The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12.2.2020iii• iii* *00 Apple Valley Meeting Location: Municipal Center 7100 147th Street West Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 December 2, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE AGENDA 7:00 PM 1. Call to Order 2. 3 Q A. Planning Commissioners will be attending either in -person or virtually. A roll -call will be taken. Approve Agenda 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 from Wednesday, October 21, 2020. B. Approve Minutes from Wednesday, November 4, 2020. C. The Cove - PC20-20-ZSCB Request to Continue the Public Hearing Until the December 16, 2020, meeting. Location: 13009 Diamond Path Road Petitioner: JMH Land Development, Custom One Homes, Randy and Carolyn Buller Public Hearings A. Mr. Car Wash - Consider a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a Car Wash Operation, and Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization for 6,500- sq. ft. Car Wash Facility on 1.25-acre Lot (PC20-17-CB) LOCATION: Northwest Corner of 157th Street West and Pilot Knob Road (Lot 3, Block 1, Orchard Place 2nd Addition) PETITIONER: HJ Development, LLP, and Rockport, LLC B. Starbucks C.U.P./Orchard Place Commercial - Consider a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for Drive -Through Window Service in Conjunction with a Class III Restaurant and Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization for a 7,400-sq. ft. and a 8,200-sq. ift. building on a 3.21-acre Lot (PC20- 18-CB) LOCATION: Northwest Comer of 157th Street West and Pilot Knob Road (Lot 4, Block 1, Orchard Place 2nd Addition) PETITIONER: HJ Development, LLP, and Rockport, LLC C. Kwik Trip Palomino Addition (PD-144, Zone 5 Ord Amendment) - PC20- 19-Z Consider amendment to PD 144, Zone 5 Permitted Uses to allow Convenience Store Larger than 3,500 sq. ft. Location: 13357 Palomino Drive Petitioner: Kwik Trip Inc. D. Apple Valley Golf Course Rezoning - PC20-22-Z Consider Rezoning of 23 Acres From "P" (Institutional) to "LDF" (Low Density Flex) Location: 8661 140th Street West (Northwest Corner of 140th Street West and Garden View Drive) Petitioner: City of Apple Valley 5. Land Use / Action Items A. Low Density Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Consider Amendments to Chapter 155 to Add the "LDF"(Low Density Flex) Residential Zoning District LOCATION: Citywide PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley 6. Other Business A. Review of Upcoming Schedule and Other Updates 7. Adjourn Regular meetings are broadcast, live, on Charter Communications Cable Channel 180 and on the City's website at www cityofapplevalley. org :::0: ITEM: 0000 000, Apple PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE Valley SECTION: 1.A. December 2, 2020 Call to Order Description: Planning Commissioners will be attending either in -person or virtually. A roll -call will be taken. Staff Contact: Department I Division: Tammy Bernatz, Planning Department Assistant Community Development Department ACTION REQUESTED: SUMMARY: During the COVID-19 Pandemic, the Council Chambers in the Apple Valley Municipal Building has been set-up to allow for the Planning Commissioners to attend meetings either in -person (observing social distancing in accordance with Emergency Executive Order 20-81) or virtually (via GoToMeeting). A Roll -call will be taken. BACKGROUND: N/A BUDGET IMPACT: N/A 000 ITEM: 000* ... Apple PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE Valley SECTION: 3.A. December 2, 2020 Consent Agenda Description: Approve Minutes from Wednesday, October 21, 2020. Staff Contact: Department / Division: Tammy Bematz, Planning Department Assistant Community Development Department ACTION REQUESTED: Approve minutes from October 21, 2020. SUMMARY: The minutes of October 21, 2020, 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 CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2020 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: Chair Tom Melander, Tim Burke*, Keith Diekmann *, Jodi Kurtz, Paul Scanlan, and David Schindler. Member(s) Absent: None City staff members attending: City Attorney Sharon Hills, Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Planner Kathy Bodmer*, Planner/Meeting Organizer Alex Sharpe*. * Present via remote technology 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the agenda. CD Director Nordquist said yes to changes. Remove from "Consent" to "Land Use / Action Items": 3.B. Pennock Retail Center CUP, Site Plan and Building Permit Authorization, and Variance Extension to 5.13. due to requesting a change from six months to one year. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the move of 3.B. to 5.13. on the agenda. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays - 0. Chair Melander asked for approval of amended agenda. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the revised agenda. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays - 0. 3. CONSENT ITEMS MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the Consent Items of the agenda (minutes of the meeting of October 7, 2020). Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays — 0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - None 5. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Tempo Homes Residential Lot Split — PC20-09-SV CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 2020 Page 2 of 7 Planner Kathy Bodmer is requesting consideration of Subdivision by Preliminary Plat of existing parcel into two lots and variance from minimum lot width abutting right-of-way to create new lot for residential development. LOCATION: 12936 Galaxie Avenue PETITIONER: Property owner Tina Tran and petitioner Calvin Tran, Tempo Homes Bodmer presented information concerning the request from Tina Tran and Calvin Tran for two actions: 1) Subdivision by Preliminary Plat to split existing residential lot into two residential lots; and 2) Variance from § 153.55 reducing lot width fronting a public street from 50' to 25.84'. The parcel is presently 33,175 square feet according to the county and is bounded by 3 streets: Galaxie Avenue on the west, Horace Court on the northeast, and 129th Street to the southeast. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the site for "LD", low density residential, with 3 — 6 units per acre. This proposal creates a density of less than 3 units per acre with 2.6 units an acre, which is lower than the comp plan designation requires. The comp plan has an acknowledgement in cases of in -fill development that densities of less than 3 units per acre may be needed due to mature trees, difficult topography or other difficult neighborhood characteristics. The proposed development does complies with the comp plan. The property lies within the "R3", single-family residential zoning district, with the minimum lot size of 11,000 square feet. The house on the subject parcel was constructed on a rural estate lot in the 1970s. In 1989, the owners, the Brown's, worked with their neighbors, the Fenner's, to subdivide their 2 large single-family parcels into. 12 single-family lots — now the Browner Woods Subdivision. The Brown property home was encompassed within lot 3 and remained an oversized parcel being 1/4 acre in size. The Brown's, at the same time, petitioned the City to maintain their single gravel driveway out to Galaxy Avenue until such time the property was sold. The City agreed with that and approved. With the sale of the property to Tempo Homes, it is time to remove the gravel driveway from Galaxie and reconstruct a paved driveway either to Forest Court or 129`h Street. The Planning Commission reviewed the initial development plan at the public hearing held on August 19, 2020. That layout proposed a flag lot requiring significant grading and retaining walls. Utilities for one of the lots crossed over via the other. There were a number of concerns and issues related to that layout. Based on feedback received from the public hearing, the petitioner revised the layout of the subdivision. The layout was redone to create a more triangular shape. Parcel "A" on the west is proposed to have its driveway accessed to the northeast, Forest Court. Parcel "B" will gain its access or driveway connection on the east off of 129th Street. The lot areas remain very close to the original plan. Parcel "A" goes from 19,409 square feet to 19,841 square feet. Same with CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 2020 Page 3 of 7 Parcel `B", 13,756 square feet to 13,324 square feet. So it is very close to what was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will remember that the previous layout, the petitioner was looking to construct an attached garage onto the south -end of the garage then wanted to do a driveway and make the connection to 129th Street. This would have made a flag lot situation or a lot that had a very narrow connection to a public street. One of the things the Planning Commission asked was what the Fire Department felt about the layout. After the public hearing, we did make a point of talking to fire. At that time, they did not object or have an issue with the lot layout but they did note it was a very long driveway for Parcel "A". It was a concern but not an official concern. Based on feedback received, the petitioners revised the layout. By doing this orientation, they are able to maintain the current utility connections for the home on the west to Forest Court. All that is added is a driveway with minimal disturbance to the neighbors on the northeast. The driveway to the new home would be connected to the south. Utilities would be gained from the south to 1291h Street. Most of the utilities are outside of the road bed, which will minimize disruptions to the adjacent neighborhood. One of the benefits from a public safety standpoint, the lot layouts are easier to understand so that will make it more efficient for the Fire Department and other safety needs. The remodel of the home originally added to the south. The revised plans, call for adding the garage onto the existing home on the northeast side of the home with the driveway going to the northeast. The site plan review authorization isn't required for single-family. This is information for the Planning Commission so you can see what the developer is thinking. These are images of the exterior of the new home. The exterior elevations gives the sense of what the petitioner is thinking of a modern design, which is his preference. He prefers developing in this style. The Original Tree Plan only showed tree removal for the western lot, which was a deficiency. At that time they identified 30 significant trees, 17 would be preserved, and 13 would be removed. Again, there was no way to evaluate the trees on the lot to the east. A Revised Tree Plan was submitted. Identified were 48 significant trees on both lots with 30 trees being preserved and 18 will be removed. More trees will be preserved. A natural resources management permit is required before any site disturbance, tree removal or land disturbing activity. The last thing the petitioner is requesting is a variance from the subdivision requirements. On § 153.55 Lot Dimensions states that lot dimensions should meet the minimum requirements of the zoning district but in any event should be no less than 50 feet in width. The western lot will meet that requirement but the eastern lot will get its frontage or its driveway connection will be to the southeast so they will need a variance for it is a reduction from 50 feet down to 25.84 feet. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 2020 Page 4 of 7 The issues include: 1) the existing gravel driveway must be removed from Galaxie Avenue and anew paved driveway constructed on Forest Court or 1291h Street West; and 2) Subdivision cannot be accomplished without a variance, but variance helps minimize impacts to neighboring properties, removes flag lot and improves emergency access to the properties. With that Mr. Chair, staff is recommending approval of the development with the approval of the subdivision and variance with a number of conditions. These will be performance standards we will be reviewing in more detail as they move forward with the building and natural resources management permits. In terms of the variance, we are recommending approval of the variance so the property owners can place the second driveway on 1291h Street which will help reduce impacts to neighboring properties. No construction or land disturbing activity may occur until assurance of a Natural Resources Management Permit (NRMP) or building permit has been issued. Then any other findings the committee may find. With that Mr. Chair, I'm happy to take any questions with there are any? Chair Melander asks if there are any question from the commissioners. Commissioner Burke — Could you speak to the 8 foot bituminous trail? I didn't know if there is a trail in the neighborhood. Response by Planner Kathy — The bituminous trail is required on both sides of Galaxie Avenue. This development will be impacted on the east side. We have been taking escrows for the trail until we are able to work with adjacent property owners to pick up the missing segments. Right now they will be required to dedicate escrow then at such time the City is ready we will be constructing trails along Galaxie. CD Director Nordquist stated that handed out tonight with this agenda addition that Huett from the neighborhood had no objections to the site as the property shown. This was received yesterday and that one of the neighbors to the north did not have an objection to this proposal. Property developer Calvin Tran — Property needed extensive remodeling and rehab to be on par with the neighborhood. Calvin stated that what was provided by Kathy is what they proposed. Ben