendment - PC 19-18-0 WITHRDRAWNATREQUEST OF PETITIONER Consider Ordinance Amending § 155.382 Expanding Provision for Accessory Dwelling Units to All Residential Zoning Districts Location: City-wide Petitioner: City of Apple Valley 6. Other Business A. Orchard Place Retail Development Sketch Plan - Sketch Plan Review of 7.1 -Acre Commercial Retail Development Location: Northwest Corner of 157th Street West and Pilot Knob Road Petitioner: HJ Development, LLP and Rockport, LLC B. Review of Upcoming Schedule and Other Updates Next Planning Commission Meeting - Wednesday, December 4, 2019 - 7:00 p.m. Next City Council Meeting - Thursday, November 14, 2019 - 7:00 p.m. 7. Adjourn Regular meetings are broadcast, live, on Charter Communications Cable Channel 180 and on the City's website at www.cityofapplevalley.org l App Valil ley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 3.A. November 6, 2019 Consent Agenda Description: Approve Minutes of October 16, 2019, Regular Meeting Staff Contact: Joan Murphy, Department Assistant Department / Division: Community Development Department ACTION REQUESTED: Approve minutes of regular meeting of October 16, 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 16, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Melander at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Tom Melander, Ken Alwin, Tim Burke, Jodi Kurtz, and Paul Scanlan. Members Absent: Keith Diekmann and David Schindler. Staff Present: City Attorney Sharon Hills, City Engineer Brandon Anderson, Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Planner Kathy Bodmer, Planner/Economic Development Specialist Alex Sharpe and Department Assistant Joan Murphy. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the agenda. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the agenda. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. 3. CONSENT ITEMS MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the minutes of the meeting of October 2, 2019. Ayes - 3 - Nays - 0. Abstained — 2 (Melander and Alwin) 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Apple Valley Golf Course Comprehensive Plan Amendments — PC19-09-P Chair Melander opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. City Planner Tom Lovelace stated, 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. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2019 Page 2 of 16 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. 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. 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. Commissioner Burke asked if they were tasked with taking some of the qualities of the low density and medium density and were to come up with a new designation. Mr. Lovelace answered to try take the parameters that are there and maybe try to reach some middle ground that understands the adjacent uses and the road system that is there that can accommodate a higher density of development and other factors related to the property itself and try to come up with some type of special development district that could accommodate a development without having any adverse impact on surrounding uses. Commissioner Kurtz commented that residents would be voting on the levy this year and one of the issues is the high student versus the teacher ratio and questioned what would happen if the levy does not pass. Mr. Lovelace said he did not pose that question to them but assumes that the school district can accommodate the extra students as they said and that it is dispersed over the elementary, middle school and high school age groups. Chair Melander asked for confirmation that the Apple Valley Golf Course is not City owned and is privately owned. Mr. Lovelace said that is correct. Chair Melander commented it is bisected by the pipeline and has wetlands and asked how much of the site is buildable that could be covered with a building. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2019 Page 3 of 16 Mr. Lovelace answered that could be up for discussion but could be about 8.5 acres and there are some areas that are squeezed between a pond and a pipeline easement and would be very challenging to get a dwelling unit in that location. Chair Melander said relative to density like 5 units per acres, low density only applies to maybe 40 units on 8 acres. Mr. Lovelace said with zoning and other factors, such as easements and streets that the land gets whittled away. Chair Melander said we are really talking about how many units could be on 8.5 acres depending on what designation we use. Mr. Lovelace agreed. Commissioner Scanlan commented on the difficulty of the site and asked if the applicant had done any concept or type of product of how it fits into the community here and what they are trying to do to market the property versus what numbers we are just looking at right now. Mr. Lovelace said that would be a good question for the applicant. Commissioner Alwin said he struggles with coming up with a creative definition and applying it to certain townhouses or apartments with a number of units per acre that may or may not work when it is not his property or development proposal and could lock this parcel into something that they could make a mistake at. Chair Melander commented that he thought the Planning Commission should have responded to what was proposed, and they did, but the City Council asked them to come up with what could be put there. Peter Coyle, representing the owner of the Apple Valley Golf Course and the Watrud family, said the challenge is to find a use so there can be a buyer. He said this is a unique site that is not a cornfield or industrial building proposing to be leveled. It has multiple features that are unavoidable. They need to create a land use flexibility to the site such that they can entice any buyer to be willing to spend the money that it takes to put forward a plan that is credible, technically financially feasible and that the City will embrace. If he cannot advance something to a buyer that is financially viable, and allows the buyer to bring something back to the City that will be endorsed, then this is just a waste of time. It is what the process requires. There is a legal component to that too. The City has a legal obligation to the comprehensive planning process to make sure that any private landowner has a reasonable economic use of their property. The City gets to set the rules - the land use rules, the zoning rules, the subdivision rules. Once those rules are set it is the landowner's obligation to comply with those rules if they can. If the rules are so restrictive that the reasonable economic use is not possible, that's a taking. He is trying to identify potential opportunities for someone to come on this site and be willing to invest millions of dollars to try to CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2019 Page 4 of 16 make something up on this property that has many challenges that are built into it. They cannot fill in the wetlands. The City has added on that by making buffer area requirements. There is a pipeline easement that chops up the site. The challenge is not to cast a vote to see what people like or do not like but to try identify a future land use vision for the City that will allow a reasonable economic use of this property to occur. For them, even in the modified form, they endorse the recommendation from staff to allow for the possibility of medium density to be included on this property because it is the best opportunity that they can envision to try for the opportunity for someone a reasonable use of this property to get that would be able to absorb the expense associated with developing the property. If they are not able to do that then they have a different problem. They have had a hard time trying to figure out how to have a low density plan work on this property. Commissioner Alwin asked, in terms of flexibility, if they are envisioning something that looks more like a medium density with some options to do some detached like we might have in a low density or why not just go straight up medium density. Mr. Coyle answered with medium density there is not a place to put everything on that site so we will be stuck with something that is very low density on that site. It will make this a very challenging site even in the best conditions. Commissioner Scanlan agreed that the property presents the challenges and a lot of what is presented is financial in nature like to drive what you need to do to develop something. Financial issues are not part of their concern. There are 22 acres but there are not 22 acres to develop here and there are limitations by the rules for the wetlands, etc. with any applicant that comes forward that has to deal with those rules. Trying to find something viable to work, it is the hardships of the property that are dictating things. He felt they were walking a fine line on the financial side which is not part of their process. Mr. Coyle said the constitution compels the City to provide the reasonable economic use and understands it is not the Planning Commission's choice to make. If low density property cannot cash flow that allows this property to be sold, then that is a problem, because the City set those rules. The private landowner is bound by those rules but the flip side of that is once the City makes those rules and it is obligated by whatever the consequences are. He is here to find a solution that would be beneficial to the community as a whole not just the landowner. Jon Kotek, 13583 Hollins Ct, commented the land is unique and it would have been developed, if it could have been developed. And by being threatened financially on this is being very disingenuous and generally kind of being mean. He commented that the Commission already said low density. Now the applicant wants to start playing a game of let's make something interesting here and work it in here so he can make more money. If there was actually money to be made for somebody here, he would have a plan to come in here with this. So why does he not just drop off, come back with a developer who has a plan and then talk about doing this. Otherwise just do a low density and call it a day, because that is what the Commission said in the first place. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2019 Page 5 of 16 Carole Elfstrum, 8580 136th Ct, thanked the Planning Commission and City staff for all the time and effort that has gone into this issue. She commented that Chair Melander previously said economic impacts cannot be a factor in considering comprehensive plan change. Any change in land use must be considered a fit with the surrounding land use. Referred to the minutes of August 7, and said the Commission said only low density would fit. Wants the Planning Commission to come back to the low density. She did not understand why a new classification would be needed. Terri Langfus, 13933 Holyoke Ct, commented she has duplexes across from her and she has a single family home. She said those have become low income and it is becoming Holyoke ghetto. She also have a pond in the back and gets the runoff from the golf course. Vickie Loher Johnson, 8907 — 138th Street Ct, said she wants all the other emails and comments included in this meeting as well. If medium density was not appropriate just across the street then it is inappropriate here as well. This should be single family dwellings not a hybrid created definition that no one knows how it would be applied at this site. She said the Planning Commission voted last time to deny medium density and she requested the Commission to deny it again and rezone to low density residential only, R-1 through R-3 housing options only. Linda Harty, 8581 — 136th Ct, did not see anything for a new designation and believed it should be low density. She expressed concern for increased traffic and said Lake Alimagnet is already impaired and feels there would be more flooding if medium density was allowed. She supports the previous decision. Kathy Lundin, 13531 Hollins Ct, said all the townhomes around them are low density but medium density could include a 3 -story apartment building. She said around the golf course are all single family homes. She does not think there are any anywhere else in Apple Valley where there are multiple apartment buildings right in the middle of a single family neighborhood. Traffic is significant. She feels the Planning Commission should stick to the original decision and only allow low density and not to recommend medium and high density. Michael McGettigan, 8589 — 136th Ct, expressed concern for the hybrid definition and the traffic and said the traffic data is 5 years old. He asked for the Commission to consider traffic data that is accurate. Amanda Patterson, 8380 - 141' Ct, commented she enjoys the green space in the neighborhood and would hate to see schools and traffic be affected. She supports the low density. Jim Stewart, 949 Harvest Drive, found out Apple Valley Golf Course was moving and thought that could be a place to move to. The cost of construction dooms the project. They do not want to move away from Apple Valley. Peter Inman, 13511 Hollins Ct, commented on the parks close by and said if they want to walk to a park they have to cross either Garden View or 140th Street and that is without a crosswalk and asked if the City could look into some crosswalks. As part of the consideration of this redevelopment CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2019 Page 6 of 16 maybe the property owner would donate a portion of his proceeds to help fund some of these and the community would get behind it. Estee Krueger, 13792 Holyoke Path, said her experience with high density and medium density apartments have really been horrendous. She commented to the Commission that you are voting on something you really do not know. She supports single family housing. Chair Melander said they could keep the public hearing open and they had been directed by City Council to say what the Commission would like to see at this site. He asked the Commission if there should be direction for staff to prepare something that is not low but is not medium either but between that might be acceptable. Somebody in the audience said that is not an option. They do not want something other than low density. They paid taxes all those years and the Commission is not listening. Jim Granger, 13555 Holiday Ct, said the seller has no concern for other people's property value. It is not part of the equation. Just like the finances to the seller should not be part of your equation. If 90 students are added then the school district has to add teachers. He expressed concern for the amount of traffic and said present day statistics should be used and not something 5 years old. Parks map included parks to the southeast. If you centered the map on the site property, it would not include those parks as shown. He felt if a hybrid option would be designed, it should have been put in place before any conversations. He commented no M-6 was mentioned during the density presentation. Corey Porter, 13596 Hollins Ct, expressed concern for medium density that could have 270 units and only 91 influx of students at Westview elementary school. She did not think that added up because how many families have one child or less. She said Westview is already overcrowded and that needs to be considered. Low density land is in high demand in Apple Valley. Buyers are looking for low density in this area. Chair Melander commented it is awkward for them to sit up there because they get directions from several different groups of people. Council says one thing, staff says another and residents say another. It is a hard spot to come up with something that might be acceptable. He clarified that the Planning Commission voted against medium density and high density and the project moved on to the City Council. The Planning Commission was then directed by the City Council to decide what they do like since they voted against medium density and high density. This is a new process for them as a Commission as well. They have been asked to come up with something as an alternative to the low density that they are receiving a lot of resistance from the applicant for. In turn they are getting lots of resistance for the medium density from the residents and personal opinions of the Commissioners. The Commission has to come up with something reasonable that works all the way around. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2019 Page 7 of 16 Commissioner Alwin asked about the head count projections from the school district of 9lstudents and if those were students all going to one school. Mr. Lovelace said that would include the elementary, middle school and high school age. Kathy Lundin, 13531 Hollins Ct, asked where the school district information came from because she subs in the school district and said Westview is bursting at the seams. The schools do seem crowded to her and that is one of her concerns if the levy does not pass. Mr. Lovelace replied that the information came from the school district demographer and they said they would be able to accommodate that increase in student population. Vicki Loher Johnson, 8907 — 138th Street Ct, commented that what they heard is the owner cannot do low density residential but there have been no efforts entered into the record in regard what those efforts have been. At the City Council meeting the applicant said they had not even marketed the property one way or the other. So what are the efforts with regard to showing that low density would not work here. What is preventing the Commission from saying zone it low density and show us some efforts with regard to redeveloping it that way. Linda Harty, 8581 — 136th Ct, commented that the Commission said "they were directed to", but she thought on the presentation it said the "staff recommends" and asked if it was not correct then that the Commission does not need to go along with the staff. If the Commission agrees with all the residents that low density makes sense and it fits in the current low density area and that traffic is such big issue already, low density makes sense to all of us. Chair Melander clarified that is correct that the Planning Commission does not have to do what staff recommends nor does the City Council have to do what the Planning Commission recommends. The Commission does not have the final yes or no on a project. Commissioner Kurtz commented, as a suggestion, that in her line of business she sees a lot of 50 year olds downsizing and what they are looking for are single level homes and in Apple Valley there is not a lot to offer as seen in other cities. Commissioner Scanlan commented that with low density there is some flexibility in terms of looking at the surrounding properties that have used low density into a higher end of the scale there and asked the applicant what did he feel was missing from low density that you would like pulled in from medium density to fulfill the needs for the property to be marketed. Mr. Coyle said he did not think he could answer the question directly but it is the unknown with respect to the condition of the property that is causing them to be so cautious about it. It is the unknowns. This is not a cornfield that we know for sure we are going to get to make use of "x" acres without risk about whatever soil conditions exist or stormwater issues exist that they do not know about yet. He said he is trying to preserve flexibility. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2019 Page 8 of 16 Commissioner Scanlan asked if we look at this hybrid is it not going to fulfill the needs of what you are looking for. Mr. Coyle said he does not have an answer for that. They do not know yet what they can do because he does not know what the City is suggesting would be allowed. He added to go to a buyer and say flip a coin, spend a bunch of money and throw a dart against the wall, maybe you will get it and maybe you won't. That is a problem. We do not know what we get to do and cannot analyze any solutions yet. We are just guessing. That is what the City uses the Comprehensive Plan for, to give guidance to landowners as to uses that will be acceptable. That is your job as Planning Commissioners and Council's job ultimately by advice of staff. Chair Melander said if it is 8 acres and if it is low density (6 units/acre) it could be 48 units or if it is 8 units/acre is could be 64 units. The difference between low density top end and some number slightly higher than that might accommodate that sort of development Commissioner Kurtz referred to with a little more density but not a lot more density. We are talking about a difference between 48 to 64, so not that many units. It is pretty easy to get hung up on low and medium but if you look at actual number of units, it is not that big of difference. What we are being asked is for staff to come up with something like "how do you like the looks of this". We are being asked to evaluate what some hybrid might be that could incorporate such things as could restrict the number of stories, the height, possibly (if you can) denying apartments specifically. We could put some constraints on what could be done to something that is not low density and they are just being asked for a chance to see if they can come up with something that could be more acceptable. Jon Kotek, 13583 Hollins Ct, suggested the Commission give the property owner low density and then he can apply for a variance at a later date rather than give him medium density and try to reel him in. He understands why the City Council kicked it back and believes they do not want the legal quagmire and felt the City Council threw this back onto the Planning Commission and said let's narrow it down and talk when the applicant gets a plan. Chair Melander asked the attorney if they would have the right to do that if it is at 6 units/acre and they come back with 8 units/acre as a variance. City Attorney Sharon Hills replied that variances do not apply to comprehensive plan designations. Variances apply to zoning regulations. Chair Melander said then we would have to have this hybrid option. Ms. Hills said she was not sure where the hybrid idea came from. There are the designations and she feels what City Council is asking for is if the motion is to deny the application, then state by a motion what you would want that property to be. Patti Kellum, 8581 Holland Avenue, commented that one level homes are in high demand and suggested luxury single level homes and keep it at that. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2019 Page 9 of 16 Pat Stratton, 13301 Huntington Circle, asked why it has to change and why it cannot stay as a golf course. Chair Melander said it is private property and somebody has a right to try sell it for other uses. Jon Kotek, 13583 Hollins Ct, commented City Councilmember Ruth Grendahl asked if they were willing to sell the property as is and they did not have a number. He thought at least let's work some numbers here. At least throw a number out and Apple Valley can turn it into a park. He said there are too many people annoyed about this. Commissioner Burke asked if the property can be designated to strictly be an M-4 and nothing more than an M-4. Mr. Lovelace replied that you cannot designate that because you would be mixing the comp plan with the zoning. M-4 refers to the zoning. Commissioner Burke asked how you go about only allowing a maximum of 8 units/acre. Mr. Lovelace said that would be through the designation and then you would set the parameters of the low end to the high end, similar to what is already existing in low density (2-6 units/acre), medium density (6-12 units/acre) and high density (12+ units/acre). So with this hybrid specialized designation would the parameters increase a little bit at the low end and decrease at the high end. Commissioner Burke said he likes the characteristics of low density but would be willing to say if you could make 8 units look like low density, he could go that far but not any farther than that. Kathy Lundin, 13531 Hollins Ct, commented if you picture townhomes there is no way you would need 8 units/acre. There is no way it would be over 6. Right now she thinks it is 2-4 at the most in her area. Why would you need 8 unit/acre if you are talking townhomes. If you do 8 units/acre you are talking multiple stories. Chair Melander commented that the feedback he is getting is that anything beyond low density is a lot of pushback. If we were going to make a motion and follow staff, we would be asking staff continue to develop something higher than 6 units/acre. He felt from the feedback that no one wanted to consider that. Commissioner Scanlan expressed concern for this hybrid concept and what it means down the road for us and setting precedence. If we do this for this one development, what does it mean for the next one. Would this be more of a planned development with something specific that they would put together that would work for this property versus trying to make it work within low density/ medium density. There might be some flexibility to increase that density very slightly but he did not know if he wanted to see that happen just within this special designation. Should this be done through a planned development where the applicant has to come back presenting something where they have to show how this can work based on the difficulty of the property. The difficulty of the property is the owner's concern too to come up with a solution not necessarily the Planning CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2019 Page 10 of 16 Commission as Commissioner Alwin said earlier to do the design with a foundation for them to work from. Ms. Hills said staff is asking if you want to consider a special use designation for this parcel and it would be applicable to this parcel. It would not be a planned development which is zoning. This is simply a guide as to a use. The consideration for you is this parcel because of its uniqueness and unique features with things on it is appropriate to have a special use designation, hence the density. Council is asking for the Commission to make a formal action recommendation as to what the Commission thinks is an appropriate designation. Chair Melander clarified that the applicant is asking for medium density throughout except for the one little parcel between the homes on the north side by the 2nd tee. We could vote on that and say yes or no. The Commission said no before to medium density as a group, not individually. You could come back and say come up with a plan for 8 units/acre, staff does this then comes back to the Planning Commission, application still stands for medium. They would want a yes or no on medium. So we could say no to medium or no to the recommendation but we would take low density. Could that be an option. Ms. Hills answered that when it comes back, you will take action on the application. If the vote comes back as a denial, City Council wants you to then take action, make a recommendation as to what then is a proper designation for the property. Staff may have a proposal. If the Commission does not like that, then the Commission needs to state, as a whole, what you are recommending the designation should be and it could be a special use designation for this parcel. Chair Melander asked Ms. Hills if the public hearing should be kept open to hear the recommendation from staff. Ms. Hills replied no, that it is like any other matter that is before you. You have your public hearing, you close the public hearing and then you come back and take action. Chair Melander commented that there was a lot of good input like they had the previous time. The Commission voted one way last time. They have summary on issues that were brought up this evening from staff. But the City Council wants more than just a yes or no. If the Commission does not like the medium, we have to come up with something we would take. Commissioner Alwin said there are hundreds of proposals every year that we vote yes or no on to pass them on to Council. Is there another option where we would look at the application before us and we would say no. Could we not say that we think the appropriate designation stays at "PR" (private recreation) and then some developer comes in and at some point has a better idea and at that point we weight in on that proposal. We have other applications that get rejected and they get rejected without us saying "but here is what we think we would like". It seems to put the Commission into an awkward spot to say no "but we would accept this" even when we do not know what "this" is. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2019 Page 11 of 16 Ms. Hills said the way to answer that is that City Council asked for the Planning Commission to come back with a recommendation. Commissioner Alwin added that the Commission could come back with leaving it at "PR" (private recreation). Ms. Hills said that could absolutely be an option. The Council would like to know if you effectively recommend denial of the application, then what do you recommend as a body. Commissioner Alwin asked why would they need the public hearing to remain open because what new information is going to come. Judy Yung, 13835 Pennock Avenue, understands why the owner is requesting something more changing zoning from the recreational to some kind of development. It seems to her that is premature to do anything other than low density without a plan. Without the owner of the property to sell it as low density. If the owner comes back and has made his efforts and presented those efforts, and it still does not fly, he can come back and ask for a change from low to medium. She does not see why we need to jump from recreational to medium density. We could be doing it in increments if necessary but hopefully it could be developed as low density. But he (applicant) cannot sell it — sell the idea to a developer as it is right now. She feels the consensus here right now is there is no objection going from recreational to low density. She feels a can of worms is being opened up in a lot of areas to try to figure out a hybrid because this is still a pig in a poke. If the zoning changes from recreational to low density then the owner has something to work with. Let him go out and sell it to a developer as a low density and see where the chips fall. But to talk about changing to further than low density without a plan being presented seems to be very presumptuous and just not making a lot of sense. Vickie Loher Johnson, 8907 — 138th Street Ct, said she has one concern with that plan with regard to making it low and having them come to us and say we failed. They would say they have not been able to sell it as low density. They have not tried to sell it as a golf course either. So what is preventing them from making no efforts whatsoever, marketing it as low density housing and then coming back to you and saying see we cannot do it. They have not marketed the property as it is right now either. Chair Melander said he would like to not continue the public hearing, take a vote next time on a recommendation to Council and he closed the public hearing at 8:46 p.m. The Commission took a short recess. B. Planned Development No. 1053 Sign Ordinance Amendments — PC19-16-Z Chair Melander opened the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. City Planner Tom Lovelace stated Menard, Inc. is requesting amendments to Planned Development Ordinance No. 1053 to allow for additional signage for their new Menards building materials store, CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2019 Page 12 of 16 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. He reviewed what was changed in other planned developments in the City. 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. 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. Chair Melander commented he does not think there are many people who do not know what Menards sells. Commissioner Alwin said anything that is directional in nature telling customers which door to go in is different than a list of items that is sold inside the store. Otherwise it just says what they sell and it would be advertising. Commissioner Kurtz asked if there were garden signs at other Menards locations. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2019 Page 13 of 16 Mr. Lovelace said yes and it was just moving the garden sign over to the entrance. Theron Berg, Menards, commented that the store elevations they presented have not changed in 5 years. The plans have always had the signage on them. He felt if Mr. Lovelace was opposed to the signage it should have come across in the staff report, not just in the presentation. He felt Menards should be able to have a slogan sign of 2000 sq. ft. like Walmart or Target. He said Mr. Lovelace failed to mention about Target. He does not think what they are asking for is unreasonable. He said he could take the 3 departmental signs off and take what Target has. They will take the 2000 sq. ft. Commissioner Alwin commented that if the applicant wants to withdraw the application or amend it, it would be up to them. Mr. Berg said the signs were approved with the elevations on the planned development. Mr. Lovelace said it was stated on the resolution that there was not signage plan approved on that. It did not include the signs which would need a separate application. He added signage had been brought up in prior reviews. Mr. Berg said he tried to engage Mr. Lovelace in a signage conversation but it was not until they submitted that they got the offer that he would work with them. Mr. Lovelace said they will agree to disagree. There is the ability to replicate the signage on all sides of the building. Chair Melander asked that this be looked into with the amount of signage like the Target location and that we should be treating everyone the same. Chair Melander closed the public hearing at 9:21 p.m. C. Bogarts Entertainment Center Conditional Use Permit — PC19-17-C Chair Melander opened the public hearing at 9:22 p.m. Planner/Economic Development Specialist Alex Sharpe stated 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. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2019 Page 14 of 16 Additional conditions have been added to the CUP to address the year-round storage which will help address run-off issues. Commissioner Alwin commented that if they are planning to make this year around, the new conditions should make it that the sand cannot sneak out through cracks etc. Mr. Sharpe said what the conditions would do is to allow the volleyball location year around and also allow them to store sand. Chair Melander closed the public hearing at 9:29 p.m. MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Kurtz, recommending 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 comer 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 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. 7. The property owner shall pay all necessary SAC and WAC charges prior to use of the sundeck/service bar areas. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2019 Page 15 of 16 11. The perimeter boards must contain sand from escaping at the base. The perimeter boards must be placed high enough to contain the sand to prevent spillage. 12. Any sand migrating out of the volleyball courts onto the pavement shall be swept immediately and/or upon notice by the City. 13. All sand or material shall be properly covered and maintained throughout the season when not in use. 14. 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. 15. The Conditional Use Permit may be revoked if the permittee does not comply with the terms of conditions #2 through #15 above. Ayes -5 -Nays -0. D. Accessory Dwelling Units Ordinance Amendment — PC19-18-0 Chair Melander opened the public hearing at 9:30 p.m. Planner Kathy Bodmer stated 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. 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: 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 second area is R-1 (Single family residential, 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot). CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 2019 Page 16 of 16 The Planning Commission reviewed the Sketch Plan at its September 18, 2019, meeting and raised a number of questions and comments for discussion. Commissioner Alwin commented he liked how it is done today regarding the second driveway that it is not allowed unless it leads to a garage. Commissioner Scanlan referred to PD -703 and asked if there are conflicts with planned developments and what is to be done here. Ms. Bodmer replied yes and said when they work on the code staff will have to address that. In a planned development it would already be specifically addressed. PD -703 does currently allow for the detached. Gregg Rudolph, 4777 -137th Street West, said he would like to get this done. Their basic motivation is multi -generational and going forward for them to be able to use the space. They would like the flexibility to be able to use it for others if an elderly parent passes and they choose to stay on the property. Chair Melander closed the public hearing at 9:47 p.m. 5. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS -NONE- 6. OTHER BUSINESS A. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates. Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist stated that the next regular Planning Commission meeting would take place Wednesday, November 6, 2019, at 7:00 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Melander asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Kurtz to adjourn the meeting at 9:49 p.m. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Joan Murphy Joan Murphy, Planning Department Assistant Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commission on Tom Melander, Chair l App Valil ley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 3.B. November 6, 2019 Consent Agenda 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: PC 19-16-Z Applicant Date: 9/13/2019 60 Days: 11/11/2019 120 Days: 1/10/2020 ACTION REQUESTED: If the Planning Commission concurs, staff is recommending the following amendments: 1. In Zone 1, a retail business occupying a tenant space over 150,000 square feet shall be allowed the following additional signage: • Signage above a doorway indicating that it is exit only. The signage shall not exceed 10 square feet. • Signage that directs customers to business operations having a separate entrance. The signage shall be located above or directly adjacent to the entrance of the business operation and shall not exceed 55 square feet. • One slogan sign on the primary face of the building, which shall not exceed 50 square feet and shall be no higher than ten (10) feet in height as measured from building grade. 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 originally requested 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 applicant has revised their request by removing the eight department signs for consideration. The building sign with the swoosh and pylon sign are in conformance with the City's sign regulations. Staff has also determined that the exterior lumberyard informational/directional signage can be allowed as an additional building sign, as long as it is no greater than the copy area of primary sign on the south elevation. The signage on the other side of the lumberyard access area is considered interior signage, which does not require review or permitting by the City. With regard to the slogan sign and informational signage above the exit only doorway and next to the garden center, staff is proposing amendments that would allow for those in the planned development zoning district. The proposed amendments would allow for the signage as proposed by the applicant. BACKGROUND: In recent years, the City has amended two existing planned development ordinances to accommodate additional signage for 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. Menard's proposed amendments would generally be consistent with what was approved or currently exist, in some form, in these two planned development zoning districts. BUDGET IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Applicant Letter Site Plan Elevations 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 d $ a d �5 9 A 55. 45 I A d :;' e/ 2 � 1 1 1 1 i#331 1 i i ppiil it p 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 z MEE T -L O T CU 1- 0 N 3d'O'S NNW AdONV3 3199 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 l App Valil ley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 4.A. November 6, 2019 Public Hearings Description: Applewood Pointe - PC19-10-ZSB Consider Rezoning, Subdivision and Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization to Allow for 3-4 Story/98-Unit Senior Condominium and Seven Townhomes on 10.9 Acres Staff Contact: Thomas Lovelace, City Planner Department/ Division: Community Development Department Applicant: Thomas Lovelace Project Number: PC19-10-ZSB Applicant Date: 10/16/2019 60 Days: 12/14/2019 120 Days: 2/12/2020 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: United Properties is requesting the following: 1. Rezoning of the 10.9 acres from "M6 -A" (Multi -Family Residential/6-12 units per acre) to "PD" (Planned Development). 2. Subdivision by plat of the 10.9 -acre site into one lot and one outlot. 3. Site plan/building permit authorization to allow for the construction of a 3-4 story/98- unit senior cooperative building. The property is located at the northeast corner of Pilot Knob Road (CSAH31) and McAndrews Road (CSAH 38). A single-family home and three outbuildings are currently on the property. Access to the property is from a driveway off Pilot Knob Road, which will be removed as part of the proposed development project. BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Plan: The 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the property "MIX" (Mixed Use). Mixed use areas contain a mix of retail and service business, office, institutional, medium and higher density residential, public uses and/or park and recreation uses. The uses may be mixed vertically (in a common structure) or horizontally (in a common site or area). Among the objectives for Mixed Use areas are: • Organize land use in a compact and walkable environment. • Set standards for private development and public improvements that produce enduring quality and enhance the character and identity of Apple Valley. • Encourage parking strategies that support greater intensity of use. • Integrate green/open space and trails into Mixed Use areas. • Improve environmental conditions, such as water quality and energy use, through development incentives. • Connect Mixed Use areas to public facilities, including transit systems, and to the broader community. The draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map guides the property "MD" (Medium Density Residential/6-12 units per acre). Medium Density Residential land uses 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. The applicant is proposing to construct 105 multi- family dwelling units on ten (10) acres. This will result in an overall density of 11 units per acre, consistent with the "MD" designation. Livable Communities Impact: The proposed multi -family development will provide 98 senior co-op dwelling units and seven (7) townhomes. This development proposal will address the City's Livable Communities Act (LCA) principles of adding a housing product that helps provide a balanced supply and variety of housing types for people of all income levels and in all lifecycle stages. Zoning: The property is currently "M -6A" (Multiple Family Residential/6-12 units per acre). This property has had this designation since 1990. Prior to 1990, the property was zoned "A" (Agricultural) as was much of the non-public property in the area. M-6 zoning districts are intended for those areas which are designated for "medium density" in the comprehensive guide plan, where a moderately high density of townhouse or apartment dwelling units is expected. Property within these districts are characterized by relatively level topography, the minimal presence of significant mature vegetation and proximity to either neighborhood or community collector roads or to arterial roads. Townhouse dwellings and apartment buildings are permitted uses within this zoning district. A building in this zoning district can be no taller than 45 feet and can have a maximum of three stories. The proposed building will have a maximum height of 56 feet. The proposed 98 -unit senior co-op development will located on a 7.86 -acre lot. This will create a density of 12.5 units per acre. The applicant is requesting a rezoning from "M -6A" to "PD" (Planned Development). A Planned Development is an urban development often having two or more principal uses and having specialized performance standards relating to an overall approved development plan to provide for an optimal land use relationship. The purposes of a planned development are: • To encourage a more creative and efficient approach to the use of land; • To allow a variety in the types of environment available to the people of the city; • To encourage more efficient allocation and maintenance of privately controlled open space in residential developments through the distribution of overall density of population and intensity of the land use where an arrangement is desired and feasible; • To provide the means for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than is provided under the strict application of the zoning and subdivision chapters while at the same time preserving the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants; • To encourage an overall design within the natural boundaries for an area; and • To provide an overall guide for developments that are staged because of the size of an area. The criteria necessary for approval of the preliminary development plan as well as the rezoning shall be as follows: 1. The proposed development is in conformance with the comprehensive guide plan of the city and encompasses an area of not less than five acres. 2. The proposed development plan is designed in a manner so as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. 3. The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned development. The proposed number of stories and building height would be addressed through a planned development. Preliminary Plat: The subject property is currently unplatted. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 10.93 -acre site into one (1) lot and one (1) outlot. The proposed 7.9 -acre lot will be the location of the 98 -unit senior cooperative building. The 1.1 -acre outlot will be the location of a storm water pond and future residential development. The plat shows the dedication of 75 feet of right-of-way for Pilot Knob Road and 50 feet of right-of-way for McAndrews Road. Dakota County is requesting an additional 25 feet if right-of-way for McAndrews Road. Drainage and utility easements are shown along the perimeter of the property and a drainage and utility/access easement is shown over and across the development's private street. A minimum 10 -foot wide easement shall be established along the property lines abutting the public roadways and a drainage and utility easement shall be established over all storm ponding areas. Site Plan: The applicant is proposing a 98 -unit senior cooperative building on a 7.9 -acre lot. Access to the site would be via a 24 -foot wide private street that will intersect with McAndrews Road (CSAH 38) on the south and Pilot Knob Road (CSAH 31) on the west side. Access to the building and surface parking will be via two drive approaches directly from the private street. A third driveway off the private street will provide access to the building's underground parking. The development proposes 70 surface parking spaces and 107 underground parking spaces. This equates to a ratio of 1.8 spaces per unit. City code does not specifically address parking for senior only apartments. Review of parking for recent senior apartment projects show that parking ratios vary depending on the type of project. For comparison, the Summerhill senior cooperative on Granite Avenue and 140th Street West has a parking ratio of 1.8 spaces per and the Zvago senior cooperative, located at the corner Founders Lane and Galaxie Avenue has 1.7 spaces per unit. It appears that the parking for this proposed project is consistent with similar projects that have been built in the city. The proposed building will be set back 91 feet from McAndrews Road, 65 feet from Pilot Knob Road, 60-105 feet from the rear property line and 20-25 feet from the private street. Building setbacks in the typical multi -family zoning districts vary from 50-100 feet when adjacent to an arterial road, 20 feet from a private drive and 25-40 feet from any rear or side yard. The setback for the proposed building from McAndrews Road will be reduced by 25 feet, to 66 feet, due the requirement by Dakota County for additional right-of-way for that street. Parking lot setbacks in multi -family residential zoning districts are 20-50 from an arterial road and 5-15 feet from a side or rear yard. It appears that the proposed parking lot would meet the standard setback requirements set forth in the zoning code. The site plan shows future development of seven townhomes along the south side of the private street. Site issues related to the townhome development will be addressed at the time of submittal development plans for the outlot. The proposed private street will be 24 feet wide. This would not allow any on -street parking and would be difficult for emergency vehicles to maneuver. The street should be widened to 26 feet, which would allow for parking on one side and better emergency access. The on - street parking would help alleviate future parking concerns associated with the proposed townhome development along the south side of the street. Several retaining walls varying in height from two to 13 feet high will be constructed on the site. Any retaining wall over four feet tall will require a building permit. A water feature will be located in the northeast corner of the site and a storm water ponds will be constructed in the southwest corner of the site and in an area between the building and private street. The storm water ponds will collect storm water runoff from the site as well as from off site. Grading and Utilities: Mass grading of the site and installation of utilities will be needed to prepare it for development and the installation of utilities to serve the site will be necessary. The grading and utility plans have been reviewed by the City Engineer and his comments are included in his attached memo. Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan: The site has 6,526 caliper inches of significant trees, with most of the trees located along the north and east perimeter of the site. Development of the site will result in the removal 5,338 caliper inches. Replacement shall occur in accordance with the City's Natural Resources Management Ordinance, which states that 10% of the total number of diameter inches of significant trees removed must be replaced within the subdivision, The inventory includes a note that 106 oak trees removed will be replaced with 106 oak trees. Landscape Plan: The landscape identifies a variety of coniferous, ornamental and overstory trees. The applicant will need to meet landscape requirements within the City's zoning ordinance, which requires that multi -family residential developments install landscaping (live plant material excluding sod) that will have a minimum cost of 21/2% of the estimated building construction cost based on Means Construction Data. The applicant should also submit a foundation plant plan for review prior to a recommendation by staff. And finally, the applicant will need to submit a detailed planting list for review and approval by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Additional comments from the from the City's Natural Resources Coordinator are contained the attached memo from the City Engineer. Elevation Drawings: The exterior finish of the senior cooperative will be a combination of cement board siding, metal lap siding, face brick, modular block, precast stone trim, and cultured stone. City code requires that multiple residential buildings in multi -family zoning districts have an exterior finish consisting of at least 50% non-combustible, non- degradable and maintenance -free construction materials such as face brick or natural stone, with the balance being non -manufactured natural construction material such as plank cedar or redwood. The building will an exposed finish consisting of 31% masonry. Since this building will likely be located in a planned development -zoning district, specific requirements for exterior finishes on all buildings could be different than what is commonly required. Floor Plans: The garage floor plan shows 107 vehicle and 32 golf cart parking spaces, a bike repair shop, golf simulator room, and hobby shop. The vehicle parking spaces will be 10 feet wide and 18 feet long and will be accessed via a 24 -foot wide drive aisle. Mechanical and utility rooms and the trash area will also be located in the garage level. The main floor will have 24 units and one guest room. Included on this floor will be the main entry, lobby, offices/mail work room, great room, and fitness area. An outdoor terrace will be located of the lobby and great room. The second floor will also have 24 units and one guest room; as well as a library, club room, and arts and crafts area. The third floor will have 28 units and the fourth floor will have 22 units. No common gathering/special use areas will be located on the these floors. All units will have an patio or balcony; and storage units will be available on each floor. Street Classifications/Accesses/Circulation: The is bounded by Pilot Knob Road (CSAH 31) on the west and McAndrews Road (CSAH 38) to the south. Both are A Minor Arterial roads, which have a design capacity of 5,000-30,000 vehicles a day. The 2017 volume for McAndrews Road is 9,200 vehicle trips per day, west of Pilot Knob Road and 9,000 trips per day west of Pilot Knob Road. The 2040 forecast shows 11,200 trips west and 13,700 east of Pilot Knob Road. Pilot Knob Road has an existing volume, as of 2017, of 17,500 vehicle trips south and 20,500 trips north of McAndrews Road. The 2040 forecast shows 21.900 trips south and 27,000 north of McAndrews Road. The proposed senior cooperative will generate approximately trips per day. The trips generated should not have an adverse impact on the general function of the roads. Pedestrian Access: The site plan shows an internal network of private sidewalks. There are currently no trials along the east side of Pilot Knob Road nor the north side of McAndrews Road. Signs: Monument signs are shown at the both street intersections. All signage shall comply with requirements set forth in the City's sign ordinance. The applicant may want to consider relocating the McAndrews Road sign to the west side of the intersection. This will eliminate any possible sightline problems that the sign may cause with vehicles turning right onto McAndrews Road. Dakota County Review: Because the proposed subdivision is located adjacent to Pilot Knob and McAndrews Roads, which are both county roads, it is subject to review by the Dakota County Plat Commission. The Commission reviewed this development proposal on October 30, 2019. There comments are included in the attached letter. Public Hearing Comments: 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. BUDGET IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Background Material Memo Background Material Applicant Letter Background Material Location Map Comp Plan Map Comp Plan Map Zoning Map Preliminary Plat Plan Set Plan Set Plan Set APPLEWOD POINTE SENIOR COOPERATIVE PROJECT REVIEW Existing Conditions Property Location: 12444 Pilot Knob Road Legal Description: The southwest 10.93 acres of the South 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13, Township 115, Range 20 Comprehensive Plan Designation "MIX" (Mixed Use) Zoning Classification "M -6A" (Multiple Family Residential/6-12 units per acre) Existing Platting Unplatted Current Land Use Single-family residential Size: 10.93 acres Topography: Gently rolling Existing Vegetation Mature trees along the north and south side of the property Other Significant Natural Features None Adjacent Properties/Land Uses NORTH Valleywood Golf Course Comprehensive Plan "P" (Parks and Open Space) Zoning/Land Use "PD -168" (Planned Development) SOUTH Single -Family Residential Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan "LD" (Low Density Residential/2-6 units per Acre) Zoning/Land Use "R-3" (Single Family Residential/11,000 - sq. ft. lot min.) EAST Valleywood Golf Course Comprehensive Plan "P" (Parks and Open Space) Zoning/Land Use "PD -168" (Planned Development) WEST Camp Sacajawea Comprehensive Plan "P" (Parks and Open Space) Zoning/Land Use "P" (Institutional) CITY OF Apple 'Valley MEMO Public Works TO: Tom Lovelace, Planner FROM: Brandon S. Anderson, City Engineer DATE: October 31, 2019 SUBJECT: United Properties Applewood Pointe Preliminary Plan Review Tom, The following are comments regarding the United Properties Applewood Pointe Preliminary Plat & Plans submitted October 9, 2019. Please include these items as conditions to approval. General 1. All work and infrastructure within public easements or right of way shall be to City standards. 2. Drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on final plat over all public infrastructure. 3. Provide a narrative of how the buildings will be constructed and any impacts. The narrative shall include the following: a. Shoring (if applicable) b. Material Storage. c. Haul routes to and from the site. d. Phasing 4. Storm water Pond and Infiltration Basin Construction and Maintenance Agreement will be required as part of Development Agreement. 5. Infiltration Maintenance Agreement will be required for the privately owned storm water treatment areas. 6. The developer shall identify whether site utilities will be installed under private or public contract. Permits 7. Provide a copy of the executed Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Met Council, Department of Labor and any other required permits prior to construction. 8. A Dakota County Right -of -Way permit will be required for work within the McAndrew's and Pilot Knob right-of-way. 9. A Natural Resource Management Permit (NRMP) will be required prior to any land disturbing activity commences. Site 10. Final site plan shall be reviewed with the construction plans and approved by City Engineer. 11. Preliminary Plat shall indicate required 5' (back) and 10' side lot (adjacent to roadways) easements for proposed Lot 1 block 1. 12. Access to site shall be in accordance with Dakota County Plat Commission recommendation per October 31, 2019 letter. 13. Applicant submitted a traffic trip generation report: a. The overall changes in area trips is expected to be an increase of 23 a.m. peak hour trips, 29 p.m. peak hour trips and an overall increase of 416 daily trips. b. McAndrew's has a 2017 ADT of 9,800 and Pilot Knob has a 2016 ADT of 20,500 vehicles per day. c. The directional distribution percentages need to be adjusted to reflect the Dakota County recommended access restrictions. 14. Provide a cross section of the internal private street per City of Apple Valley Plate STR-32. Road should be a minimum of 26' wide face to face. 15. Provide a cross section for Pilot Knob Road and McAndrew's Road showing required turn lanes, shoulders and medians. 16. Site plan should show site line triangles at access entrances as well as on the landscape plan. 17. Show bituminous trail locations along Pilot Knob Road and McAndrew's within ROW. Trail should be 10' wide and should have a two foot separation between back of trail and ROW. Trail shall be extended just past driveway aprons at both locations. 18. Provide curb radius labels at both entrances to the site. 19. Provide taper lengths and ratio along Pilot Knob Road and McAndrew's Road for the medians and turn lanes. 20. Provide additional drawing showing Auto turn turning movements for emergency vehicles and planned vehicle used onsite. All emergency vehicle access will likely be from Pilot Knob (ingress). 21. A commercial driveway entrance is required at all access points to public roadways per AV Plate No. STR-4 or STR-5. Standard city plates should be referenced on plans. 22. Pedestrian curb ramps in accordance with City of Apple Valley standards are required at sidewalk crossings of entrances. 23. Move the pedestrian crosswalk at the entrance on McAndrew's further inside the site (closer to building and parking lot) to better protect pedestrian conflict at RIRO and remove internal sidewalk connections from ROW. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control 24. Final Grading Plans shall be reviewed and approved by City Engineer. 25. Final Stormwater Management Plan shall be reviewed and approved by City Engineer. 26. Provide Hydro CAD modeling files to the City Engineer. 27. Provide the overall site composite Curve Number (CN) along with the impervious % on the grading plan. 28. Provide the Storm water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP). 29. Project is located within 1 mile of an identified impaired water (Farquar Lake). Farquar Lake is impaired for nutrients. a. Per Apple Valley SWMP policy 6.4, enhancement to the pond and infiltration bench to capture dissolved phosphorous are recommended. b. Must comply with NPDES Construction permit section 23.9 and 23.10 30. Per 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. 31. Per SWMP Policy 6.5 New and redevelopment activity of 0.2 acres or more shall be required to achieve no-net increase in average annual runoff volume compared to the pre-development condition 32. Wet ponds and pretreatment basins (both interim and full build-out) shall meet the requirements of the MPCA's Minnesota Storm Water Manual: Design Criteria for Storm Water Ponds. It is required that public safety be considered in every aspect of pond design. a. Wet Ponds i. The minimum required total storage volume (Vts) equals the sum of the volume in the permanent pool (Vpp below the outlet elevation) plus live storage allocation for water quality volume (Vwq). Vwq equals 1.0 inch of runoff per new impervious acre. It is required that the Vwq is discharged at no more than 5.66 cubic feet per second per surface area of the pond. ii. It is required that basin outlets have energy dissipation: 1. The City of Apple Valley specifies that the maximum allowable pipe velocity at basin outlets shall be 6 fps. The velocities of the proposed pretreatment basin outlet pipes exceed 6 fps. 2. It is highly recommended that where open channels are used to convey runoff to the pond, the channels be stabilized to reduce the sediment loads. b. Pretreatment Basins/Fore bays i. It is required that where a fore bay is installed, direct vehicle/equipment access be provided to the fore bay for sediment removal and other maintenance activities. A 10' wide maintenance bench, 1' — 2' above the NWL, with a maximum slope of 10% should be constructed around the entire perimeter of the pretreatment basins in conjunction with the maintenance access. ii. It is recommended that the fore bays be sized to contain 10 percent of the water quality volume (Vwq) in a pool that is four to six feet deep. Note that the fore bay storage volume counts toward the total permanent pool requirement. Vwq equals 1.0 inch of runoff per new impervious acre. iii. It is recommended that the fore bays be designed with a surface area equivalent to 10 percent of the pond permanent pool surface area or equivalent to 0.1 percent of the drainage area. iv. It is highly recommended that flows from fore bays enter the permanent pool area with non-erosive outlet conditions. 