Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/16/2019 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 obligation to comply with those rules if they can. If the rules are so restrictive that the reasonable economic use 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 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 lhere 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 th Carole Elfstrum, 8580 136 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. th Vickie Loher Johnson, 8907 138 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. th Linda Harty, 8581 136 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. th Michael McGettigan, 8589 136 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. st 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 th park they have to cross either Garden View or 140 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 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 91students 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. th Vicki Loher Johnson, 8907 138 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. th Linda Harty, 8581 136 Ct, commented thought on the presentation it said the ct 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 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 an 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 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 e 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 sai 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 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 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 nd one little parcel between the homes on the north side by the 2 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 (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 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 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. th Vickie Loher Johnson, 8907 138 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 corner of the building. 4. The 20'x90' (1,800 sq. ft.) sundeck and 10'x20' (200 sq. ft.) service bar shall be located north of the courts compact and contiguous to the building. 5. No more than 24 parking spaces shall be occupied by the outdoor volleyball courts and sundeck/service bar. 6. The 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-O 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, .L/ Joan urphy, Planning Departm t Assistant Approved jiy th Apple Valley Planning Co ton on 1//6 / 9 Tom NV G ' er, Chair