Simon, 12987 Forest Court — I live to the east behind it. My concern are the trees. Kathy claimed that the new proposal takes out less trees but looking at the literature are all of the large trees that are being taken out. Looking at the house will be basically looking at each of the houses now. We never assumed the lots would be clear cut and we would be staring at two new houses. Response by property developer Calvin Tran — We do have a Tree Plan in place but we do not have a landscaping plan in place where we expect to place the new trees. We do plan to keep both properties private. So we do plan to inject new taller trees around the perimeter to keep it secluded. The trees that are being taken out are for the driveway. There is just no way to exclude CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 2020 Page 5 of 7 those trees. Shane Myre, 12894 Forest Court — I live to the northeast. First, a couple times during the process we heard that there was a sale for the new property and lot. I continuously checked the current county property tax records. It has never been updated. No sale date and transaction price is zero. I wonder if the petitioner would provide information on the transaction date, price and what type of instrument was used to transfer the property to him so we could have that for the record. The second is I noticed there is a fence that goes right between the two parcels (A & B). I want to make sure how the property is going to be occupied or if parcel B is going to be owner occupied by the petitioner, put on the market, developed and sold or if it is going to kept and additional to their property. Response by property developer Calvin Tran — Do I need to answer about the sale being that is part of public record? Chair Melander (to Legal) requests clarification on answering that part of the question. Attorney Sharon Hill —No not in respect to the sale or purchase issue. This is not a zoning issue. Chair Melander — So it seems to me that this split makes a lot more sense than the previous one of the flag lot. It is in accordance with the goals of the comprehensive plan to split the lot this way. I'd hate to lose that driveway to Galaxie which is problematic in several aspects. Property developer Calvin Tran — Yes, we understood initially when purchasing that one driveway had to come off Forest. Chair Melander — Any other questions or comments. Commissioner Scanlon. Commissioner Scanlon — Mr. Chair this one is for Kathy. With the removal of the mature trees, is there anything as a requirement to replace some of those in some fashion? Kathy — Yes, the natural resources management ordinance does not prohibit the removal of trees but when trees are removed they have to be replaced at 10 percent of the caliper inches removed. There were some more technical language about which trees were counted on that within the building pad. I rely on our natural resources staff on that but yes, they will need to replace at 10 percent of the caliper inches removed. Chair Melander — Thank you Kathy. Okay is the commission comfortable making a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moves to recommend the approval of Subdivision by Preliminary Plat to split existing residential lot into two residential lots in compliance with all city codes as the conditions outlined in staff s report, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays - 0. Commissioner Burke clarified discussion about the configuration of the lot split is a much better plan. MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moves to recommend the approval of variance from § 153.55 to reduce the minimal lot width of parcel B adjacent to the right away from 50' to 25.84' subject to conditions as outlined in staffs report, seconded by Commissioner Burke. Reason for the variance is based on the finding that the CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 2020 Page 6 of 7 variance allows the property owner to place the second driveway on 129`" Street which will minimize impacts to neighboring properties. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays - 0. Chair Melander stated that the (Request for Variance) can move onto City Council, which is to be scheduled at a future date. B. Pennock Retail Center CUP, Site Plan and Bilding Permit Authorization and Variance Extension CD Director Nordquist stated that in the staff report there was a request for a six-month extension. A letter that was received late last week requested the extension be for one-year and not six months. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moves to recommend the approval of the extension of the application for six months, seconded by Commissioner Burke. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays - 0. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moves to recommend the approval of the variance for the extension from six months to 12 months, seconded by Commissioner Burke. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays - 0. 6. OTHER BUSINESS A. Review of upcoming Schedule and other updates The next regular Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 4 at 7pm. The City Council meets Thursday, tomorrow, October 22 at 7:00pm. 7. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Melander asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan to adjourn the meeting at 8:29 p.m. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 7 - Nays - 0. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 21, 2020 Page 7 of 7 Respectfully submitted, (- — I -At) k — Tammy Bernatz, Planning Department Assistant Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commission on 12/2/2020 Tom Melander, Chair *s • ITEM: ::� ••• Apple PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE Valley SECTION: M December 2, 2020 Consent Agenda Description: Approve Minutes from Wednesday, November 4, 2020. Staff Contact: Department / Division: Tammy Bematz, Planning Department Assistant Community Development Department ACTION REQUESTED: Approve minutes of November 4, 2020. SUMMARY: The minutes of the last 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 November 4, 2020 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: Chair Tom Melander, Tim Burke*, Keith Diekmann *, Jodi Kurtz, Paul Scanlan, and David Schindler Member(s) Absent: None City staff members attending: City Attorney Sharon Hills, Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Planner Kathy Bodmer*, Planner/Meeting Organizer Alex Sharpe*. * Present via remote technology 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the agenda. CD Director Nordquist said yes to changes. The October 21, 2020, meeting minutes, usually under Consent Items, will be approved at the December 2, 2020 meeting. Chair Melander asked for approval of amended agenda. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the revised agenda. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays - 0. 3. CONSENT ITEMS - None 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Low Density Zoning Ordinance Amendments — Consider Amendments to Chapter 155 to Add the "LDF" (Low Density Flex) Residential Zoning District City Planner Tom Lovelace presented the staff report. Chair Melander asks if there are any questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Schindler -- Any photos of what it might look like? Planner Lovelace -- It is different types of housing products within a development. We are being more specific as it relates to location. Regatta could be a good CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2020 Page 2 of 7 example even though that is a much larger development with a mix of uses. Cobblestone Lake has different types of dwelling units. However, both of those developments were planned developments and have different components within those planned developments. Commissioner Schindler — So this isn't designed for a piece of property in the middle of a development? City Planner Lovelace — Yes, this is trying to address that type of vacant property. It will accommodate that development while adding to the best possible options for reuse of that property. Commissioner Schindler — So if a person's house burns down they could possibly turn that into townhomes? City Planner Lovelace — Not necessarily. If it was a large amount of land (10 acres), it could be a possibility but that would involve rezoning. The LDF would be the designation of an area and would enable the developer to do many options within that zoning of low density flex. Chair Melander asks if any other commissioners and virtual commissioners have any questions. Commissioner Diekmann — The table that you have for the minimum standards are only for the properties directly abutting the single-family units? The other ones would not follow these standards. City Planner Lovelace — If it was adjacent to a single- or two-family then the first 3 columns would be considered being adjacent to a single- or two-family development. The attached townhome column could go in other areas as long as the aggregate of all the dwelling units do not exceed the 8 per acre. Chair Melander— We already have 3 to 6 and we are adding two more. Would that change the meaning of low density? CD Director Bruce Nordquist — This has to do with adjacency and not just how many units. This provides more flexibility from 3 to 8 but not adjacent to single - or two-family homes. Chair Melander asks if anyone from the public would like to address this item. Kathy Lundin — I live right next to the golf course. So Wi-Fi towers could go into this development? And, apartments cannot go in there? Attorney Sharon Hills -- All existing R districts today in the city, could have a cell business ask to place a cell tower, under conditional use? That is a Federal law. CD Director Nordquist — Apartments are not allowed. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2020 Page 3 of 7 Kim Ragan -- Resident adjacent to the golf course. Do we have an example of what an acre would look like with 8 dwellings? Planner Tom Lovelace — We can put that together and present at the next meeting. Jim Shipman — 1351h St W. Mr. Shipman echoes the concerns of Ms. Lundeen and Mr. Ragan., plus Chair Melander about low density being confusing. The ground work being laid now is important for future development and that is why we are all here. Elliott Ashway, 13599 Hollands Court. When was LDF born? It seems like it was created for one purpose. Will LDF be re -used? This can get away from us quickly. City Planner Lovelace — This designation will be used throughout the City and for other properties that have the same kind of characteristics that are identified in the comp plan designation as well as the zoning. CD Director Nordquist — High and medium density proposals were researched. The concept of LDF recognized that this neighborhood sought a lower density that would create a flexible zone that neighborhoods would have options and offers more for busier intersections. This can be a complimentary tool in numerous locations. A church may vacate and a residential developer may want to develop that property. Commissioner Scanlan — Apple Valley is being built out. The next thing to come is redevelopment of various properties where LDF will give some flexibility and still respect existing residential zones. Ryan Tower, 13576 Hollands Court — Curious about low density flex? Is this being used in any other municipality in the state? Elmer Anderson was a progressive mind and governor in our state who created Voyagers National Park. Are green spaces being considered? CD Director Nordquist — No, we have no knowledge of any guiding examples to follow. In the staff report, providing single- and two-family homes flexibility to natural features with designs to the environment are in mind. It's not just another subdivision with blended open spaces throughout. It is a guiding principal for developers and the City. Chair Melander — Apple Valley does a good job with parks and open spaces. No place is farther than six blocks from a park. An open parcel sitting there is an individual or company paying taxes that is money down the drain. To leave that an open space would compel the City to buy it and that adds to the tax base. There would need to be a compelling reason to purchase such as a park not being close by. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2020 Page 4 of 7 Kimberly Wagon, 135,h St. All around my area is low density. It seems unusual or odd to say that this pin point is LDF. Is there is an example when new sizing of units have been done for another business or anyone here or in the state this has been done for? Why wasn't the LDF looked at for those developers? The golf course has e wetlands and when talking about 3 to 8 dwellings per acre, are those wetlands included? I don't believe it is well advised to create this for one developer. City Planner Lovelace — Ragatta has single-family, twin homes, and townhomes as well as apartment buildings within the confines of that planned development. It's much larger than what LDF would be used for because LDF is a different opportunity within the City. The Cobblestone Lake took the foundation of an old gravel pit and made it into a lake then used that as the environmental piece and built a variety of different styles of dwellings from single-family to multi family to twin homes, apartments and senior buildings including commercial but that is much larger than a LDF designed development. LDF wasn't looked at because the developer used a Planned Development for both Cobblestone and Ragatta. 