1. The outflow pipe velocities from the pretreatment basins to the wet ponds are significantly above 6 fps. To alleviate the demand on the outlet pipe, the outlet pipe should be designed with capacity to handle the 10-year rainfall event. Rainfall events larger than the 10- year can be conveyed to the wet ponds via an overland open channel The recommended maximum velocity for overland discharge is 4 fps. v. Skimming shall be provided at each of the pretreatment basins to prevent floating debris from entering the main wet ponds. The outlets from the pretreatment basins shall be modified to incorporate a skimmer structure (within the embankment) and a submerged pipe in the pretreatment basin. The skimmer structure shall be set to skim up to the 10-year rainfall event. The skimmer structure shall provide 1' between the NWL and the top of the submerged pipe. c. Maintenance Access i. It is required that adequate maintenance access be provided. The City of Apple Valley requires a minimum width of 8 feet. If feasible, it is recommended that the access be 10 feet wide, have a maximum slope of 10 percent, and be appropriately stabilized for use by maintenance equipment and vehicles. ii. It is required that the maintenance access extends to the fore bay, access bench, riser, and outlet, and allows vehicles to turn around. iii. The maintenance access should be covered by drainage and utility easement and be clearly denoted on plans. d. Pond Buffers and Setbacks i. It is highly recommended that a pond buffer extending a minimum of 16.5 feet outward from the maximum water surface elevation of the pond be provided. Permanent structures (e.g., buildings) should not be constructed within the buffer. ii. Restoration/Landscape plan should indicate required buffer area above the HWL. e. Pond Emergency Spillway/EOF i. Indicate the emergency spillway path that will pass storms in excess of the ponds hydraulic design or if the permanent outlet pipe/structure fails. 33. Soil borings indicate a clay layer present in the South Storm water basin (Soil boring 7, 8, and 11). Address clay layer and assess feasibility to infiltrate within the infiltration bench. 34. Proposed riprap at flared end sections in southern storm water pond spans 6 feet in height and may become an erosion concern. 35. Indicate the emergency spillway path that will pass storms in excess of the ponds hydraulic design or if the permanent outlet pipe/structure fails. 36. The NWL, 100 -year HWL and all EOF's should be indicated on plan sheets for storm water pond and infiltration basins, including the water feature shown in the northeast comer of the site Hydraulic calculations shall be approved by the City Engineer. 37. Identify elevations of openings on C500 to ensure that EOF' s are 1.0' below the lowest openings and lowest floor (including basements) are: a. At least 1 foot about the estimated 100 -year water surface elevation in accordance with SWMP Policy 1.1 38. Identify parking lot EOF elevation and routing. 39. The infiltration basins should be identified by numbers (1-X) and calculations provided. 40. Provide cross section detail of proposed swale on the north side of the site along with frozen ground snowmelt conditions to ensure proper drainage. 41. All drainage swales and turfed areas shall be at 2% minimum slope. 42. All retaining walls over 48" from bottom of footing to the top of wall shall be designed and certified by a structural engineer and submitted to building inspections for final approval. Provide additional details and/or specifications for retaining wall block type. 43. Retaining Walls shall NOT be located with Right or Way and shall be privately owned and maintained. Boulder walls with south storm water basin shall not encroach into drainage and utility easement areas. 44. Maximum roadway grades cannot exceed 8%. Streets should have 2% cross slope in accordance with STR-32. 45. Drainage Swales are required between townhomes to prevent individual drainage to be directed to adjacent structures. Revise contours accordingly. Storm Sewer 46. Final locations and sizes of Storm Sewer shall be reviewed with the final construction plans and approved by City Engineer. 47. Provide storm sewer calculations for stormwater requirements. (Rational method including Hydraulic grade lines). 48. Storm sewer within right of way and public drainage and utility easement for purposes of connection to public infrastructure shall be reinforced concrete pipe and meet all City standards. 49. Add a structure in the southwest corner of the site and tie the proposed storm outlet into the existing 36" RCP at STRM 406. Existing ditches and culverts will need to be connected to storm water within ROW. 50. STRM 400 should be extended and connected into STRM 101 within ROW 51. Additional catch basin(s) may be required in the curb line prior to trench drains entering underground parking area to minimize contributing drainage area. 52. Additional catch basin(s) may be required in the curb line prior to drainage leaving site onto public ROW. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main 53. Final locations and sizes of Sanitary Sewer and Water main shall be reviewed with the final construction plans and approved by City Engineer. 54. All water mains located within right of way and public easements for purposes of connection to public infrastructure shall be ductile iron pipe and meet all City standards. Utility notes on page C600 should be updated to reflect City of Apple Valley Standards where applicable. 55. Provide additional drawing showing fire hydrant coverage. 56. Domestic water and Fire service shall be split outside the building and the valves shall be located 1.5 times the height of the building away from the building or placed in location readily accessible per City Detail SER -6 for sprinkled buildings. 57. Identify Irrigation service location(s) if applicable per SER -4. 58. Water main cannot be located underneath retaining walls. 59. Extend the water main connection in the southwest corner to provide redundant connection to 16" trunk water. Existing 16" trunk water main within McAndrew's needs to be identified on utility plan. 60. Future water main tee and gate valve connection should be extended north of Pilot Knob Access Drive for future water main extension to the north. 61. SSWR-103 should be relocated to an accessible location. 62. Sanitary Sewer and water main alignment in roadway shall be per City of Apple Valley standards including service connections to proposed townhomes per SER 1 and SER lA 63. Note 7 on sheet C600 should state "Contractor shall maintain a minimum of 8' cover on all waterlines." Landcape and Natural Resources 1. The proposed plant schedule contains "River birch" in the ornamental tree category. River birch shall be classified as an Over story Tree. 2. The proposed plant schedule for Over story Trees contains 38% quaking aspen and 27% maples. Diversify the planting schedule to follow City Code 152.46 (B): a. Size, types, diversification of replacement trees. No more than one-third of the replacement trees shall be of the same species of tree, without approval of the city. Box elder, poplar, willow and silver maple are not permitted as replacement trees. Replacement trees must be no less than the following sizes: (1) Deciduous trees shall be no less than two caliper inches; and (2) Coniferous trees shall be no less than six feet high. 3. All remaining trees shall be protected from construction damage and root compaction with protective tree fencing. Impacting any Valley wood Golf Course trees is prohibited. Equipment, stockpiles, and contractor parking is restricted from the area labeled "Existing woodland to remain" on Sheet L100. 4. Any wounds or damage to remaining live oaks from March- Nov shall be immediately sprayed with pruning paint to limit oak wilt infections. 5. New trees and retaining walls are proposed to be near storm water infrastructure (inlets, outlets, riprap, boulder outcropping) on each of the basins. Provide 20' clear access for equipment and future maintenance activities on all underground infrastructure. 6. Provide quantities and locations for perennials and grasses. There is a large proposed areas of "native shrubs/perennials" around the basin. Provide a detailed plan for establishment and maintenance if these areas are to be seeded. The City encourages native plantings. Many of the proposed perennials and grasses contain cultivars (cultivated varieties of native plants that do not have the same benefits to pollinators and birds), indicated by the name x `variety'. Native plants would not contain the variety name in quotes. (7-•:, C O U N T Y Dakota County Surveyor's Office Western Service Center • 14955 Galaxie Avenue • Apple Valley, MN 55124 952.891-7087 • Fax 952.891-7127 • www.co.dakota.mn.us October 31, 2019 City of Apple Valley 7100 147th Street W. Apple Valley, MN 55124 Re: APPLEWOOD POINTE OF APPLE VALLEY The Dakota County Plat Commission met on October 30, 2019, to consider the preliminary plat of the above referenced plat. The plat is adjacent to CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Rd.) and CSAH 38 (McAndrews Blvd.), and is therefore subject to the Dakota County Contiguous Plat Ordinance. The right-of-way needs along CSAH 31 and CSAH 38 are 75 feet of half right of way for a future four -lane divided roadway. The plat should dedicate an additional 25 feet along CSAH 38 to meet the needs. The access spacing guidelines are 1/4 mile (1320 feet) spacing for full access and 1/8 mile (660 feet) spacing for restricted access locations. The access spacing for the proposed accesses are shown as 660 feet on CSAH 38 and 445 feet on CSAH 31 from the CSAH 38/CSAH 31 intersection. The CSAH 31 access does not meet the access spacing guideline for 1/8 restricted access. The Plat Commission will allow a temporary right turn in only access on CSAH 31. Restricted access should be shown along all of CSAH 38 except for the one access opening. Restricted access should be shown along all of CSAH 31 with a temporary access for the right in only location. The temporary access would be allowed until future development to the north or east would allow a full access location to this site and/or unless there are safety concerns along CSAH 31 at this location. A temporary permit would be required through the Dakota County Transportation Department. A quit claim deed to Dakota County for restricted access along CSAH 31 and CSAH 38 is required with the recording of the plat mylars. As discussed, a median is required on CSAH 38 from the CSAH 31/CSAH 38 intersection to Dover Drive and extension of the median along CSAH 31 for the right turn only in location. Right turn lanes will also be required through the permitting process. Also, a private access easement should be recorded with the plat mylars for the adjoining property for future access. As noted, the City will work with developer to construct a trail along CSAH 31 and CSAH 38. The Plat Commission has approved the preliminary plat provided that the described conditions are met. The Ordinance requires submittal of a final plat for review by the Plat Commission before a recommendation is made to the County Board of Commissioners. Traffic volumes on CSAH 38 and CSAH 31 are 8,800 and 20,500 ADT, respectively, and are anticipated to be 13,000 and 32,000 ADT by the year 2030. These traffic volumes indicate that current Minnesota noise standards for residential units could be exceeded for the proposed plat. Residential developments along County highways commonly result in noise complaints. In order for noise levels from the highway to meet acceptable levels for adjacent residential units, substantial building setbacks, buffer areas, and other noise mitigation elements should be incorporated into this development. No work shall commence in the County right of way until a permit is obtained from the County Transportation Department and no permit will be issued until the plat has been filed with the County Recorder's Office. The Plat Commission does not review or approve the actual engineering design of proposed accesses or other improvements to be made in the right of way. Nothing herein is intended to restrict or limit Dakota County's rights with regards to Dakota County rights of way or property. The Plat Commission highly recommends early contact with the Transportation Department to discuss the permitting process which reviews the design and may require construction of highway improvements, including, but not limited to, turn lanes, drainage features, limitations on intersecting street widths, medians, etc. Please contact Butch McConnell regarding permitting questions at (952) 891-7115 or Todd Tollefson regarding Plat Commission or Plat Ordinance questions at (952) 891-7070. Sincerely, Todd B. Tollefson Secretary, Plat Commission c: Brent Hislop (Synergy Land Co.) Mitchell Cookas and Will Matzek (Kimley-Horn) Jennifer Mason and Alex Hall (United Properties) UNITED PROPERTIES October 11, 2019 Thomas J. Lovelace City Planner City of Apple Valley 7100 147th Street W Apple Valley, MN 55124 Dear Mr. Lovelace, 651 Nicollet Mall, Ste 450 1331 17th Street, Ste 604 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Denver, Colorado 80202 952-835-5300 720-898-8866 United Properties is requesting a preliminary plat, site plan review and rezoning to planned development for the November 6th Apple Valley Planning Commission Meeting. We are proposing a 4 story 98 unit senior cooperative along with 7 townhomes on the northeast corner of Pilot Knob and McAndrew's roads. This is a "for sale" product with average home sizes of 1,550 sq. ft. The building has been placed back on the site to allow for significant green space and a nice transition from the intersection from lower to higher density. We have also worked carefully to preserve significant buffers between our property and the golf course—both to the north and east. Several perspectives have been included showing minimal impact to the golf course due to the natural grades and significant existing trees. The proposed exterior materials include a combination of high quality, low maintenance Hardie siding, as well as cultured stone and brick. United Properties has been in business for over 100 years and has developed 14 Applewood Pointe Cooperatives; 1 is currently under construction and we will break ground on our 16th AWP this winter. There is very strong demand for this product supported by a significant (doubling) increase in the senior population over the next 25 years. Best Regards, Jennifer Mason Kimley»>Horn MEMORANDUM To: City of Apple Valley CC: United Properties From: Jacob Rojer, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: October 17, 2019 Subject: Applewood Pointe Senior Housing Trip Generation Apple Valley, MN INTRODUCTION United Properties is proposing to construct multiple townhomes and a senior housing facility on the northeast corner of Pilot Knob Road (CSAH 31) & McAndrews Road (CSAH 38) in Apple Valley, MN. The following memo documents the estimated number of trips generated by the development during peak hours and the trip assignment at the study intersections. TRIP GENERATION The proposed development will include 7 townhomes and a 98 -unit senior housing building. Access will be provided to the proposed development vis two right-in/right-out accesses located: • 600 feet east of Pilot Knob Road on McAndrews Road • 400 feet north of McAndrews Road on Piolet Knob Road Trip generation for the development was calculated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition. ITE Land Use Code 220 (Multifamily Housing — Low Rise) and Code 252 (Senior Adult Housing — Attached) was used for the development. Table 1 provides the estimated number of daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips. Table 1 — Trip Generation Land Use Description ITE Code Intensity / Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Multifamily Housing — Low Rise 220 7 Units 52 1 2 3 3 1 4 Senior Adult Housing 252 98 Units 364 7 13 20 14 11 25 TOTAL 416 8 15 23 17 12 29 kimley-hom.