4 likelihood that the water features that are there and the designated wetlands within that property will need to be taken into consideration on what type of dwellings and how many on the golf course. Kathy Lundin — I don't understand the need for LDF because I cannot see getting more than six townhomes in one acre. So I'm trying to understand that we are not calling apartments townhomes. And, if there is a development plan for the golf course area, will there be another public meeting? CD Director Nordquist — apartments are not allowed. Chair Melander — Yes, there will be another public meeting. Commissioner Kurtz — Everyone is asking for visuals. Is there a way to get a mockup so people can see it and get a feel for what could be possible? City Planner Lovelace — We can provide examples. There is a development of 12 units per acre that is right across the street of some single-family homes. We can provide some visuals at the next meeting. Commissioner Scanlan -- Why can't a developer do a planned development? CD Director Nordquist — What we are finding developers are going in two directions. Some like the flexibility of LDF to drive more units because it is not permitted to do apartments at a certain location. Some developers want to use a designated zone and not use a master plan or planned development. They want to know what they are buying and want to be sure because they need to move onto a straight zone. We believe this LDF zone provides that flexibility to respond to the character of the site, to retain lower density uses next to lower density neighborhoods. Visuals will be provided to the public. 4 , CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2020 Page 5 of 7 Chair Melander closed the public hearing. 5. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS -- None 6. OTHER BUSINESS A. Apple Valley Ford Lincoln Sketch Plan Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the staff report. Chair Melander asks if there are any questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Kurtz — How much traffic is going through Gardenia Avenue? If they close that off, how much busier will Garrett Ave be? Engineer Brandon Anderson — The City is currently working with Dakota County on a study of County 42. There are additional reviews of Cedar and Galaxie being done. The Dakota study needs to be reviewed along with the use of Gardenia, or vacating it, and how that would affect access, businesses, and intersections. There are moving parts that we do not have answers to at this moment. Planner Bodmer — Public services would have to be evaluated require with the retainment of easements. Commissioner Burke — In Plan C even if they are vacated is there a way that I can still weave through there. It's not a direct cut through but there is a way to get through. Will that still be available? The proposal is for the new property and is the plan not to change anything on the other properties on the design of what is there from a traffic perspective. CD Director Nordquist — This is an important discussion. It was visualized that 151" street might be the frontage road. But it begs the question should 152"d be the correct frontage east and west. Because 1515` is impaired already. Planner Bodmer — I would defer to Ford. I do not see any changes on the plans. Commissioner Scanlan — Wondering what the Fire Department would say with the removal of Garrett piggy backing onto Gardenia? CD Director Nordquist — Staff has had one conversation with fire/safety personnel and did not object to not having access through Gardenia. They have not relied on 151" to go east and west. Fire does not see it as an issue but it will be kept on the list to get an official declaration in the future. Commissioner Kurtz — Blocking off the middle part and going over to 152nd to the frontage road. I believe that is where all the employees park on 152nd. Where would the employees park? I believe they share a parking lot with Grand Stay in back of Culvers. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2020 Page 6 of 7 CD Director Nordquist — There is an overflow parking lot designed to accommodate Grand Stay and leased by Apple Valley Ford for their employees. We were trying to help them manage employee parking. Those leases assists with plowing and mowing. Commissioner Schindler — Have you considered running 151" through and separating Lincoln from Ford offering easier access to everyone involved along that road. Chris Gulbranson, AppleFord — With regards to that specific question. There are some traffic that runs through 151' that made a wrong turn and creates drivers going too fast. We have customers and salespeople frequently crossing there and to make it a through street would make it quite dangerous. Chris Gulbranson presented possible plans for Apple Valley Lincoln Ford with photos and sketches — Plans A, B, and C. Chair Melander asks if there are any questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Kurtz — If I was a consumer the one that looks more customer friendly would be the private entrance to the business. The style of the building is more pleasing also. Commissioner Diekmann -- Plan B and C don't have a lot of difference. Why didn't you just pick one and be done with it. Is this a long-term agreement for employee parking or is there a potential for that going away for you? Do you store inventory off -site? Chris Gulbranson -- Vacating 151" or not vacating 151" is exercising all options. Making sure to get all comments on both and what works best for the dealership, City of Apple Valley, and Lincoln. We would like to keep the employee parking for we sure appreciate it. We do store some inventory off -site when needed but haven't had that issue very often. We just need to make sure that the vehicle is insured to where it is being housed. CD Director Nordquist — Need to thoughtfully consider storm water management. Not to mention large storm water lines going through the property already. Commissioner Scanlan — Combination of increased footage for body shop and inventory? Chris Gulbranson -- Our biggest constraint is on the body shop. Lakeville, Farmington and Apple Valley are growing and the more footage for the body shop keeps up with the demand. Looking at alternatives in the body shop with one being multiple shifts. Just acquired a mobile service van to do service for fleets and commercial at their business instead of them driving their trucks to the store. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2020 Page 7 of 7 Chair Melander -- Combining the parcel would make better use of the parcel for efficiency of the site -- Option C. B. Review of Upcoming Schedule and Other Updates CD Director Nordquist — Mayor Mary has been elected as a County Commissioner. Her current term will end January 2. There were seven candidates for council. The two highest votes prevail — Council member Goodwin and Council member Grendahl. All seven candidates received 2,000 to 3,000 votes. A diverse interest in message. No meeting on November 18. Next regular meeting is Wednesday, December 2, at 7 pm. 7. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Melander asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan to adjourn the meeting at 8:29 p.m. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 7 - Nays - 0. Respectfully submitted, Tammy Bernatz, Planning Department Assistant Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commission on 12/2/2020 Tom Melander, Chair 00* *see 00000 ITEM: 3.C. *00 Apple PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December2, 2020 Valley SECTION: Consent Agenda )escription: the Cove - PC20-20-ZSCB Staff Contact: Department / Division: Cathy Bodmer, AICP, Planner Community Development Departmer Applicant: Project Number: JMH Land Development, Custom One Homes, and Randy and PC20-20-ZSCB Carolyn Buller Applicant Date: 11 /6/2020 1160 Days: 1 /5/2021 11120 Days: 3/6/2021 ACTION REQUESTED: Petitioner requests continuing the public hearing until the meeting of December 16, 2020, to provide additional time to address issues identified by City staff and neighboring property owners. SUMMARY: The petitioners met with the neighborhood on November 5, 2020, and had a technical review meeting with City staff on Monday, November 23, 2020. The petitioner would like. to respond to some of the early issues identified before the public hearing. With the upcoming holidays, the petitioner requests that the public hearing be continued until the December 16, 2020, meeting to allow time to prepare responses. BACKGROUND: BUDGET IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Applicant Letter Petitioner Request for Continuance From: Mark Sonstegard < Sent: Friday, November 20, 2020 12:30 PM To: Kathy Bodmer < Cc: Ryan M. Bluhm < Subject: RE: Preliminary Staff Items for The Cove Kathy, Thanks for sending over the list below, much appreciated. As we discussed on the phone, JMH Land requests our public hearing for The Cove be moved back from the Dec 2nd Planning Commission to the Dec 161h Planning Commission. This will give our team more time to react to City Staff's and neighborhood comments along with preparing a better presentation for the public hearing. Please let me know if there are any issues arise with this request to post pone. Thanks JMH LAND deoelopment Mark Sonstegard Vice President of Operations JMH Land Development p: 952.452.9569 m: 612.366.2927 f: 952.492.5705 a: 650 Quaker Avenue, Jordan, MN 55352 w: JMHLand,corn e. see ITEM: 4.A. 0*00 •O i� Apple PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December2, 2020 Valley SECTION: Public Hearings Description: Mr. Car Wash - Consider a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for a Car Wash Operation, and Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization for 6,500-sq. ft. Car Wash Facility on 1.25-acre Lot (PC20-17- CB) Staff Contact: Department / Division: Thomas Lovelace, City Planner Community Development Department Applicant: Project Number: HJ Development, LLP, and Rockport, LLC IIPC20-17-CB Applicant Date: 11 /4/2020 1160 Days: 1 /2/2021 1 120 Days: 3/3/2021 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: For your consideration is a request from HJ Development, LLP, and Rockport, LLC, for a conditional use permit for a car wash, and site plan/building permit authorization to allow for construction of a 6,500-sq. ft. car wash facility on a 1.25-acre lot. The site is part of the 34- acre Orchard Place commercial development, which is bounded by 155th Street West to the north, Pilot Knob Road to the east, 157th Street West to the south, and Pulte's Orchard Place townhome development to the east. BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is currently guided "C" (Commercial). This designation includes 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 Limited Business and Neighborhood Commercial. Higher -intensity districts include General Business and Retail. In each district, land use and performance standards set parameters for development. Examples include parking, building setbacks, infiltrations, site access, and lot coverage. Zoning/Conditional Use Permit: The property is zoned "RB" (Retail Business). Retail business districts are described as areas that are centrally located to serve the need for general retail sales. Permitted uses include stores and shops that sell personal services or goods over the counter, as well as banks, savings and loan offices, professional offices, community facilities, health clubs, animal hospitals and clinics, small engine and appliance repair, commercial recreation, auto accessory sales, and restaurants (Class I and III Neighborhood Restaurant without a drive through window, only). Conditional uses include a variety of uses that include Class II restaurants, car wash operations and drive -through window service. Permitted accessory uses include delivery bays and outdoor dining areas. The applicant is proposing a full service car wash on the subject property, which is a conditional use in the "RB" zoning district under either of the following conditions: • In conjunction with and accessory to a motor fuel sales operation. The car wash is to be restricted to one bay and must be incorporated into the primary structure and subject to the same design standards as a motor fuel station as stipulated in § 155.356. • As a freestanding operation on its own lot. The facility must be located on a lot having no street frontage on a roadway identified as either a major or minor arterial, or as a community or neighborhood collector, in the thoroughfare plan of the City's comprehensive plan. Where the wash lane entry or staging area is visible from the street or adjacent to a less intensive use, appropriate screening shall be installed and shall consist of berms, landscaping, opaque fence or some combination thereof. The facility must also be located no closer than 250 feet to a residential use, as measured from lot line to lot line. Site Plan: The site is part of a 34-acre commercial development. The first phase will be 9.5 acres of development in the southeast comer of the development area that will include the 6,500-sq. ft. car wash facility and two multi -tenant buildings (Buildings I and P) and one single use building (Building O) on Lot 4. Access to the 1.25-acre site will be via internal streets that will be connected to 155th and 157th Streets West, which are public streets. A cross access and parking agreement shall be required that allows all the lots and outlots within the Orchard Place 2nd Addition access to all the internal streets and parking areas contained within the development. The proposed facility will meet all minimum required building and parking setbacks. City code requires that a car wash operation have five spaces for each washing lane, plus one space for every two employees. The site plan shows three drive lanes for the car wash that appears to have enough space for a minimum of five vehicles. There are 13 parking spaces along the east side of the building that will have vacuum cleaners adjacent to them, which will be used by the facility's customers. No employee parking is shown. Grading Plan: The site has been graded as part of the sand and gravel mining reclamation of the site. Therefore, minimal grading to accommodate the proposed buildings and parking lot will be needed prior to construction. The City Engineer has reviewed the grading plan and his comments are included in his attached memo. Elevation Drawings: The exterior finish of the building I and P will include a combination of smooth and textured concrete masonry block, stone veneer, EIFS and pre -finished metal panels. City code requires commercial buildings to have a vertical exposed exterior finish of 100% non-combustible, non -degradable and maintenance -free construction materials (such as face brick or natural stone but excluding such construction materials as sheet or corrugated aluminum, iron, or concrete block of any kind or similar). Exterior rooftop finishes shall preclude the use of exposed or plated metal; any metal surface shall be coated or anodized with a non -reflective, glare -free finish. The proposed exterior finish will meet the code requirements. They do indicate that the EIFS areas will be painted. The City typically requires that all colors be integral to the material. They also indicate a smooth block as a material, which is a concern. The applicant should provide more information on the materials that will be used to ensure compliance with City code. The submitted drawings indicate that the mechanical equipment will be located in the west side of the building. Any mechanical equipment outside of the building shall be screened or handled in a manner such that they are not visually obvious and are compatible with the surrounding development. For rooftop mechanical equipment, all mechanical equipment and related appurtenances, except solar collector panels, must be fully screened by either a parapet wall along the edge of the building or by a screen immediately surrounding such equipment. The height of the parapet wall or screen shall be at least the height of the equipment. Parapet walls must be an extension of the primary building materials comprising the outside walls of the building; screens must be constructed of durable, low -maintenance materials and be either a light, neutral color or the same color as the primary building materials of the outside walls. Rooftop equipment shall be set back from the edge of the roof along the front building face a minimum of one times the equipment height. For ground mounted equipment, all mechanical equipment and related appurtenances must be fully screened by either a masonry wall or an opaque landscape screen. The height of the wall or landscape screen shall be at least the height of the equipment. Masonry walls must be constructed of the same materials and color as the primary materials comprising the outside walls of the building; landscape screening must be of plant materials that are fully opaque year-round. Equipment shall be painted a neutral earth -tone color. All mechanical protrusions shall be pointed out on the site plan and elevations. Landscape Plan: The submitted landscape plan identifies a wide and diverse variety of plantings. Staff has reviewed the landscape plan and is recommending that additional landscaping be added along the west side of the property to help screen the drive -up lanes. City code requires that the minimum cost of landscaping materials (live plant material excluding sod) for commercial projects shall be 2`/2% of the estimated building construction cost based on Means construction data. A detailed planting price list shall be required for verification of the City's 2`/a% landscaping requirement at the time of submission of plans for a building permit. Availability of Municipal Utilities: Municipal sanitary and watermain lines have been extended to the site from the utility lines located in the 157th Street West right-of-way. All utilities necessary to serve the plat shall be designed and constructed in accordance with adopted City standards. Storm sewer lines have been installed throughout the overall development that will collect runoff and transport it to the ponding areas in Outlots A and C. The storm sewer lines traverse across multiple lots and outlots within public drainage and utility easements. The City Engineer has reviewed the utility plans and his comments are contained in his attached memo. Street Classifications/Accesses/Circulation: The overall development abuts 155th Street West to the north, Pilot Knob Road to the east, 157th Street West to the south. Pilot Knob Road is classified as an A Minor Expander, and 155th and 157th Streets West are classified as Minor Collectors. Access to the site will be via private streets that will intersect with 155th and 157th Streets West. Staff has no issues with the proposed accesses and private street location. Pedestrian Access: The site plan shows a sidewalk network that makes connections from the site to Lot 4 to the east and a north/south sidewalk that will run along the east of a private street. This sidewalk will eventually connect to sidewalks in Outlot E. Signs: The building elevations show a sign on the car wash entrance and on the west elevation. No formal sign application has been submitted with this request. All signage shall conform to the City's sign ordinance. 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 Background Material Area Map Comp Plan Map Zoning Map Final Plat Plan Set Elevations MR. CAR WASH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT REVIEW Existing Conditions Property Location: I Northwest corner of 157"' Street West and Pilot Knob Road Legal Description: Lot 3, Block 1, Orchard Place 2nd Addition Comprehensive Plan Designation "C" (Commercial) .Zoning Classification "RB" (Retail Business) Existing Platting Platted Current Land Use Vacant Size: 1.25 acres Topography: Flat Existing Vegetation None Other Significant Natural Features None Adjacent Properties/Land Uses NORTH Vacant Comprehensive Plan "C" (Commercial) Zoning/Land Use "RB" (Retail Business) SOUTH Comprehensive Plan "P" (Parks & Open Space) Zoning/Land Use "P" (Institutional) EAST Comprehensive Plan "C" (Commercial) Zoning/Land Use "PD-703/zone 6' (Planned Development) WEST Comprehensive Plan "C" (Commercial) Zoning/Land Use "RB" (Retail Business) CITY OF Apple Valley MEMO Public Works TO: Tom Lovelace, Planner FROM: Brandon S. Anderson, PE, City Engineer DATE: November 25, 2020 SUBJECT: Orchard Place 2nd Lots 3 and 4 Plan Review The following are comments regarding the Orchard Place 2nd Lots 3 and 4 Plan Review dated November 4, 2020. Please include these items as conditions to approval. General 1. Provide a narrative and site plan showing how the expansion will be constructed and any impacts prior to building permit authorization. The narrative and plan shall include the following: a. Material storage and staging i. All material storage to be onsite and indicated on plan. b. Haul routes to and from the site. c. Contractor and subcontractor parking locations i. Onsite trade parking should be provided. Permits A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required for any project that disturbs more than one acre. Provide a copy of the executed permit prior to construction. A City of Apple Valley Natural Resource Management Permit (NRMP) will be required prior to any land disturbing activity. A Dakota County Right -of -Way permit will be required for work within the Pilot Knob Road right-of-way. Provide a copy of the executed permit prior to construction. Provide a copy of the approval letter from the Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) prior to construction. Provide a copy of any other required permits. Site/Traffic 1. Traffic Impacts and study findings were included as part of Preliminary Plat Approval. a. As part of Phase 1, 155th Street will be extended from Pilot Knob Road to slightly beyond the western access of the Orchard Place commercial development. The full street corridor with landscaped medians, left turn lanes, and walkways will be constructed. 2. Turn lanes along Pilot Knob Road for 155th Street and 157th Street will also be modified and lengthened as part of the Phase 1 improvements due to longer queue lengths. a. A traffic signal is anticipated at 155th and Pilot Knob as part of Phase 1 with the expected traffic as part of Phase 1. b. Final Access locations to 155th Street will be determined during the final design of 155th Street West. 3. Additional signage and pavement markings will be required along the right -in access road near Lot 1 & 2 parking lot access to prevent wrong way traffic. 4. Show where employee parking is to be utilized for Lot 3 (Building M). 5. Private Drive Entrances/Roads need additional clarification and details regarding the use of curb and gutter and drainage patterns. 6. Any sidewalk connection crossing a drive thru lane shall be a raised concrete pedestrian pad and/or change in paving material. 7. Final site plan shall be reviewed with the construction plans and approved by City Engineer. Storm water Management 8. The overall development storm water ponding needs will be satisfied with WVR-P54 and WVR-P53 regional storm water basins. Additional site specific treatment may be required. GradintOraina2c 9. Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plan shall be reviewed with the construction plans at building permit/site plan authorization and approved by City Engineer. 10. Show all emergency over flow (EOF) elevations and routing in the parking lots. The finished floor/low opening elevation must be 1' minimum above the EOF elevation. 11. Provide overall site composite Curve Number (CN) on the plans. Water main & Sanitary Sewer 1. Final sanitary sewer and water service design shall be reviewed with the construction plans and approved by City Engineer. 2. Confirmation of water service sizing is required. Confirm if proposed buildings require fire sprinkler system. 3. • Domestic water and fire service shall be split outside the existing 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 of Apple Valley standard detail plate SER-6. Storm Sewer 4. Final storm sewer design shall be reviewed with the construction plans and approved by City Engineer. 5. Provide pretreatment device/s, such as a SAFL Baffle or approved equal and sump prior to discharging into the public storm sewer in an additional separate MH. Sump structures as shown in City "Catch Basin Manhole with Sump" detail STO-5S. Any sumps shall be privately maintained and routinely cleaned as the accumulated sediment will be from the private parking lots and roadways. a. Locations for installation are at: STR-8 and STR-35 Landcane and Natural Resources 6. No major tree plantings shall be located over any underground utilities. Clusters of trees shall be used near or around these areas instead of planting in a row. 7. Additional screening is required along the southern property line of Lot 4 (Building P) 8. Additional screening is required along the eastern side of Building I. MR. CAR WASH C.U.P. REQUEST MR. CAR WASH C.U.P. REQUEST COMP PLAN MAP "C" (Commercial) I MR. CAR WASH C.U.P. REQUEST ZONING MAP "RB" (Retail Business) ORCHARD PLACE 2ND ADDITION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T OUTLOT 0 g l OUTLOT E OUTLOT C T 'IF OUTLOT A 'c - - - - - - -J L a I f �t T NOINURING CornmrIV. Pg. —FT I SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR ORCHARD PLACE 2ND ADDITION LOTS 3 AND 4 SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP I ISN, RANGE 20W APPLE VALLEY, DAKOTA COUNTY, MN = >` ... . IMTH ST YJ 2 K PROJECT TEAM: IQj� a. DRAWING INDEX ENGINEER OWNER I DEVELOPER KIMLEY-MORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. HJ DEVELOPMENT, LLP Kimley>» Horn ® SEdTii ST W LIM PREPARED BY WILLIAM D MATZEK, P.E. CHRIS MOE aya1a93 a9 ` 767 EUSTIS STREET, SURE 100 ST. PAUL, MN %114 1SWO WAYZATABLVO, SURE WAYZATA. MN 55381 201 y f 1 TELEPHONE(651).54192 TELEPHONE. 952-4'/69400 I�t�7 g s LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. OWNER, ROCKPORT, LLC j�ir y{ An• ;1 , .�14 ;„ ;. yy,�*is s 7 S d A MITCHELL COOKAS, P.L.A PETE FISCHER r EUSTI5 SURE 100 AVE. MSSAPPLE F ST, N 161;4, ST, PAUL, MN VALLEYALA)UE APPLE VALLEY, 55124 SITE W TELEPHONE '(651)645d19) 01 TELEPHONE (B52)89T-9100 2) VICINITY W N.T.S. _ rn SURVEYOR ARCHITECT PROSE ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. MOHAGEN HANSENRUSSEL W BAILEY BOB BAILEY NOTES: 1000 EAST IMEALP4VHSREET STREET IUIT TWELVE OAKS CENTER DRIVE uAT r"ssuwx O E. MN BURNSVILLE, MN 55]3] TELEPHONE:(952) SURE 200 WAYZATA, MN 55391 onlrx�on xsAuaa0.lne lx[se :.i 432-3000 TELEPHONE'(952) 42F10.3d it seu sxwm an xuis.w[swfaans�rs vueea0 (A.mvrso0 ircMlffecrEs lY vwonVro �xHauxcEo eunca n y ¢oennrnvwxu aromas, p N p 4xorixu cxAnxclB rnexu¢sroxe ogre ix vAo cr ooc�N a U R z H W Q W DATE' ~O . J N 60J APPROVED:APPLE VALLEY CITY ENGINEER 2 6~O a-1 �wJ � � Z OC2 W O S -~,below. Q Caller _., tt p.nw. W cooBu | / | / pUTn�� -| ��*� ~ LOT' | ^ _—__— '~| JAY All, LEGEND SITEPUN NOTES -.j 21, 0,- 0 —>0 KEYNOTE LEGEND () ---- -. 1111---- -1--l' 1. O................. 0 0 4. ----- ---------- WILDING SUMMARY 10 10, > rr S2 'w < 6 0, LEGEND um 1-4p 11E 49 16— GRADING PLAN NOTES Ml • yy r� - ID ....... - - - - - CL -7- 5 �� A u..,.....� a....,... 0 go. -TT z d a, z zs > < uEi Z C200 t I � � � LEOENOe tr Y 3 ii a a I , a �I I II'It I f`UTILITY PLAN NOTES j q S FF .w..,.,. x. _.nn w...�.,.. so....a.a„o..uaM.,.nM<�a...ne..neu..,.aa�.n.,..e' a.p'ym,�a,�,peca.,:•.n..,a.....@...... O Zo O u1 S IpIIp ,....�,e,9w n•�.z..n.-..,o,. �.ep�,e„�a„.vaaw^, w.a.0 .