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 1 651-645-4197 Kimley»>Horn TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT Page 2 Trip Distribution The directional distribution was based on the current traffic patterns in the area, the location of the proposed site access, and the anticipated routes that will provide site users with the fastest and most convenient path to and from the site. The estimated trip distribution for the site -generated traffic is provided below: • To/from the north on Pilot Knob Road — 50% • To/from the south on Pilot Knob Road — 15% • To/from the east on McAndrews Road — 5% • To/from the west on McAndrews Road — 30% Trip Assignment With both proposed accesses being right-in/right-out, there will be U-turns at the intersection of Pilot Knob Road & McAndrews Road for southbound vehicles entering the site and for eastbound vehicles leaving the site. The southbound vehicles entering the site will make up 50% of the entering site traffic during the peaks and the eastbound vehicles exiting the site will make up 5% of the traffic during the peaks. However, the trip generation for the site is low and the impacts of the U-turns and right-in/right-out traffic will be negligible. The trip assignment for the two accesses and Pilot Knob Road & McAndrews Road are shown in Exhibit 1. Sincerely, Jacob Rojer, PE kimley-hom.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 1 651-645-4197 McAndrews Road(CSAH 38) LEGEND VStudy Intersection XX [XX] AM [PM] Trip Assignment XX% Trip Distribution Project Site Location Kimley » Horn EXHIBIT 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT APPLEWOOD POINTE LOCATION MAP CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION PROPOSED 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION "HD" (High Density Residential) 4 rvi 46-, '151:1 41.1721.1 4% -ktri0 '„1•," :11168M 1 a r� kr. 11 rid cul■`I1u® P 12o H1sriw PD -168 lleywood Municipal GC SITE MCANDREWSLRD DOVER DIAMOND VIM 1Iw Cr rin 4! I ' iii" in .m1 m ii IC Tor r_I. 11116.11144) ii, 7•11:11 • • 14 ROE Marlilik :II �,�!w '►: `t '`JAIIIIIIp it) e' EUCLID � i132NDST}W' _ Ali111i911.11■ -7C M -7C 129,THi 00'91S Y„ lS,MON 0 fi v 'F. 1 r 1 T O4tW El7W' =S73c :y Insura,c Com Is f 0 Z Crva� � C.706 EON:" ,19014 1r� lif flGeoalV >rn v.Y.aesr. e.. UJOH4 AJW!N AGM Maonmi,' 11,073.90, NV1d OW3a n'I'i7Vn i,d GN S3I12I3d0Nd O31INf1 and 03erd3Sd A311VA 3lddV AO 31NIOd 000M31ddtl 0 V N011011NISNOO 21Od ION - A21b'NIINI1321d irr,vr�iiiiiirrLiririrn iTiirirtierfNMW mwi)rrlrrrrrirrriiiiiriiirnrrnrrr- OHOa' YON)/ 101/c/ ween;oL- .OZNV1d 01,130L019saygugdlOVOINBisaO £l /1.1ddV- Au!OS poonapddy,,saryadeJ4 Payu fl4 O1 '.]M1�N 100 laspl7 n 0161519.1511 3X0X.1 111. 15 001.31,11S 133.115 susro 3n11 SZLLYT3099VONV rritl0.-/31N111 RCS CI WOH(((A IW I to OIL. NV1d 31IS cJ�•rk'1'.nd. S3I12IJdO2id O31INl HOA 03nyaaad A311 VA 3ldd V AO 31NIOd 000M3 IddV : 0 'a E V z W 0 W J NOI13l211SNOO 2104 ION ANN/NIWI1321d i.a.• r FA aenu Ma.+rwa u. -re w; w660:0L- 610i '60 ia9Wo0199 NVld 3115>019aagSugd10VOko&sap Como Amddy- aluiod pce.��IpNsawsdewa�aw�agl OMIt'a AB NOD .1011,37VIDONIM 143S NVI 1,63 15 .3.5 /331f16 susna UJOH (<<AalwDI Ntfld JNIOV2IJ 1311 a,dd S3I1213d02Id 0311Nl and O3aWd3tld A311WA 3lddV d0 1NIOd 00OM3lddV we6L OL- 6LOZ'Lt.flAepsA slddy -aWiod pew,elddytsvryatloy PW.ull.)3Ol.M11J1 inC SNO15.31 2.2 wo•2202-nrincere.wn 011.1-StS,L9 3X01.1.1 931V13099.0 ONV1,01011,31VIDI SLOZ UJOHOcalWDI —Mil— .vo N rid Airmin 202 nil -1223,0/ S311213dOlid 03111%111 VOA 03•12213•• A311VA 31ddll dO 3.0110d 000MTIddV 0 N 1 3 1 L.. fli .. -d, . , E . -; . ; ; ; I 212 13• 111,11 232•.• .. - 1 • •• a55 1 . 3 ■ 3 s ; ; I a I I E8,,,•11,i. f . ' i /.i." "1 : , /ill. ,i ii— , I !.' i i ° .1,11 III 11 il 1 !!! i 1 1 !!!!!!!!!° 1 1 I 1 i 1 . li f iii E . f E 1 I .111 f F, KEYNOTE LEGEND NOI1OCINISNO0 1:10J ION - It) OVOii SONN1011d "11 .01.01111111.1.4 .ainenave...Ino 2-1 ....I. Rm. mho, • - f• . • -2.42•222.141.2d4 ,•• L 1.:0 - 81,02 SO ,•••1•0 2,2 A111112-9301••••••1.222-,201•213 21.11•A •22,2 - •22ad poemaidchy,saw..c1-2•2•11,301-0/21101 53,1.151, .014,311.111,16412 WOH <<4 AalwDI NV1d 3dV0S0NV1 MN AWMIN rum, S3I1213dOdd 0311Nl tlOS 03tlVaEtld A311VA 3lddV AO 31NI0d 000M31ddV i 2o 'w, J LANDSCAPE LEGEND 0 U 0 fi E § 0 00 Ed 'a 55 8 3 8 N0Il0l211SN00 HOd ION - ANYNIIN11311d 8 8 e a f 0b0d' 80N)/ 107/d y 7 .a9L0L-SLOZ'ea +a4ata0 `,]MO NVId 3dVOSONVI-0\s1aM5u1d\0WOW&sap MARRA aIddy- Mu!odfsow1dvrlsral+aea'y MWFM301-aMLL'N Inv.I.LS3 31.1a UJIOH<(A Iw!N 12SM mamas. is. sisszo 3.4 .1111 sarelaw nus 31l03H3S INV1d S3I.L213dO2Id 031INf1 tlOd 03tlVd321d A311 VA 3lddtl AO 31NIOd 000M31ddv 'z w J NOI13f1d1SNO3 2JOd ION - 3 ; E h' E,1 1 weL L:OL-SLOB 'B01o4.1,0 VMO SlIV1303dV004N11-LIIWaegS0 d\OVOIBB!.B0 \\*q.A 111BOV 0d P eoM.ddylswyedad PWufl301 3MII:H (1) W } Z J Y W d > w J CL 0 UJ d Q a_i p wwu_a zoCL Z a Q aa,ynq xws7wc'l wvsarci QVO6 BONN iO1ld— SITE PLAN ROPERTIES (f) 0 U W SITE SECTION B - looking northwest (oblique) 3 upper tee box SITE SECTION A - looking north �nwrz w r w Z CC } W d > LL -1 CL O 0 J d d 0 < uJ J LL a Z d Q O PE RTI ES SITE IMAGES VIEW FROM #3 GREEN LOOKING SOUTH VIEW FROM #3 FAIRWAY LOOKING SOUTH 0 MONUMENT SIGN B ■ WEST ELEVATION [ co w w Z w 2' O Q ›- LU W d > J CL O O J Q a O CDa o�a_J W J 0_CLap¢ Q N M REAR ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION View from intersection looking Northeast View from 125th looking Northwe (1) W>Z W I- W Z J CC O Q LL>J a O W ZCI �o> 0 < W W LL Q E2 O Q 5 5 � rf s- LL a w-wZ J Ce 0 } W d j J 0 rp Q_ Q -J w LU HJIL d ELI O Q OPERTIES z N =gra ua " QoNB i ce 0 0 0 0 0FV) Z 7 � N r S cnW>z w z JJ LU 0 W d J > W UJ 0J CLo> < � D W WLL d a 0 Q 2M CL D< ce ce CI! �cc z 0, 0 ce0 0 0 3n SECOND FLOOR PLAN U) alN THIRD FLOOR PLAN FOURTH FLOOR PLAN l App Valil ley ITEM: 5.A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November6, 2019 SECTION: Land Use /Action Items 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: Consider the request for approval of the amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map re -designating 23 acres of property, located 8661 140th Street West, in the following manner 1. Outlot B, Cobblestones I from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density Residential). 2. Outlots A, C and D, Cobblestones I; and two unplatted parcels totaling 21 acres, from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential). If the Commission recommends approval, the request will move to the City Council for their review. If the recommendation is for denial of the applicant's request, the Commissioners should be prepared to provide for the record reasons for the denial. If the recommendation is for denial, the Planning Commission should then make a motion to set a public hearing to consider and take action on a lower residential land use designation. 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 directly 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 consider as part of your review. This included the makeup of the existing housing within a quarter mile of the golf course property. Staff found that of the 640 housing units counted, there are: • 230 single-family detached homes (36%) in the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts that are in lower density designations; and • 410 attached homes (64%) in the R-5, M-3 and M-4 zoning districts that are in lower density designations. Again, to be clear, zoning is not being reviewed and discussed at this time. Rather, the future land use designation to 2040, should identify the residential density designation 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. 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 idents 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. A second public hearing on this proposal was held on October 16, 2019. Staff is providing a synopsis of the comments that were not part of the June 19, public hearing with staffs response. A concern regarding potential flooding if medium density was allowed. Staff Response - Please refer to the City Engineer's memo for information pertaining to this concern. A concern that the traffic data is five years old. He asked for the Commission to consider traffic data that is accurate. Staff Response - The map presented from the City's Comprehensive Plan and does not contain the most up to date data. The City Engineer's memo, dated October 9, 2019, contains traffic data from 2018. 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. 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. A comment was received regarding if the City could look into some additional crosswalks in the neighborhood. Staff Response - Currently there are marked crosswalks at 140th and Garden View (at the traffic signal) and at 140th and McAndrew 's (at the traffic signal). A requirement of any subdivision of this property would be to add an 8' bituminous pathway along the north side of 140th from Garden View to approximately Holyoke Lane. This addition will greatly benefit pedestrians to get to a marked crosswalk from the north side of 140th without having to cross 140th to reach a pedestrian route. 140th Street is a 45 mph four (4) lane undivided roadway. Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient and pedestrian crash risk may increase by providing marked crosswalks on this type of roadway. Other treatments, such as additional traffic signals or other pedestrian facilities would be necessary. The use of mid -block crosswalks is generally discouraged unless an engineering study determines a specific need for this type of crosswalk and shall confirm with the MM1V Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). BUDGET IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Background Material Background Material Memo Letter 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. Mayor Mary and City Council Members, I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the land use designation process for the golf course land. Not long ago we heard that the city council was going to make a decision concerning this issue at the September 26th meeting, but when the meeting began that night we discovered that an amendment had just been presented by the landowner so there would be no vote at that time. Many other Apple Valley residents and I were at the Planning Commission meeting in August when that group clearly voted down any proposal that included medium or high density housing. But then we found out that the Planning Commission was directed to come back and make a statement about what they proposed for that land which is something they really had already done. They had voted against medium and high density, which means they think that low density is the only solution. Then at the last Planning Commission meeting we heard the ridiculous idea that they are supposed to come up with a hybrid plan. What in the world is that and where did it come from? What kind of a precedent would that set for future developments? The Planning Commission members stated last Wednesday that in their memory they have always just voted on land use proposals and have NEVER had to come back and explain exactly what they wanted to be done with the land. They have never seen a process like this one. The commission members were also very obviously frustrated, just like the citizens of Apple Valley. They already have clearly said that they do not believe that medium or high density housing is appropriate for that land area. That should be the final decision as it always has been in these land use cases. It just doesn't make sense. Or at least it didn't make sense until last Wednesday night when the land owner's lawyer clearly threatened a lawsuit. The lawyer's evasive answers are definitely hard to decipher, but according to what he said they have not put this land out to developers because they can't really do that until the land use is decided. Therefore, the clear solution is to designate the area low density and insist that they seriously and sincerely market the area for single family homes or townhomes for a significant amount of time. They do not need a medium density designation for townhomes. None of the townhomes in our area are medium density. If they haven't even really tried to market it, they have nothing to complain about. I believe that it is not a case of not being able to find a developer to develop low density housing, but rather that they would make way more money if apartments were built in my backyard. Please keep remembering that you represent the city of Apple Valley and want to support the quality of life we have always had here. You should not be worried about how much money one landowner can make if it seriously harms a beautiful area of our city! Please don't give into high power threats. They want a medium density designation so that they can build up to 12 units per acre and I would hope that you who represent our city would realize that that is not a viable decision for this area! If you designate the area for medium density housing there is nothing stopping them from building low-rise apartments. 0441 1 % The landowner and his father knew the restrictions of this land because of the pipeline, ponds, etc. These are not new revelations. They should have realized when they bought the land to turn into a golf course that it would be very hard to develop it if they decided to make a change. Please look at this issue from the eyes of the majority of the citizens of Apple Valley. Also, please reread your Comprehensive Plan. Apartments are not of the same size, scale, or use as the surrounding homes. I am quite certain the landowner could make a nice profit from low density housing. Thank you so much for your attention. I know your job is not easy! Kathy Lundin 13531 Hollins Ct. Apple Valley, MN October 28, 2019 Apple Valley Planning Commission Re: Apple Valley Golf Course Good afternoon, I am writing today to provide information and address concerns over the rezoning of the Apple Valley Golf Course. Our address is 8790 W 135th Street, and we are located directly on the first fairway. When you look down the first fairway of the golf course, it seems wide, however this is not the case. The first four homes on that fairway have an easement attached to them. The properties have fences along their back yards however, it does not represent the actual property line. Initially the first tee box was not elevated, it was located just off the pond, approximately 50 feet forward of its current, elevated location. When the lots we along the first fairway were plotted, the City determined they needed to by "X" deep. Carl Watrud agreed to this, then granted himself an easement for the specific use of a golf course. He apparently did this for $1.00, yes, one dollar. When we purchased the house, we would end up with literally hundreds of golf balls in the yard. Yes, that was part of living on the golf course. Being we had windows broken by errant golf balls, and had very young children, decided to put up a fence. We were advised our fence would need to be placed even further in to our property than it currently is. Our property goes into the fairway to the tree which is approximately 10 feet out from the fence. Tom Abel lives in the corner house. I believe his property goes approximately half way into the existing tee box. My husband appeared several times at City Planning Commission meetings to request a variance for the fence, (the height had to be higher than regular height due to the elevated tee box). We were also advised the golf course owner would not allow the fence if it was not made of "green vinyl" because it would look like a prison. The golf course finally relented to the fence location and allowed us to put up our fence in alignment with the Abel fence as well as their own fence, (Joe Watrud's personal home). At the Planning Commission meeting on October 16th, Mr. Watrud's attorney threatened if the Councils recommendation was not as requested by Joel Watrud, it could be considered "taking". I was not clear as to the definition of "taking", so I looked it up. It is defined as: "A zoning change that substantially diminishes an owner's property value, however, may constitute a compensable regulatory taking." It is my interpretation that if changing the zoning substantially diminishes an owner's property value, then the zoning should remain as is, Public Recreation. While I understand there has been a decline in golfing as a