•�v�...... a,.,e ,,.,..,a.xo-wu. e, ..vv,x.:.n Z o�J iwJ x K2 > o o = q U MCAPE LEGEND IAN QSCAPEi EYNQTES (D (D LANDSCAPE S"' LU 0 Z. 0 u 0 0 0 < S2 = , < z U Ej w 0 LIDO NOTES o LREE �LANTING DETAIL STEEL EDGER DETAIL I PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL ,a__ —T Jill, I o m ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES. ELEVATION KEYNOTES: (2) @-CA WASH TI UNNELEXIT ELEVATION .AW CA R WALL ELEVATION I Mister A5.0 7 T t ON 3 CAR WASH TUNNEL ENTRY ELEVATION 4 BUSINESS /MECHANICAL ELEVATION ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES. ELEVATION KEYNOTES: mcc=c== mc=c== ... . ....... ... .......... . -1 Mister AS. I ::: ITEM: 4.B. see. Apple PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December2, 2020 Valley SECTION: Public Hearings Description: Starbucks C.U.P./Orchard Place Commercial - Consider a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for Drive -Through Window Service in Conjunction with a Class I I I Restaurant and Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization for a 7,400-sq. ft. and a 8,200-sq. ft. building on a 3.21-acre Lot (PC20-18- CB) Staff Contact: Department / Division: Thomas Lovelace, City Planner Community Development Department Applicant: I HJ Development, LLP and Rockport, LLC IIPC20-18-CB Project Number: Applicant Date: 11 /4/2020 60 Days: 1 /2/2021 120 Days: 3/3/2021 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: For your consideration is a request from HJ Development, LLP, and Rockport, LLC, for a conditional use permit for drive -through window service in conjunction with a Starbucks coffee shop, and site planibuilding permit authorization to allow for construction of a 7,400- sq. ft. and an 8,200-sq. ft. commercial retail building on a 3.21-acre lot. The site is part of the 34-acre Orchard Place commercial development, which is bonded by 155th Street West to the north, Pilot Knob Road to the east, 157th Street West to the south and Pulte's Orchard Place townhome development to the east. BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is currently guided "C" (Commercial). This designation includes 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 Limited Business and Neighborhood Commercial. Higher -intensity districts include General Business and Retail. In each district, land use and performance standards set parameters for development. Examples include parking, building setbacks, infiltrations, site access, and lot coverage. Zoning/Conditional Use Permit: The property is zoned "RB" (Retail Business). Retail business districts are described as areas that are centrally located to serve the need for general retail sales. Permitted uses include stores and shops that sell personal services or goods over the counter, as well as banks, savings and loan offices, professional offices, community facilities, health clubs, animal hospitals and clinics, small engine and appliance repair, commercial recreation, auto accessory sales, and restaurants (Class I and III Neighborhood Restaurant without a drive through window, only) . Conditional uses include a variety of uses that include Class II restaurants, car wash operations and drive -through window service. Permitted accessory uses include delivery bays and outdoor dining areas. Submitted information identifies a potential Class II restaurant in Building I, a drive -through window in conjunction with a restaurant for Building O, and another drive -through window in conjunction with a Class III restaurant for Building P. No users have been identified for Buildings I and O, but a Starbucks coffee shop has been identified as the proposed Class III restaurant for Building P. Therefore, this review will focus on Buildings I and P, and the proposed drive -through window service for the coffee shop in Building P. As stated previously, the applicant is proposing a 60-seat coffee house, which is classified as a Class III Neighborhood Restaurant. Class III restaurants are permitted uses in the "RB" zoning district and is subject to the following requirements: • The restaurant cannot exceed 2,500 sq. ft. in size; • The hours of operation is limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. daily; and • The restaurant cannot serve foods that require the installation of a Type I ventilation hood for grease and smoke removal, as defined in the Uniform Mechanical Code. The applicant is also proposing to have a drive -through window with this coffee shop. A drive -through window in conjunction with a Class III Neighborhood Restaurant is a conditional use and is subject to the following requirements: • The City Council shall find that any noise, headlights, traffic volume and emissions from idling vehicles resulting from the operation of the window does not negatively impact surrounding residential and institutional uses. • The drive -through lane shall not impede or conflict with vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic circulation on the site, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. • When a neighborhood restaurant is located less than 1,000 feet from residential or institutional use, the City Council may restrict the hours of operation of a drive -through window to mitigate any adverse impacts caused by noise, headlights, traffic volume and emissions from idling vehicles. Site Plan: The site is part of a 34-acre commercial development. The first phase will include 9.5 acres of development in southeast corner of the development area, with a 6,500- sq. ft. car wash facility on Lot 3; and two multi -tenant building (Buildings I and P) and one single use building (Building O) on Lot 4. The submitted plans indicate the following: • 5,500 sq. ft. of retail and a 55-seat Class II restaurant in the 8,200-sq. ft. Building I; • A 100-seat Class I restaurant in the 2,325—sq. ft. Building O with drive -through window service; and • A proposed coffee shop with drive -through window service, 22-seat Class II restaurant and 3,100 sq. ft. of retail/medical office space in the 7,400-sq. ft. Building P. They indicate in their building summary that the 8,200-sq. ft. multi -tenant Building I will have 5,500 sq. ft. of retail and restaurant space with up to 55 seats. Patios will be located on the east and west ends of the building. The City has not typically allowed multiple commercial buildings on the same lot. Exceptions to that rule include the restaurant corner in Fischer Market Place, the two multi - tenant buildings in Cedar Market Place located at the northeast corner of 47th Street West and Cedar Avenue, and two multi -tenant buildings in the Apple Valley Square development located in the southwest corner of CSAH 42 and Cedar Avenue. The first two examples are located in planned developments and the third is in a "RB" zoning district. Planned development zoning districts allow more latitude when determining area and performance standards such as building and parking setbacks that a typical zoning district does not. Access to the site will be via internal streets that will be connected to 155th and 157th Streets West, which are public streets. A cross access and parking agreement shall be required that allows all the lots and outlots within the Orchard Place 2nd Addition access to all the internal streets and parking areas contained within the development. The three buildings would likely meet all building setbacks but not minimum parking setbacks. However, the zoning code does allow parking facilities that serves two or more uses to collectively provide off-street parking, provided that the total number of parking spaces is not less than the sum total of the requirements for each use separately. The number of parking spaces contained within Lot 4 will meet or exceed the minimum parking requirements for the three buildings and proposed uses. City code requires that each parking space shall be no less than nine feet and 20 feet in length. If a space is adjacent to a curb or landscaped area, the required length may be reduced by 1.5 feet. The site plan shows that the majority of the parking spaces abutting a curb are 18 feet long. Revisions will be needed to bring all the parking spaces into code compliance. The plans show two patios at the east and west end of Building I, as well as two in front of Building P. Outdoor dining areas are permitted accessory uses in conjunction with a Class I, Class II, or Class III restaurant provided that the following performance standards: • No portion of the outdoor dining area shall be located or occur within any public right- of-way, including sidewalks/trails, boulevard areas or streets. • No portion of the outdoor dining area shall be located or occur closer than two feet from any property line. If the outdoor dining area is proposed to be within a city drainage and utility easement, then the property owner shall be required to execute a license agreement prepared by the City Attorney authorizing the use of the city's easement. • The City Council may restrict days, hours, nature and volume, and other aspects of entertainment in any outdoor dining area, including a prohibition against all forms of music, radio, television, and other entertainment, to protect the safety, repose, and welfare of residents, businesses and other uses near the establishment. • The outdoor dining area shall be handicap accessible and not restrict accessibility in other areas inside or outside the restaurant or food establishment. • If the outdoor dining area is located on a private sidewalk area abutting the restaurant building or within a parking area for the building, then the outdoor dining area shall not interfere with any pedestrian or vehicular traffic on the site. • A minimum five-foot wide area of sidewalk shall remain clear for pedestrian travel. • The outdoor dining area shall be subordinate to the principal restaurant building and shall not exceed 40% in area of the square footage of the principal restaurant building. • The outdoor dining area shall be kept in a clean and orderly manner. • No food or beverages may be stored outdoors, unless a suitable means for such storage has been reviewed and approved by the city. • The City Council may restrict the hours of operation of an outdoor dining area based upon the proximity of the area to residential dwelling units, and upon considerations relating to the safety, repose, and welfare of residents, businesses, and other uses near the establishment. The two dining areas proposed for Building P may not be in ideal locations. Both are located in areas that generally would be landscaped parking islands and the easterly area is next to the exit for the drive -through window. It also appears to block the sidewalk connection from Pilot Knob Road to the front of the building. The applicant should consider removing those outdoor areas and creating a plaza in the area west of the building creating an outdoor dining area in the area directly west of the building. The drive -up window lane will be accessed from the west side of the building, traverse along the south and east side of the building and exit into the parking lot. The south and west portion of the lane will be 12 feet wide and increase to 24 feet along the east side of the building. This will allow vehicles to bypass the drive -up window if they so choose. Staff has reviewed the drive -up lane design and has concerns about the ability of delivery and service vehicles to access the rear of the building. Revisions should be considered to prevent potential conflicts between customers and noncustomer vehicles. Bicycle racks shall be installed in front of all buildings. Grading Plan: The site has been graded as part of the sand and gravel mining reclamation of the site. Therefore, minimal grading to accommodate the proposed buildings and parking lot will be needed prior to construction. The City Engineer has reviewed the grading plan and his comments are included in his attached memo. Elevation Drawings: The exterior finish of the Building I and P will include a combination of brick, stone, and EIFS. City code requires commercial buildings to have a vertical exposed exterior finish of 100% non- combustible, non -degradable and maintenance -free construction materials (such as face brick or natural stone but excluding such construction materials as sheet or corrugated aluminum, iron, or concrete block of any kind or similar). Exterior rooftop finishes shall preclude the use of exposed or plated metal; any metal surface shall be coated or anodized with a non -reflective, glare -free finish. The proposed exterior finish will meet the code requirements. The submitted drawings do not show the location of the mechanical equipment to serve the buildings. City code requires that all necessary mechanical protrusions visible to the exterior shall be screened or handled in a manner such that they are not visually obvious and are compatible with the surrounding development. For rooftop mechanical equipment, all mechanical equipment and related appurtenances, except solar collector panels, must be fully screened by either a parapet wall along the edge of the building or by a screen immediately surrounding such equipment. The height of the parapet wall or screen shall be at least the height of the equipment. Parapet walls must be an extension of the primary building materials comprising the outside walls of the building; screens must be constructed of durable, low -maintenance materials and be either a light, neutral color or the same color as the primary building materials of the outside walls. Rooftop equipment shall be set back from the edge of the roof along the front building face a minimum of one times the equipment height. For ground mounted equipment, all mechanical equipment and related appurtenances must be fully screened by either a masonry wall or an opaque landscape screen. The height of the wall or landscape screen shall be at least the height of the equipment. Masonry walls must be constructed of the same materials and color as the primary materials comprising the outside walls of the building; landscape screening must be of plant materials that are fully opaque year-round. Equipment shall be painted a neutral earth -tone color. All mechanical protrusions shall be pointed out on the site plan and elevations. Landscape Plan: The submitted landscape plan identifies a wide and diverse variety of plantings. Staff has reviewed the landscape plan and is recommending that additional landscaping be added along the south side of Building P and east and west side of Building I to help screen the drive -up lanes from the adjacent properties and patio area. City code requires that the minimum cost of landscaping materials (live plant material excluding sod) for commercial projects shall be 2'/2% of the estimated building construction cost based on Means construction data. A detailed planting price list shall be required for verification of the City's 2'/z% landscaping requirement at the time of submission of plans for a building permit. Availability of Municipal Utilities: Municipal sanitary and water main lines have been extended to the site from the utility lines located in the 157th Street West right-of-way. All utilities necessary to serve the plat shall be designed and constructed in accordance with adopted City standards. Storm sewer lines have been installed throughout the overall development that will collect runoff and transport it to the ponding areas in Outlots A and C. The storm sewer lines traverse across multiple lots and outlots within public drainage and utility easements. The City Engineer has reviewed the utility plans and his comments are contained in his attached memo. Street Classifications/Accesses/Circulation: The site abuts Pilot Knob Road to the east and 157th Street West to the south. Pilot Knob Road is classified as an A Minor Expander and 157th Street West is classified a Minor Collectors. Streets and traffic control shall be designed, constructed and installed in accordance with adopted City standards. Direct access from Pilot Knob Road will not be allowed. Access to 157th Street West will be via two north/south private streets. The most easterly connection will be a right -in only and the westerly intersection will be a full access intersection. The most westerly private street will be extended north and intersect with 155th Street West. Staff has no issues with the proposed accesses and private street location. Pedestrian Access: The site plan shows a sidewalk network that makes connections to the bituminous path along the west side of Pilot Knob Road and to sidewalks to the west. The applicant should consider an internal sidewalk connection from Building I and O to Building P. Signs: The site plan identifies a monument sign in the northeast corner of the site and directional signage/menu board for the Building O drive -through window. The elevation drawings for Building O shows signage for Starbucks. No dimensional or material information for the signage is provided and no formal; sign application has been submitted with this request. All signage shall conform to the City's sign ordinance. 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 Background Material Area Map Comp Plan Map Zoning Map Final Plat Plan Set Elevations Elevations ORCHARD PLACE MULTI -TENANT BUILDINGS STARBUCKS COFFEE DRIVE-THROUIGH WINDOW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT REVIEW Existing Conditions Property Location: Northwest corner of 1571h Street West and Pilot Knob Road Legal Description: Lot 4, Block 1, Orchard Place 2"d Addition Comprehensive Plan Designation "C" (Commercial) Zoning Classification "RB" (Retail Business) Existing Platting Platted Current Land Use Vacant Size: 3.21 acres Topography: Flat Existing Vegetation None Other Significant Natural Features None Adjacent Properties/Land Uses NORTH Vacant Comprehensive Plan "C" (Commercial) Zoning/Land Use "RB" (Retail Business) SOUTH Comprehensive Plan "P" (Parks & Open Space) Zoning/Land Use "P" (Institutional) EAST Comprehensive Plan "C" (Commercial) Zoning/Land Use "PD-703/zone 6' (Planned Development) WEST Comprehensive Plan "C" (Commercial) Zoning/Land Use "RB" (Retail Business) 000 :000 **00 CITY OF Apple Valley MEMO Public Works TO: Tom Lovelace, Planner FROM: Brandon S. Anderson, PE, City Engineer DATE: November 25, 2020 SUBJECT: Orchard Place 2nd Lots 3 and 4 Plan Review The following are comments regarding the Orchard Place 2nd Lots 3 and 4 Plan Review dated November 4, 2020. Please include these items as conditions to approval. General 1. Provide a narrative and site plan showing how the expansion will be constructed and any impacts prior to building permit authorization. The narrative and plan shall include the following: a. Material storage and staging i. All material storage to be onsite and indicated on plan. b. Haul routes to and from the site. c. Contractor and subcontractor parking locations i. Onsite trade parking should be provided. Permits 2. A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required for any project that disturbs more than one acre. Provide a copy of the executed permit prior to construction. 3. A City of Apple Valley Natural Resource Management Permit (NRMP) will be required prior to any land disturbing activity. 4. A Dakota County Right -of -Way permit will be required for work within the Pilot Knob Road right-of-way. Provide a copy of the executed permit prior to construction. 5. Provide a copy of the approval letter from the Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) prior to construction. 6. Provide a copy of any other required permits. Site/Traffic 1. Traffic Impacts and study findings were included as part of Preliminary Plat Approval. a. As part of Phase 1, 155th Street will be extended from Pilot Knob Road to slightly beyond the western access of the Orchard Place commercial development. The full street corridor with landscaped medians, left turn lanes, and walkways will be constructed. 2. Turn lanes along Pilot Knob Road for 155th Street and 157th Street will also be modified and lengthened as part of the Phase 1 improvements due to longer queue lengths. a. A traffic signal is anticipated at 155th and.Pilot Knob as part of Phase 1 with the expected traffic as part of Phase 1. b. Final Access locations to 155th Street will be determined during the final design of 155th Street West. 3. Additional signage and pavement markings will be required along the right -in access road near Lot 1 & 2 parking lot access to prevent wrong way traffic. 4. Show where employee parking is to be utilized for Lot 3 (Building M). 5. Private Drive Entrances/Roads need additional clarification and details regarding the use of curb and gutter and drainage patterns. 6. Any sidewalk connection crossing a drive thru lane shall be a raised concrete pedestrian pad and/or change in paving material. 7. Final site plan shall be reviewed with the construction plans and approved by City Engineer. Storm water Management 8. The overall development storm water ponding needs will be satisfied with WVR-P54 and WVR-P53 regional storm water basins. Additional site specific treatment may be required. Grading/Drainage 9. Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plan shall be reviewed with the construction plans at building permit/site plan authorization and approved by City Engineer. 10. Show all emergency over flow (EOF) elevations and routing in the parking lots. The finished floor/low opening elevation must be 1' minimum above the EOF elevation. 11. Provide overall site composite Curve Number (CN) on the plans. Water main & Sanitary Sewer 1. Final sanitary sewer and water service design shall be reviewed with the construction plans and approved by City Engineer. 2. Confirmation of water service sizing is required. Confirm if proposed buildings require fire sprinkler system. 3. Domestic water and fire service shall be split outside the existing 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 of Apple Valley standard detail plate SER-6. Storm Sewer 4. Final storm sewer design shall be reviewed with the construction plans and approved by City Engineer. Provide pretreatment device/s, such as a SAFL Baffle or approved equal and sump prior to discharging into the public storm sewer in an additional separate MH. Sump structures as shown in City "Catch Basin Manhole with Sump" detail STO-5S. Any sumps shall be privately maintained and routinely cleaned as the accumulated sediment will be from the private parking lots and roadways. a. Locations for installation are at: STR-8 and STR-35 Landcape and Natural Resources 6. No major tree plantings shall be located over any underground utilities. Clusters of trees shall be used near or around these areas instead of planting in a row. 7. Additional screening is required along the southern property line of Lot 4 (Building P) 8. Additional screening is required along the eastern side of Building I. k SITE ^ 1 f i •� � n! III ,. i _'1 STARBUCKS C.U.P. REQUEST LOCATION MAP q6! C.U.P. REQUEST COMP PLAN MAP "C" (Commercial) STARBUCKS C.U.P. REQUEST ZONING MAP "RB" (Retail Business) ORCHARD PLACE 2ND ADDITION T T Z; "N .29 50 ; X L�41y1; _71 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TT ----- T OUTLOT D OUTLOT E 'v OUTLOT A t t tD ---------- -- ---------- A M-3- 1. 12 foff SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR ORCHARD PLACE 2ND ADDITION LOTS 3 AND 4 SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 115N, RANGE 20W APPLE VALLEY, DAKOTA COUNTY, MN 150THST^Yl .� PROJECT TEAM: I ENGINEER OWNER /OEVE t KIMLEV-MORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Hi DEVELOPMENT,NT, LL LLP k Kimley*Horn ®_ `•,� PREPARED BY. WILLIAM D. MATZEK, P.E. CHRIS MOE IWIll ST W 767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 1W 15600 WAY2 TA BLVD, SUITE 2U1 ST. PAUL, MN 55114 WAY2 TA, MN 55091 � TELEPHONE (651)"4 197 TELEPHONE. 9524769400 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OWNER , KIMLEV-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. MITCHELL COOKAS, P.L A ROCKPORT. LLC PETE FISCHER .. ' • ... ' ]6] EUSTIS STREET, SURE 100 MN551) 14G90 GAIAYJE AVE 5512e MNW7.91. 24 /r SITE TELEPHONE: TELEPHONE: (551)6CSd19] TELEPHALLEY. TELEPHAPPLE ONE (9 2) VICINITY N.T.S. SURVEYOR ARCHITECT PROBE ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. MOHAGEN HANSEN RUSSELL P OAMLO, P L,S 1000EAST 14BTHSTREET BOB BAILEY IDDO TWELVE OAKS CENTER DRIVE NOTES: BURNSVILLE. MN 55007 SUITE 200 xArcx TELEPHONE:(952) 602-3000 WAYZATA, MN 55O91 avx oxmEAE P✓xs ME WED W A AIM 111-1 TELEPHONE (952) <26-]0.T< I�'�Entli^xIes A10 runt GU-G) BY IIEVUI�iEsrwE =EE71 —R *soacUxEMss�unurics _ DATE' APPROVEDAPPLE VALLEY CITY ENGINEER DRAWING INDEX MTE 001 .—PE—III 1 ll� F W W x W O U vsxr<c..n+vu,e. s,.rouo+u,e srs.ura a.acs.ca,.°s LEGEND �..'• r d W j I OUTLOTC I I'\i iI I t-• _1 v 6+� j I unnrex *xwru[xt, I I � 3 i sKoa ? ' I FUTURE DEVELOPMENT _-_ FUTURE DEVFLOPPAENT- i e•P�,�?�. t tIt \ _ _ �!/�/ %�FUTURE DEVELOPMENT I ;� � � �� LOT \ \ \ W i = I OUTLOTN (/) i a aW J ... _ LOT 2\\ LOT > z p p u� _ J ° - Fg�°a 3 r°...cxrss ,s„x s.xE+T..es, Q a pow 8 p KSg°O u• Z K p S ' ! I�� a clna�ee I LEGEND ... ..... ...... ........... ....... ID 0 00 109 BUILDING SUMMARY LEGEND SITE PLAN NOTES • W=N6 LEGEND a b 3 ❑ — �` i (�,�.,f 1 I. n, �'jw •J I{fY�— GRADING PLAN NOTESVV iP J �© _ _ j ga s Jv y� € Z p O - a S 9 K 2 �> 4 t > 42 a W t xo m f o Q = '� W c2oo [S i � a wou [. �I = LEGENDO r�71 E FF'2 aoa �a s ��- � �� • /�/� ° '° ` e =s°ill IL F w \ i 1 U71UW PLAN NOTES o Zz F u gF o o So Z o . _ 11111118 e I: IIIall Hill ........... NOTES IN TREE PLANTING DETAIL ON'." STEEL EDGER DETAIL O . I I . . . . . . ... PLANIS-E-E I ui 0 r est T T T T -------------- EXTERIOR MATERIALS LEGEND .......... -, - ...... .... .. ........ ORCHARD PLACE :z. NEW CONSTRUCTION . ..... JOPCHARUPILACE BUILDING I APPLE VALLEY, MN BUILDING ELEVATIONS SCHEMATIC DESIGN A300 m ( TH ELEVATION PRESENTATION T ELEVATION PRESENTATION ------------ I @�R�IH ELEVATION PRESENTATION ELEVATION PRESENTATION I 'we ORCHARD PLACE NEW CONSTRUCTION ORCHARD PLACE BUILDING P APPLE VALLEY, MN ELEVATIONS SCHEMATIC DESIGN A300P 00 0000 ITEM: 4.C. 0 0000 Apple PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December2, 2020 Valley SECTION: Public Hearings Description: Kwik Trip Palomino Addition (PD-144, Zone 5 Ord Amendment) - PC20-19-Z Staff Contact: Department / Division: Kathy Bodmer, AlCP, Planner Community Development Department Applicant: KwikTrip Inc. IIPC20-19-Z Project Number: Applicant Date: 10/26/2020 60 Days: 12/25/2020 1120 Days: 2/23/2021 ACTION REQUESTED: Open public hearing, receive comments, close public hearing. It is the policy of the Planning Commission to not take action on an item on the same night as its public hearing. However, this request is not expected to have outstanding issues that would require further review and/or discuss. If the Planning Commission is satisfied that all of the outstanding issues have been addressed, the following motion would be recommended: Recommend approval of an amendment to PD-144, Zone 5 to increase the size of Convenience Stores from 3,500 sq. ft. to 6,500 sq. ft. SUMMARY: Kwik Trip Inc. submitted a building permit to construct a 1,181 sq. ft. building addition onto its store at 13357 Palomino Drive. The convenience store portion of the building is currently 3,493 sq. ft. and the building addition would increase the store to 4,764 sq. ft. PD-144, Zone 5, currently limits the size of convenience stores to 3,500 sq. ft. Kwik Trip must amend the PD zoning district in order to expand its store. Kwik Trip has remodeled many of its stores to provide more "ready to eat" meal options. At the Palomino Store, the proposed addition would consist primarily of increased kitchen prep space, cooler and freezer space. Of the 1,181 sq. ft. addition, less than 200 sq. ft. relates to retail floor area. Staff compiled a list of the gas station convenience stores to investigate the size of convenience stores currently located in Apple Valley. It appears that most of the stores range between 3,500 and 5,500 sq. ft. with either attached, detached or no car wash. The proposed 1,181 sq. ft. addition to the Palomino Kwik Trip would increase the size of the convenience store to 4,764 sq. ft. When the car wash and the car wash mechanical room are added, the total size of the Palomino store would be 6,323 sq. ft., consistent in size with the other convenience stores in the City. Staff would recommend amending the PD requirement to state that the size of the convenience store may be 6,500 sq. ft. so that there is no confusion that the convenience store with its attached car wash comply with the ordinance requirements. Since there is limited impact to the retail floor area proposed, staff is not concerned that the proposed expansion will increase parking demand on the site. BACKGROUND: It is not clear from historic files why a limit was placed on the size of the convenience store. Staff suspects that the size restriction was intended to minimize impacts to adjacent residential properties. There may have been a concern that there would be a request for a "big box retail" store in this location. Revising PD-144, Zone 5, to allow the size of a convenience store to increase from 3,500 to 6,500 to include the car wash, will allow for building expansion, continue to prohibit "big box" retail and should have no negative impact to the adjacent residential properties. BUDGET IMPACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Background Material Map Plan Set Survey Ordinance Kwik Trip Palomino Expansion PROJECT REVIEW Existing Conditions Property Location: 13357 Palomino Drive(Northeast corner County Road 11 and Palomino Drive Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1 KWIK TRIP ADDITION ` Comprehensive Plan Designation C-Commercial Zoning Classification PD-144, Zone 5 (Neighborhood Convenience & Professional/General Offices Existing Platting Platted lot of record. Current Land Use Convenience store, gas station with car wash. Size: Lot size: 1.54 acres Building size: 3,493 sf Topography: Relatively flat Existing Vegetation Maintained lawn and landscape materials consistent with urban commercial landscape. Other Significant Natural Features None identified. Adjacent Properties/Land Uses NORTH Brite Smile Dental Care Comprehensive Plan C-Commercial Zoning/Land Use PD-144, Zone 5 Professional Office Building) SOUTH Palomino Cliffs Comprehensive Plan MD -Medium Density Residential 6-12 units/acre Zoning/Land Use I PD-144, Zone 5 (Multiple Family) EAST Hunters Wood Townhomes Comprehensive Plan MD -Medium Density Residential 6-12 units/acre Zoning/Land Use PD-144, Zone 5 (Multiple Famil WEST James Plaza, Burnsville Across Co. Rd. 11 Multi -tenant retail building) Comprehensive Plan Unknown Zoning/Land Use Unknown KWI K TRIP PALOMINO 0 LOCATION MAP 1-� � rvyi` P ��(�-7� ... a. R- 1 INGTO i^ �-}-, MCANDREWSRU n - 77 I 13gTH STREET Ci Vv :�4Ce' -' �\5%. A\5 4- - -- - 3 135TH 5T W STW art r 0, r—q KWIK TRIP PALOMINO Now"I ZONING MAP t7 W� PRead (CR 38} r-------- N8945'511—E --t_-- I 6 � I 0 o b I I I I a I ' L------------- --- _ 5B9'49'45-! 21Q97 Palomino Drive Parkina Data: IA 1(� 25 Normal Parking Stalls provided 1 Handicap Parking Stalls provided 7RlP 16 Fueling Perking Stills provided i � 42 Total Parking Spaces Provided 1 � i 1 11 I Building Data: A*W11 it 1 Existing CStore 7,497 IF I Existing Carwash 1,56g IF yp 1 I Building Addlllon = 1,161 IF Total Remodeled Building 6,254 IF 1 ® a, / 11 Im — K TRIP,Inc 1 , awNsiaEEr 1 � i II I Usz lwal i� �mx- II I, 141 IISi� III c 1� I N m 1, W 0 11� o 1 1 UN a� I z wZ� g z¢Lit X oa w z � o w I, it: OIJ ma to UM �¢ SP1 ISSUED FOR PERMIT � --------- oaf~ -L�" —'l --` `—'— ' ISSUED FOR PERMIT Gas/Convenience Stores 2020 Store Zoning Convenience Store (Sq. Ft. Includes Car Wash? or Stand Alone Wash? Cedar Brook Market RB 2,40012 No 12503 Germane Ave Garden View Shell NCC — 3,100. Yes - Attached 206 County Rd 42 Snack Shack/Mobile RB 3,150 No 14265 Essex Phillips 66 RB 3,428 Yes — Detached size? 15550 Cedar Ave Kwik Trip Palomino PD 3,514 1,559 Attached 13357 Palomino Dr (4,764 requested) Speedway RB 3,516 Yes — Detached size? 15020 Garett Ave Kwik Trip Prairie Crossing PD 3,960 No 15065 Dodd Blvd Kwik Trip Florence Trail PD 4,1822 1,7983 Detached 14941 Florence Tr Kwik Trip Cedar RB 5,764 1,879 Attached 7545 — 145th Street Holiday Truck Express 1-1 5,817 Yes- Attached 5980 —149th Street Farmer's Coop - Speedway RB 6,408 Yes - Attached 15050 Galaxie Ave Holiday Galaxie RB 8,8931 Yes — Attached 14113 Galaxie Ave (Includes Day Care space) ' Source: DCGIS z Source: Building Permit File 3 Source: Planning Report ORDINANCE EXCERPT ARTICLE 11. DESIGNATION NO. 144, ZONE 5 § A11-1 PURPOSE. The purpose of this article is to amend Ordinance No. 144 by establishing specific performance standards in compliance with §§ 155.260 through 155.267 for property so designated on the official zoning map. The purpose of this zone is to provide for an integrated mix of low and moderate density residential uses in conjunction with a limited amount of commercial uses. ('81 Code, § All-1) (Ord. 291, passed 4-21-83) § All-2 PERMITTED USES. (D) Zone 5. Within this zone, no structure or land shall be used, except for one or more of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the City Council: (1) Any use permitted in division (C) above; (2) General or professional office uses in either a free-standing building or as a tenant in a multi -tenant building; (3) Motel or hotel; (4) Mass transit terminal or pick-up station: (5) Convenience grocery store not to exceed a total of 3,500 square feet in floor area as a free-standing use or as a use within a multi -tenant building; Restaurant, free-standing: Ulass I only and a minimum OT b,UUU square feet in area, when located within a free-standing building, and which does not operate between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.; (7) Restaurant, multi -tenant occupants: Either Class I or II, when located within a multi -tenant building, with no minimum floor area requirement, which does not operate between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., and which under no circumstances includes any type of drive-thru window service; (8) Retail sales when such operations are located within a multi -tenant building (not as free- standing uses) and not to exceed 10,000 square feet of floor area in aggregate for the entire zone, exclusive of the area of any convenience grocery store established pursuant to subsection (5) above. Permitted retail business uses in multi - tenant buildings shall be limited to the following unless similar uses are specifically approved by the City Council: stores and shops selling the personal service or goods over a counter. These include: antiques; art and school supplies; bakeries; barbershop; beauty parlor; bicycles; books and stationery; candy; cameras and photographic supplies; carpets and rugs; catering establishments; china and glassware; Christmas tree sales; clothes pressing; clothes and costume rental; custom dressmaking; drugs; 460 :.• 0000 ITEM: 4.D. 0*0 Apple PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: December2, 2020 Valley SECTION: Public Hearings Description: Apple Valley Golf Course Rezoning - PC20-22-Z Staff Contact: Department / Division: Thomas Lovelace, City Planner Community Development Department Applicant: City of Apple Valley IIPC20-22-Z Project Number: Applicant Date: 60 Days: 1120 Days: 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: For your consideration is a request to rezone 23 acres of property from "P" (Institutional) to "LDF" (Low Density Flex). The property is located at 8661 140th Street West and is the site of the former Apple Valley Golf Course. 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 northern 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. BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Plan: The property is currently designated "PR" (Private Recreation). This designation was created 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 privately owned 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 went further to state that any change in land use must be carefully considered for the ability of the property to support the proposed use, 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. In 2019, the property owner originally requested Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendments that would re -designate .5 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "LD" (Low Density Residential), 14.8 acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "MD" (Medium Density Residential) and eight (8) acres from "PR" (Private Recreation) to "HD" (High Density Residential). This request was considered by the City Council at their September 26, 2019, meeting. The City 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" (Single -Family) and "R-3" (Single- Family) zoning districts that are in lower density designations; and • 410 attached homes (64%) in the "R-5" (Two -Family Residential), "M-3" (Multi - Family Residential/3-6 units per acre) and "M-4" (Multi -Family Residential/6-8 units per acre) zoning districts that are in lower density designations. In December 2019, the Planning Commission recommended and the City Council supported a context sensitive land use designation called "LDF" (Low Density Flex) residential, which would allow for a range of three (3) to eight (8) units per acre, subject to the following: • In areas near single family and two family dwellings it would seek to match uses and types on parcels being redeveloped nearby. A land use response would be at the lower end of the cited range. • On parcels with sufficient space that also abut higher volume roadways that are forecasted to continue to increase in volume, a density at a higher end of the cited range that could also provide a buffer next to adjacent lower density. • It encourages the design integration of natural site conditions such as wetlands and elevation changes that may be unique to the site. The City Council, at their December 12, 2019, meeting approved the submittal to the Metropolitan Council of the re -designation of the golf course property to "LDF" on the 2040 Land Use Map and amending the 2040 Land Use chapter to include a description of the "LDF" designation. On October 28, 2020, the Metropolitan Council approved the proposed amendments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The City Council will likely consider approval of the Comp Plan amendments in December. Any Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map re -designation of the property will require a change in its current zoning. Zoning: The zoning ordinance is used to create zoning districts and 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 areas 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. A draft "LDF" zoning ordinance has been prepared and a public hearing was held on November 4, 2020. Comments were taken and the hearing closed. This request will be considered by the Commission at their December 2nd meeting. The proposed zoning amendments would allow for a variety of housing types that would include one -family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings, detached one -unit townhomes, and attached townhomes at a density of 3-8 units per acre. No building would exceed two stories or 35 feet in height, which is consistent with the current single-family, two-family, and "M-1, "M-211, "M-3", and "M-4" multi -family zoning districts. The distinction of this proposed zoning district from other typical residential zoning districts are: • Only one -family and two-family dwellings may be constructed on parcels directly abutting existing one -or two-family dwellings. • The density may be increased in areas not directly abutting existing one- and two-family dwellings as long as the overall density does not exceed eight (8) units per acre. Use within this zoning district include: • Any permitted use in the R, single-family district as regulated therein; • Two-family residential dwelling; • Single-family detached townhome; and • Townhome dwellings, provided they are serviced by public sanitary sewer and water systems and provided no single structure in excess of 12 dwelling units. Conditional and permitted accessory uses currently allowed in the "R" zoning districts. Area requirements within this district would be consistent with established residential districts in the city. 