whole, very little, if anything, has been done to promote this property. Contracts do exist with the junior varsity golf team from Apple Valley for practice as well as tournaments. As with every business, you need to promote and market your business. Thank you for taking time to read my letter and for all you do. Sincerely, Kimberly N. Reagan s 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 l App Valil ley ITEM: 5.B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November6, 2019 SECTION: Land Use /Action Items Description: Aspen Dental Sign Variance - PC19-19-V Consider Variance to Allow Size of Building Sign to Increase from 40 sq. ft. to 57 sq. ft. on West, North and East Building Elevations Staff Contact: Kathy Bodmer, Al CP, Planner Department/ Division: Community Development Department Applicant: Chandler Signs/Signcrafters Outdoor and 14750 Cedar, LLC Project Number: PC19-19-V Applicant Date: 10/21/2019 60 Days: 12/20/2019 120 Days: 2/18/2020 ACTION REQUESTED: Recommend denial of a variance to allow the size of a building sign to increase from 40 sq. ft. to 57 sq. ft. on west, north and east building elevations, finding that the request does not meet the Code requirements for a practical difficulty. The staff reviews variance applications based strictly upon the requirements of the state statutes and the City Code which require the applicant to establish that there are practical difficulties present in order for a variance to be granted, and that logical alternatives are not available. Staff therefore recommends that the variance be denied because it does not meet the staffs strict interpretation of the sign code and the practical difficulty test. If the Planning Commission wishes to recommend approval of the requested variance, it should state its findings and any practical difficulties in any motion to approve the variance. SUMMARY: Chandler Signs, and their local contractor, Sign Crafters, the applicant on behalf of Aspen Dental, and the property owner, 14750 Cedar, LLC, request consideration of a variance which would allow the size of the building signs to increase from 40 sq. ft. to 57 sq. ft. on the newly constructed Apple Valley Crossroads building, 14750 Cedar Ave (former Ryan Real Estate). The sign code requires the following: 1. One sq. ft. sign for every 100 sq. ft. of floor area, with a minimum sign permitted of 40 sq. ft. 2. Sign area is calculated using the smallest vertical rectangle that can be drawn around the message on a sign. 3. Sign permitted on the primary building face may be repeated on the other building faces. The Aspen Dental space is 3,500 sq. ft.; calculating 1 sq. ft.:100 sq. ft., they would be allowed 35 sq. ft. sign, or up to the minimum of 40 sq. ft. The Aspen Dental sign is comprised of the office name which contains an ascending "A" and a descending "p" that create a larger sign area "box" than a script with letters of the same height. The requested sign is made of 39" tall by 17' 6" wide "box" for a total sign area of 57 sq. ft. The applicants also show that reducing the box height to 31" x 14' 4" results in a sign area of 38 sq. ft. which complies with the sign code requirement. The sign permitted on the primary face of the building may be repeated on the other two building faces. An elevation drawing was submitted showing the requested sign along with the sign the meets the area requirements of the Code on the east (primary face), north and west elevations for comparison. Variance Standard: In order to grant a variance, the City considers the following factors to determine whether the applicant established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provisions of the City Code: 1. Special conditions exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; 2. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; 3. A literal interpretation of the provisions of these regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district and the terms of these sign regulations; 4. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege for a use not common to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and 5. The proposed use of the property shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent properties and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. Petitioner's Narrative: The petitioner's narrative explains that with the main entry of the building off of Glazier Ave, six inch taller letters allow 200 additional feet of reaction time. Taller letters allow faster recognition and therefore promote traffic safety. The property shape and larger than typical setbacks warrant a larger sign. Last, taller letters are also more legible for elderly patients and are more visible within a motorist's "cone of vision." Staff Review and Response: Staff does not view the shape of the property or the setbacks to be a factor in the size of the signs requested. The new Crossroads building will be constructed closer to the Cedar Ave right-of-way line than the former Ryan building was. The former building had the same sign requirements as the new building. To some extent, the applicant and the building owner have the opportunity, with new construction, to modify the size of the suite space, or the elevation, or both. The applicant has the ability to make modifications to address issues under new construction. Staff does not believe that the petitioner would be deprived of any rights enjoyed by others in the district as nearby dental offices must following the same sign requirements. Staff is concerned that granting the variance would confer a special privilege on this user. While the 6" larger letters look more proportional within the elevation area, the 31" tall sign does not look out of scale with the building or the facade. In other words, the sign that is permitted under the Sign Code is clearly visible and may be installed on three building elevations. Extra reaction time is beneficial, but a dental visit is not a drive-by impulse purchase. Staff does not believe that the petitioner has a unique circumstance that would warrant the granting of the variance. BACKGROUND: N/A BUDGET IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Location Map Applicant Letter Plan Set Ordinance r!"Ply CHANDLER SIGNS October 1, 2019 City of Apple Valley Planning and Development Department City of Apple Valley, MN RE: Aspen Dental — Special Variation Request (7524 State Ave.) P: 214.902.2000 F: 214.902.2044 14201 Sovereign Road Suite 101 Fort Worth, TX 76155 chandlersigns.com Aspen Dental is one of the largest and fastest-growing dental care providers in the United States. With more than 500 locations in 22 states, their practices offer patients a full range of denture and dental services. Aspen Dental practices are committed to providing patients with affordable, high-quality care, and they are anxious to become an active and responsible participant in the local business community within the City of Apple Valley. We have reviewed the zoning regulations and Sign Ordinance, and have had conversations with members of the permitting staff to ensure that we fully understand the zoning restrictions and potential of these restrictions upon this location. Based on our review, we are respectfully submitting this request for the approval of the following Variation: • DM -33 wall sign (57 sf) on the West Elevation • DM -33 wall sign (57 sf) on the East Elevation • DM -33 wall sign (57 sf) on the North Elevation This equates to 17 sf of additional signage on each elevation over the allowed 40 sf per elevation. NARRITIVE OF OUR VARIANCE REQUEST Aspen Dental will occupy approximately 3,500 square feet of this multi -tenant building. Allowing the additional square footage increases awareness as customer approach and allow them to safety turn into the property. Quicker recognition allows for greater reaction times which translates into a safer intersection. Since the main entry into the property is actually off of Glazier Ave, the 6" taller signs would allow an additional 200 feet of reaction time to turn there instead of passing that intersection and approach Cedar Ave in confusion. The larger letters would also help to offset the property shape and larger than normal setbacks from property lines and thus right of ways. The additional sign area is necessary or desirable for public information or safety As many of Aspen Dental's patients are elderly, we strive to avoid any potential safety hazards. Based on national letter legibility charts, our request for additional square footage will allow for better recognition of the office. The United States Sign Council has completed extensive research into the legibility of on - premise signs, motorist reaction times and determination of legibility. SIMAMMSIMI CHANDLER P: 2 14.902.2000 F: 214.902.2044 14201 Sovereign Road Suite 101 Fort Worth, TX 76155 chandlersigns.com SIGNS "Detecting and reading a roadside on -premise sign by a motorist involves a complex series of sequentially occurring events, both mental and physical. They include message detection and processing, intervals of eye and/or head movement alternating between the sign and the road environment, and finally, active maneuvering of the vehicle (such as lane changes, deceleration, and turning into a destination) as required in response to the stimulus provided by the sign. Complicating this process is the dynamic of the viewing task, itself, involving the detection of a sign through the relatively constricted view provided by the windshield of a rapidly moving vehicle, with the distance between the motorist and the sign quickly diminishing. Perpendicular signs... are generally placed close to property lines and fall into the motorist's so-called "cone of vision", which is a view down the road encompassing ten degrees to the right or left of the eye, or twenty degrees total view angle. Signs falling within this cone can usually be viewed comfortably without excessive eye or head movement, and generally can be kept in the motorist's line -of -sight from the time they are first detected until they are passed. In the case of signs parallel to the motorist's view, detecting and reading a sign is generally restricted to quick sideways glances as the sign is approached and the angle of view becomes more constricted. Because of this, the Viewer Reaction Time (VRT) involving these signs is, at best, necessarily compromised. Compensation for this reduction in the time frame involved in detecting and reading parallel signs is made through increases in letter height and size designed to facilitate rapid glance legibility. Viewer Reaction Time for vehicles traveling under 35 miles per hour in simple two to three lane environments is estimated at 8-9 seconds to safely detect and process signage and maneuver to exit. A vehicle traveling at 30 miles per hour covers 44 feet per second; therefore, a minimum of 352 feet is needed from the time the sign is detected to exiting when only the minimum letter height is utilized. Adding the 150' building setback at this location, plus the 250' distance to the driveway entrance=400'. Per the standard Distance & Visibility Chart below, the sign height recommended for best impact at 360 feet is 36" and for 420' is 42" DISTANCE & VISIBILITY CHART Letter Height Best Impact Max Readable Distance 3 inches 30 feet 100 feet 4 inches 40 feet 150 feet 6 inches 60 feet 200 feet 8 inches 80 feet 350 feet 9 inches 90 feet 400 feet 10 inches 100 feet 450 feet 12 inches 120 feet 525 feet 15 inches 150 feet 630 feet 18 inches 180 feet 750 feet 24 inches 240 feet 1000 feet 30 inches 300 feet 1250 feet 36 inches 360 feet 1500 feet 42 inches 420 feet 1750 feet 48 inches 480 feet 2000 feet 54 inches 540 feet 2250 feet 60 inches 600 feet 2500 feet WILL GRANTING THE VARIANCE CHANGE THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA? CHANDLER P: 214.902.2000 F: 214.902.2044 14201 Sovereign Road Suite 101 Fort Worth, TX 76155 chandlersigns.com SIGNS No, it will not. With the increased awareness, it will make ingress into the property safer. For the above reasons, we feel that our request is reasonable, does not negatively impact the surrounding retail business and restaurants, and improves the safety of patients traveling to this business. We respectfully request your approval of Aspen Dental's proposed signage and thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Chandler Signs 14201 Sovereign Rd. #101 Fort Worth, TX 76155 Office: 214-902-2000 x 6537 / Mobil: 972-740-1751 o OPTION 1: 0 z Fm \ na l 2 0 Fa i 0 z z 2 0 i 0 z 0 2 0 i 0 z 0 £Z'ON ' H'V'S'0) 3ONJAV 1JV030 OPTION 2: 2 0 i 0 z z 2 0 i 0 z 0 2 0 i m Fa i 0 z 0 0 40'-0" DEMISING WALL .44 0 w 2 0 tr i 0 .,D -.SZ Allowable Sq Ft this elevation Actual Sq Ft proposed • O W y p mwoo 500 W z-11 fL m W J -101-6 J ZWL -- u J0 WMURE W ▪ 00am JOGFI W y J ; G Z W a 0 Z Q : y -x x y C W MANUFACTURE & INSTALL ONE [1] DM -33 CHANNEL LETTER SET 0 KEEP LANDLORD PROVIDED HYPER BLUE AWNINGS na 40'-0" DEMISING WALL s w0 z um 2 0 i O Allowable Sq Ft this eleva Actual Sq Ft proposed O O W y G 500 W ZfL 4 W J _101-m J 0z W N 3 Y V l W ▪ 00am x W W Y ▪ J 3 O ZM1 a Y Z a: yux xuw CW N N Z 0 0 Z 0 > W J W w W triw W 0 a 0 z a MANUFACTURE & INSTALL ONE [1] DM -33 CHANNEL LETTER SET 0 KEEP LANDLORD PROVIDED HYPER BLUE AWNINGS o. .44 0 w 2 0 i O Allowable Sq Ft this el Actual Sq Ft proposed O O W y o 5SIOO W Z m W W J 6 J _ z W {V 30u; renoZ u F m V S C ▪ O O a W w J O 0 F S J 3 W - Z ▪ J J; Zd Q Y Z Q : N V I� C W O MANUFACTURE & INSTALL ONE [1] DM -33 CHANNEL LETTER SET KEEP LANDLORD PROVIDED HYPER BLUE AWN na -74 s w0 Z rf.3 7i um 2 0 i 0 z Actual Sq Ft proposed „b SZ O O W y G 500 W Zco W W 6 5* WOOiW am J 0 0 F I J ; W - W Y J .7. Z m a Y Z a: y)x iw CW u Y1?m m .44 0 z 0 i 0 Allowable Sq Ft this eleva Actual Sq Ft proposed z 0 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION - OP p O W y Y 7 O O W Z Ca W J 0F1 J_ 2 W {V 3VU f m V E CO W O O Q w -1001-2 W } J 3 2 a G t In= Z W N C W MANUFACTURE & INSTALL ONE [1] DM -33 CHANNEL LETTER 5 KEEP LANDLORD PROVIDED HYPER BLUE AWNINGS na 0 i 0 Actual Sq Ft proposed p O ▪ y Y12000 7 L21O O W Z Ca W J p i- -1 _ 2 W 3 V U OJ O? F V1_02 CO W O O a w JOp1-x W } J 3 p 2 a XZ i o C w V N?f0m PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION - OPTION 2: D DM -33 CHANNEL LETTER SET O 0 z tfl Z „0„ ..9Z VO„6E THREE [3] SETS REQUIRED - MANUFACTURE & INSTALL 0 0 0 na c FACE -LIT CHANNEL LETTER SECTION DIRECT -MOUNT - REMOTE POWER SUPPLIES 0 0 0 O 0 w tfl Z „r,,,,Lz YO.,./LTE LL n N w r w w J J w z z Q U H J W U LL N z 0 H 0 na c s w0 z To Fi um THREE [3] SETS REQUIRED - MANUFACTURE & INSTALL 0 0 0 FACE -LIT CHANNEL LETTER SECTION DIRECT -MOUNT - REMOTE POWER SUPPLIES 0 0 0 0 040221Ar5P z CO :kr OD OD OD OD 4—, aJ 0 we '07\ TIT NOTE: VERIFY DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO MANUFACTURE 110 - 110 z 2 z 0 2 LLJ 0 0- 0_ Fe z LYG 0 z z u z Sign Code Excerpts APPENDIX C: SIGNS REQUIRING PERMITS The following signs may be erected or maintained, as shown for each zoning district or land use, only after obtaining a permit from the city and payment of permit fees, providing the standards of § 154.03 are met. Zoning District Pylon Sign Ground Sign Building Sign Maximum Area (sq. ff.) Limited business Single occupant — See Note 3 1 Building: See Note 2 Ground: 40 Multi -occupant — See Note 3 1 Building: See Note 2 Ground: 60 General business Building: See 2 - Area of sign for building sign(s) in limited business district may be equal to: 1 sq. ft. of sign per 100 sq. ft. of total building floor area. Maximum allowed: 200 sq. ft. of area of sign per building Minimum allowed: 40 sq. ft. �§ 154.02 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. ADVERTISING SIGN. A sign or billboard which directs attention to a business, commodity, service or entertainment conducted, sold or offered elsewhere than on the premises. ALLIED BUSINESS. Same or similar business with common name such as new and used auto sales. AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGN. A ground sign that identifies the name of a commercial, industrial, or business park development complex consisting of two or more businesses. AREA OF SIGN. That area within the marginal lines or extreme outside edge of the surface which bears tile advertisement qr in the case of messages, figures or symbols attached directly to any part of a building, that area which is included in the smalllest rectangle Iwhich can be made to circumscribe any message, figure or symbol displayed thereon. For a sign with not more than two back-to-back faces, only the area of one side is computed in determining the sign area. ... .... •••• ..