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 Location Map Comp Plan Map Comp Plan Map Zoning Map APPLE VALLEY GOLF COURSE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS EXISTING CONDITIONS Property Location: 8661 140'h 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-S" (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) 0 C91l ®CATI® nnn® L410 C ■ mK• C iv, I U' I] awl lel►kirAlto uv" IurrLso t* , v., r w 4 A.V. GCS PROPO PLAN D fill: r r�, []F" u nw DP_t1SIty FIP_Y RP 9 10 11 ilki lel kyl FA am 00 see* ITEM: 0000 0*0 Apple PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE Valley SECTION: 5.A. December 2, 2020 Land Use /Action Items Description: Low Density Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Consider Amendments to Chapter 155 to Add the "LDF"(Low Density Flex) Residential Zoning District Staff Contact: Department / Division: Thomas Lovelace, City Planner Community Development Department Applicant: City of Apple Valley IIPC20-16-Z Project Number: Applicant Date: 7K6 Days: 11520 Days: ACTION REQUESTED: If the Planning Commission concurs, staff is recommending approval of the ordinance amendments to the City's zoning chapter to add the "LDF" (Low Density Flex) residential zoning district. SUMMARY: For your consideration is a request from the City of Apple Valley to amend the City's zoning chapter to add the "LDF" (Low Density Flex) residential zoning district. The zoning code amendments would include permitted, conditional, and permitted accessory uses, and area requirements for the new residential zoning district, consistent with the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan's "LDF" designation. Once a city adopts a comprehensive plan or amendments, it needs a means of attaining the development goals in the plan. These proposed zoning amendments are the means for implementing the goals set forth in the comprehensive plan's "LDF" designation, which is to have future uses that would consist of residential dwellings that are compatible to complement the character of the surrounding residential uses, while taking into consideration the development opportunities and constraints of a property. The proposed zoning amendments would allow for a variety of housing types that would include one -family detached dwellings, two-family dwellings, detached one -unit townhomes, and attached townhomes at a density of 3-8 units per acre. No building would exceed two stories or 35 feet in height, which is consistent with the current single-family, two-family, and W-1, W-211, W-3", and W-4" multi -family zoning districts. The distinction of this proposed zoning district from other typical residential zoning districts are: • Only one -family and two-family dwellings may be constructed on parcels directly abutting existing one- or two-family dwellings. • The density may be increased in areas not directly abutting existing one- and two-family dwellings as long as the overall density does not exceed eight (8) units per acre. These requirements match with the stipulations set forth in the Comprehensive Plads "LDF" language. The proposed zoning amendments reference permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the "R" (One -Family Residential) zoning districts as uses that would be allowed in the "LDF" zoning district. The permitted uses in the "R" zoning districts include: 1. One -family detached dwellings meeting the standards of the Uniform Building Code, placed on permanent foundations and having no horizontal axis less than 18 feet in length; 2. Home occupation, as defined in § 155.003; 3. Public utility buildings and structures; or 4. Community -based family -care home, daycare home licensed under M.S. §245.812, or a home for the care of the mentally or physically handicapped licensed by the state. Conditional uses listed in the "R" zoning districts include: 1. Off-street parking, for passenger vehicles only, when the proposed site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in another zoning district. For screening requirements see § 155.348; 2. Cemeteries; 3. Community -based family -care home or day-care home not licensed by the state under M. S. §245.812; 4. Accessory unit dwellings(AUD); and 5. Wireless communications towers and small wireless facilities. And finally, accessory uses listed in the "R" zoning districts are: 1. Private parking space and garage, one attached and one detached; 2. One accessory storage building in addition to any garage(s), except that it shall not exceed 144 square feet in area if a detached garage exists on the same lot; 3. Private swimming pool, tennis court, and play apparatus for the use of the occupants of the premise; 4. Signs, as regulated in Chapter 154; 5. Buildings or trailers temporarily located for purposes of construction or sales on the premises for a period of not to exceed time necessary for the construction; 6. Gardening and other horticultural uses where no sale of products is conducted on the premises; 7. Decorative landscape features; 8. The keeping of domestic animals, commonly referred to as "house pets," for noncommercial purposes, for the use of the occupants of the premises. Horses may be kept in R-1 districts, provided that any accessory building used for housing horses shall be located no less than 100 feet from the nearest residence; 9. Repair and maintenance of motor vehicles owned by the occupant; see screening requirements, § 155.348; and 10. Garage sales not to exceed three per calendar year. Public Hearing Comments: The public hearing for this item was held by the Planning Commission on November 4, 2020. The hearing was opened, comments taken, and the hearing was closed. Most of the comments received were directed at potential development of the golf course under this proposed zoning classification not the broad application that the rezoning may have other residential properties in the city. Responses to these comments are contained in the November 4th meeting minutes. Also, questions were if there were any examples or photos on what a development in a "LDF" zoning district might look like. Staff will provide examples of developments containing mixed residential uses the night of the meeting. BACKGROUND: On December 4, 2019, tke Apple Valley Planning Commission reviewed a request for amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan to add language describing the "LDF" (Low Density Flex) designation to the Land Use chapter. The City Council, at their December 12, 2019, approved a resolution authorizing the submittal of the proposed amendments to the Metropolitan Council for approval. Submittal of these amendments were subject to final approval of the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan by the Metropolitan Council, which occurred on July 22, 2020 and subsequent approval by the City Council, which happened at their July 23, 2020, meeting. Upon final approval of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, staff prepared and submitted the "LDF" amendments to the Metropolitan Council for consideration. It was considered and approved at the October 25, 2020, meeting. The City Council will now consider the proposed amendments and zoning ordinance amendments at future meetings. BUDGET IM PACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Background Material PROPOSED LOW DENSITY FLEX RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT § 155.--- PURPOSE. This district is for the purpose of providing a transition in housing density and styles between low density single-family and multi -family areas by allowing for a mix of housing types that would include single-family residential dwellings, duplexes, twin homes and detached and attached townhomes. The district is intended for those areas which are designated "Low Density Flex" in the comprehensive guide plan, with the specific district relating to the natural features and characteristics of the site and the surrounding property. § 155.--- PERMITTED USES. Within the LDF district, no structure or land shall be used, except for one or more of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the City Council: (A) Any permitted use in the R, single-family district as regulated therein; (B) Two-family residential dwelling; (C) Single-family detached townhome; and (D) Townhome dwellings, provided they are serviced by public sanitary sewer and water systems and provided no single structure in excess of 12 dwelling units. § 155.--- CONDITIONAL USES. Within the LDF district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses or uses deemed similar by the City Council, except by a conditional use permit: (A) Any conditional use in the R, single-family district as regulated therein; except accessory unit dwellings (AUDs) shall not be allowed as a permitted, conditional or accessory use; (B) Community -based family -care home or daycare home not licensed by the state under M.S. § 245.812, when: (a) Facility meets all existing health, fire, building and housing codes; and (b) Separation of one -quarter mile exists between the facilities. The City Council may grant exception to the one -quarter mile rule when either strong community support exists, program effectiveness is closely tied to particular cultural resources in the community or an effective natural or manmade barrier exists between facilities. (C) Wireless communication towers and small wireless facilities as regulated elsewhere in this chapter. § 155.--- PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. Within the LDF district, no accessory structures or use of land shall be permitted, except for one or more of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the City Council: (A) Any accessory use permitted in the R district as regulated therein; and (B) Recreational building, equipment or service area for use by the residents of a detached or attached townhome unit, which shall be owned by a homeowners' association and erected on a common area lot or outlot. §155.--- AREA REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS (A) The following minimum area standards and requirements shall be met and no improvements shall be placed on such lands unless the lands to be used or improved shall meet the following area and dimensional requirements: (1) Only one- and two-family dwellings shall be allowed on parcels directly abutting existing one- and two-family dwellings. (2) The maximum density of any particular acreage may be increased in areas not directly abutting existing one- and two-family dwellings, so long as the overall designation of the properties do exceed eight (8) units per acre. (3) Table of Minimum Area Standards and Requirements One -Family Two -Family Single -Family Attached Residential Residential Detached Townhome Townhome Dwelling Lot Area Interior Lot 15,000 sq. ft. 7,260 sq. ft. of 5,445 sq. ft. of 11,000 sq. ft. (7,500 sq. ft. land per unit land per unit Corner lot per unit) (4 units per (8 units per 12,500 sq. ft. acre) acre Lot width (in feet) 80 100 (50 feet 40 - er unit Minimum 30 10 Building Setbacks in feet Along community 40 40 40 40 neighborhood collector streets Along all other 30 30 30 30 public streets Along private - - 25 25 streets or drives Side Yard Dwelling Dwelling 30 30 Unit 10 Unit 10 Garage 5 Garage 7.5 Rear Yard 30 30 30 30 Between Buildings - - 10 15 Maximum 2 2 2 2 Number of Stories Maximum Height 35 35 35 35 Maximum 35% 35% 35% 35% Impervious Surface Coverage (4) Minimum setbacks between sides of multiple -residential buildings shall be 15 feet or a distance equal to half the combined height of the adjacent building faces, whichever is greater. (5) Minimum setbacks between front or rear of multiple -residential buildings shall be 50 feet or a distance equal to the combined height of the adjacent building faces, whichever is greater. This requirement also applies to situations where a front or rear faces a side. Proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Low Density Flex Residential (LDF) Low Density Flex Residential (LDF) is a special designation for properties within an established neighborhood whose current use may be discontinued or is vacant. The LDF designation would permit the existing use to continue with the understanding that the future use would consist of residential dwellings that are compatible to and complement the character of the surrounding residential uses, while taking into consideration the development opportunities and the constraints of the property. A variety of housing types may be built in LDF areas including single-family detached dwellings, duplexes, twin homes, townhomes, and other types of attached housing at densities of 3-8 units per acre. Compatible zoning in the LDF designation would be R-3 (single-family), R-CL (residential cluster), R-5 (two-family), M-1, M-2, M-3 and M-4 (multiple -family), and PD (planned development) districts. Preferred zoning for a LDF area would be a planned development, which would allow for a more creative and efficient use of the property, flexibility of the distribution of the overall density and the intensity of land uses. Future development within this designation will be subject to the following: • Only single-family and two-family dwelling buildings shall be constructed on parcels directly abutting existing single- or two-family dwellings. • No buildings shall be constructed having more than two stories or a maximum height of greater than 35 feet. • The density of any particular acreage may be increased in areas not directly abutting existing single -and two-family dwellings, so long as the overall designation of the properties do not exceed eight (8) units per acre. • To allow for a more efficient use of property and to protect natural resources within this designation with features such as reduced lot sizes, and flexible building setbacks and roadway widths will be considered as part of a planned development zoning designation. *I ' •e*& seep ITEM: eee Apple PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE Valley SECTION: 6.A. December 2, 2020 Other Business Description: Review of Upcoming Schedule and Other Updates Staff Contact: Department / Division: Tammy Bernatz, Planning Department Assistant Community Development Department ACTION REQUESTED: N/A SUMMARY: Next Planning Commission Meetings: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 - 7:00 p.m. • Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, December 2, 2020 • Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 18, 2020 Wednesday, January 6, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. • Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, December 23, 2020 • Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, December 9, 2020 Next City Council Meetings: • Tuesday, December 22, 2020 - 7:00 p.m. • Thursday, January 14, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. BACKGROUND: N/A BUDGET IMPACT: N/A