• l App Valil ley ITEM: 5.C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November6, 2019 SECTION: Land Use /Action Items Description: Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Amendment - PC19-18-0 WITHRDRAWN AT REQUEST OF PETITIONER 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: City of Apple Valley Project Number: PC19-18-0 Applicant Date: 60 Days: 120 Days: ACTION REQUESTED: The City withdraws the requested ordinance amendment at this time. The person who sought the ordinance amendment is no longer interested in pursuing a code change to allow ADUs in R-3 zoning districts. SUMMARY: 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 City became the project applicant because the request was consistent with previous direction given by the City Council, Planning Commission and Urban Affairs Advisory Committee. It also ensured that the draft ordinance would contain the requirements that the City decided were necessary. Following the public hearing on October 16, 2019, several neighbors from the interested party's neighborhood contacted City staff and expressed concern about the requested ordinance amendment. Many stated that they did not favor allowing an ADU to be rented to a non -family member and they did not like the idea of a separate driveway that did not lead to a garage. In light of the neighbor's concerns, the interested party decided that they were no longer interested in pursuing the ordinance amendment at this time. Most of the neighbors who provided comment, however, said that they supported the idea of allowing families to care for ailing family members in their homes. Staff is pursuing a means by which a family could construct a second kitchen, but would need to sign a letter of understanding agreeing to the fact that they could not create a separate, rentable dwelling unit. The letter would be filed with the deed at the County and would put future homeowners on notice that the home must continue to function as a single family home. ... .... •••• ..• l App Valil ley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 6.A. November 6, 2019 Other Business Description: Orchard Place Retail Development Sketch Plan - Sketch Plan Review of 7.1 -Acre Commercial Retail Development Staff Contact: Thomas Lovelace Department/ Division: Community Development Department Applicant: HJ Development and Rockport, LLC Project Number: Applicant Date: 60 Days: 120 Days: ACTION REQUESTED: No official action is needed. The applicant wishes to receive feedback concerning the proposed project. It is recommended that the Planning Commission not state specifically whether or not they would approve or deny the request, but rather, identify specific zoning questions or issues they might have with the proposed project. SUMMARY: HJ Development has submitted a sketch plan for a 7.1 -acre site located at the northwest corner of 157th Street West and Pilot Knob Road (CSAH 31). They are proposing a commercial/retail development that would include 16,800 sq. ft. of restaurant space 8,400 sq. ft. of retail and a 6,500 -sq. ft. car wash. The 7.1 -acre property is currently guided "C" (Commercial) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and zoned "SG" (Sand and Gravel). Any development on this property will require a rezoning. Based upon the proposed uses, the appropriate rezoning would be "RB" (Retail Business). Retail business districts are areas, which are centrally located to serve the need for general retail sales. The Phase 1 development sketch plan shows a full access off 157th Street West, west of English Avenue, and a right -in only access drive just east of the 157th Street West,/English Avenue intersection. Driveways have been installed at these locations as part of the 157th Street West construction project. The proposed development abuts CSAH 31 (Pilot Knob Road), a county road, and the sketch plan identifies a proposed right -out only access from that road. These proposed access will require review by Dakota County. The site is part of a 78 -acre unplatted parcel, which includes approximately 4.1 acres of existing road right-of-way. Subdivision of the property will be required prior to the Phase 1 development. At a minimum, the plat should show the lots for the proposed buildings, dedication of a street right-of-way and public utility to serve the area. A proposed ponding area is shown along the west edge of the overall 78 -acre commercial development. This will be a regional ponding area and will collect storm water generated from this property as well as properties outside of the development. It is also shown as an amenity with trails around the ponds and an amphitheater. A public drainage and utility shall be placed over and across the ponds. The site plan shows an existing trail along the west side of Pilot Knob Road. There is also an existing bituminous trail along the north side of 157th Street West that connects with the North Creek Greenway and trails adjacent to the ponding area. No internal sidewalks/trails are shown on the site plan. An internal sidewalk/trail system should be installed that provides pedestrian connections to the buildings with the Phase I development, future development, and the pathways adjacent to the public roadways. The applicant did not submit any elevation or landscape drawings with their sketch plan proposal. Building exteriors and landscaping shall comply with the requirements set forth in the City's zoning ordinance. BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is currently guided "C" (Commercial) on the approved 2030 and proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Maps. Commercial areas include a wide variety of retail, office and service uses that vary in intensity and off-site impacts. The City uses the zoning ordinance to regulate the intensity and characteristics of development. Lower -intensity districts include "LB"(Limited Business) and "NCC" (Neighborhood Convenience Center). Higher -intensity districts include "GB" (General Business) and "RB" (retail Business). In each district land use and performance standards such as parking, building setbacks, storm water infiltration, access and lot coverage set the parameters for development. Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned "SG" (Sand and Gravel), which allows for the excavation, extraction, hauling, mining, stockpiling or processing of sand and gravel deposits; and buildings and equipment, including concrete and asphalt plants as conditional uses. The applicant has indicated that they would like to rezone the property to "GB" (General Business). This designation is intended for heavy uses and businesses that would serve other businesses and industry as well as residents. Car wash operations are a permitted use within this district with restaurant facilities permitted as a conditional use only when incidental to another use and not a principal use of the site. Most other uses that one may consider retail in nature are not permitted in this zoning district. If this project moves ahead as proposed, the applicant should consider a rezoning to "RB" (Retail Business) and not "GB". City code describes the "RB" zoning district as areas that are centrally located to serve the need for general retail sales. Some of the permitted uses within this district include a wide variety of retail uses, including Class I and III restaurants, and on -sale wine and/or 3.2% liquor in conjunction with a restaurant. Such uses as carwash operations, Class II restaurants, and on -sale liquor are permitted conditional uses. Site Plan: The site plan shows four retail buildings totaling 25,200 sq. ft. and one 6,500 -sq. ft. car wash operation on 7.1 acres. The Phase I Property Summary indicates 16,800 sq. ft. of restaurant area and 8,400 sq. ft. of retail area. Buildings I and P will include drive-through windows. It appears that the carwash and Building G will be on its own's separate lot, with Buildings I, O and P on one lot. It appears that all of the lots meet the minimum 15,000 -sq. ft. lot area requirement and minimum lot width of 100 feet. The car wash lot is landlocked, which is defined as a parcel of land without direct access to a public street. As a general rule landlocked parcels that are served by private easements will not be permitted. The City may permit landlocked parcels in a commercial complex provided they have access to a public street by an easement over another parcel within the same complex. It appears that cross parking and access easements will be pat of any development within this project. Two access driveways currently exist along the north side a 157th Street West and are identified on the site plan. The most westerly access is a full access and the easterly driveway will be located across from English Avenue and will allow right -in only access to the site. The site plan also shows a right-in/right-out only from Pilot Knob Road, which is a county road (CSAH 31). Review and approval by Dakota County will be needed for this proposed access. The Phase I site plan shows 293 parking spaces. The parking requirements for the proposed uses are the following: 1. Class I restaurants and other establishments with on -sale liquor licenses; and Class I restaurants without liquor licenses and Class III restaurants shall have one space per 2.5 customer seats and one space per five seats of outdoor eating area, excluding the first ten outdoor seats. 2. Class II restaurants shall have one space per three customer seats; and six stacking spaces for each drive-in window. 3. A car wash shall have five parking spaces for each washing lane, plus one space for every two employees. 4. A retail store shall have one parking space for each 150 square feet of floor area up to a total floor area of 20,000 square feet and one space for each 200 square feet of floor area thereafter. Cross access easements will need to be established, to allow vehicular access from one lot to the other within the development. Elevations: No building elevations have been submitted with this sketch plan request. All buildings shall have an exterior finish consisting of 100% noncombustible, non -degradable and maintenance free material such as face brick or natural stone. Materials such as sheet or corrugated aluminum, iron, or concrete block of any kind or similar shall not be allowed. Landscaping: An approved landscape plan shall be required. The minimum cost of landscaping materials shall equal 2.5% of the estimated building construction cost, which will be based on current Means construction data. Signage: The site plan shows two multi -tenant monument signs, one at the intersection of 157th Street West and Pilot Knob Road and the other at the intersection of Pilot Knob Road and the right-in/right-out private drive. All ground and building signs we need to comply with the City's applicable sign regulations. BUDGET IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Background Material Applicant Letter Location Map Comp Plan Map Zoning Map Site Plan Site Plan ORCHARD PLACE PHASE 1 RETAIL DEVELOPMENT SKETCH PLAN Existing Conditions Property Location: Northwest corner of 157th Street West and Pilot Knob Road Legal Description: The southeast 7.1 acres of North 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35, Township 115, Range 20 Comprehensive Plan Designation "MBC" Mixed Business Campus Zoning Classification "SG" (Sand and Gravel) Existing Platting Unplatted Current Land Use Vacant Size: 7.1 acres of a 78 -acre unplatted parcel Topography: Flat Existing Vegetation None Other Significant Natural Features None Adjacent Properties/Land Uses NORTH Vacant Comprehensive Plan "MBC" Mixed Business Campus Zoning/Land Use "SG" (Sand and Gravel) SOUTH Apple Valley Transit Station Comprehensive Plan "INS" (Institutional) Zoning/Land Use "P" (Institutional) EAST Cobblestone Lake Commercial Area Comprehensive Plan "C" (Commercial) Zoning/Land Use "PD-703/zone 6" (Planned Development WEST Vacant Comprehensive Plan "MBC" Mixed Business Campus Zoning/Land Use "SG" (Sand and Gravel) Ki liT1 Iey )>>F1 1 MEMORANDUM To: City of Apple Valley Planning Commission William D. Matzek, P.E., Kimley-Horn From Chris Moe, HJ Development Date: October 7, 2019 HJ Development — Orchard Place Subject: Preliminary Sketch Plan Narrative NE Corner of Pilot Knob Rd. and 157th St. W. Rockport LLC and HJ Development, LLP are proposing a multi -phase development located at the northeast corner of Pilot Knob Rd. and 157h Street W. intersection. The first phase of the development is planned for approximately 7.10 acres and is currently zoned SG -Sand and Gravel. HJ Development, LLP is anticipating rezoning of the site to GB -General Business in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. At this time, HJ Development, LLP is submitting the attached preliminary sketch plans for input from the City Planning Commission. The proposed first phase development will construct up to 5 commercial buildings on the site. These buildings are planned to include space for restaurants, retail shops, service-oriented retail businesses and a car wash (see the preliminary sketch for approximate square footages). Site development will include construction of new sidewalks, parking, landscaping, utilities, and lighting to support the proposed buildings. An existing curb cut along 157th St. W. will be utilized as an access. Another right - in right -out access is proposed along Pilot Knob Rd. The Pilot Knob Rd. and 157th St. frontages will provide high quality, well maintained landscaping to provide improved aesthetics from both roads. The development will connect to sanitary and water services which will be constructed by the City. Stormwater will discharge to the proposed regional ponds to the west of the development where it will meet the rate, volume, and treatment requirements of the City and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Please contact me at (651) 643-0497 if you have any questions. Sincerely, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. William D. Matzek, P.E. Vice President kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197 ORCHARD PLACE PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT SKETCH PLAN ECHO WAY 152ND sr W COBBLESTONE 1 57Tyt.ST flICT 4111111:2 FAIR,H Lml_miWAY- mtg. == /487,-bi moi: 111P -160TH'ST'W 15.8TH'ST W ORCHARD PLACE PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT SKETCH PLAN SG 1 PD -975 SG SITE, • PD -70311 PD 3 849 ..... ORCHARD PLACE PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT SKETCH PLAN { ::::- ��� .1 _ L r'4 _:`' �+� ■ :Lir ■.. rj , • L_ 1 1 1 1 $ r i (r _� 1 r iI ---- ---- J \ 1 1 1 ----"�' Jr--.\ ��� 1 1 e ---_5- C• L \ „ 1 �Il W 0) 0 N CO C? o SITE EXHIBIT ORCHARD PLACE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SKETCH PLAN SUMMARY ,..; GB - GENERAL BUSINESS FRONT = 50' SIDE = 40' REAR = 15' PHASE 1 PROPERTY TOTAL PROPERTY AREA N z 6 2 E BUILDING SETBACKS PARKING SETBACKS PILOT KNOB ROAD e *A ! I LI" 1 I Li () on —ai 0 IlkA) s" 5'1"/ ATTT-rui 0 CO 5 \11111 III r U- AZI I I 1. JIIIII I; I -1 l App Valley ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 6.B. November 6, 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, 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 Wednesday, December 18, 2019 - 7:00 p.m. • Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 20, 2019 • Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, December 4, 2019 Next City Council Meetings: Thursday, November 14, 2019 - 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - 7:00 p.m. BACKGROUND: N/A BUDGET IMPACT: N/A