Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-7-20 MinutesCITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 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, Ken Alwin*, Tim Burke*, Jodi Kurtz, Paul Scanlan, and David Schindler. Member(s) Absent: Keith Diekmann City staff members attending: City Attorney Sharon Hills, Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Planner Kathy Bodmer*, City Engineer Brandon Anderson*, 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 no changes. MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved, seconded by Commissioner Kurtz, approving the agenda. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays - 0. 3. CONSENT ITEMS MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved, seconded by Commissioner Kurtz, approving the Consent Items of the agenda (minutes of the meeting of September 16, 2020). Roll - call vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays — 0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Summers Ridge of Apple Valley City Planner Tom Lovelace, is requesting consideration of amendments to Planned Development No. 856/Zone 3, replat of Outlot A, Apple Valley East Commercial into Lot 1, Block 1, Apple Valley East Commercial 2nd Addition, and site plan/building permit authorization to allow for a 64-unit high acuity senior care facility on 3.9-acre lot. City Planner presented a PowerPoint A request (submitted) by Rachel Development, Inc. (Applicant) CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2020 Page 2 of 8 Location Map: NE corner of 155th St W & Pilot Knob Rd. Adjacent to Target at the south, fu- ture Orchard Place Commercial Development to west, north is Embry Place Subdivision and part of Apple Valley East family homes, and Primrose day care facility on it's east. Comp Plan Map: Designated for commercial and is consistent with the Commercial designa- tion. Zoning Map: Zoning map calls it out as Zoning Planned Development 856/Zone 3, which in- cludes the Primrose area. What was noticed during the review process of the proposal, is that zone 3 had been left out of the planned development (ordinance); needed to include the permit- ted, conditional, and accessory uses for zone 3 as part of minimum area standards and require- ments (setbacks, building heights, etc) and any special performance standards related to develop- ment for zone 3. A draft of the ordinance is included (in the Agenda Packet). Uses are very limited in zone 3 due to its proximity to developments in the west and south, as well as residential in the north: identified uses included the day care center (which already ex- ists), on -sale liquor and wine in conjunction with a restaurant, Class III restaurant, facility being proposed tonight, offices, banks/credit unions as permitted uses; conditional uses would be Class I restaurants and on -sale liquor in conjunction with a Class I restaurant; and typical permitted accessory uses would be off-street parking, outdoor play areas, temporary buildings needed for construction and outdoor dining areas in conjunction with a restaurant as. Use is limited because of access and proximity to residential area. Site Plan: Reason for limited access is right-in/right-out only off of 155th St. Extension of a pri- vate/common drive w/access, in an agreement with Primrose to gain access to Embry Path. This is just one item to define how the area was to be zoned in this Planned Development Zoning Dis- trict. Applicant will be replatting this outlot into a lot, which includes an already ponding area on the west side (collects water from 155th and Pilot Knob, as well as 154th St); kind of T-shaped, single story, w/64 units for 24-hour, high acuity care. Parking located to the east and sufficient for proposed use. Note: there was discussion at the (Sept 19) meeting with concern about parking along 154th St. Although it was suggested that the proposed side walk to 154th St be removed (to detour parking on the street for entrance into the back of the building), the applicant's architect said that the back door was considered an emer- gency exit and that code required that a sidewalk from the area had to be established and con- nected to a public sidewalk, therefore there would be no recommendation or approval requested. Utility Plan: Basic — the City Engineer has looked at it and worked with the (applicant's) engi- neer and has found no outstanding issues. Grading Plan: There is some movement in the land itself, but the site is flat. A reminder that the land had been a farm for many years, bought by Aggregate Industries for mining sand & gravel, where dirt was moved from what was once the Cobblestone Lake area, by conveyor belt down 160th all the way to Lakeville for processing. The land has been disturbed by both agriculture and sand & gravel mining. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2020 Page 3 of 8 Landscape Plan: A significant landscape plan that will meet minimum requirements set forth in the code. Note: the applicant has done a good job in providing a softening and screening of the building itself, from the residential neighborhood to the north. Foundation Planting Plan: Shows extensive foundation plantings at the main entrance and along the south side. Building Elevations [front]: A good mix of materials; will fit in with the residential component with Primrose, as well as the Dakota County Workforce Housing development farther east and the residential Single Family housing to the north. Building Elevations [back] Building Perspective [back]: View from the southwest, with a residential feel to it. Concern for existing wildlife (list): A concern was raised about the existing wildlife in the area, but this land has been disturbed throughout the years and therefore not conducive to other than transitory wildlife [which will naturally migrate once construction starts]. The mid-2000s has al- ways been expected that this land would be developed. Concern about property values (list): List of what is considered in determining residential property value. Although many of these factors are external to land use planning, sustaining and growing property values is a key outcome of urban planning. Chair Melander: Wouldn't the current value be a reflection of the anticipated future development of this parcel, regardless? Response: Yes and originally (the parcel) was identified as commercial with residential con- struction to the north. Per Forbes Magazine impacts on property value can include the house number, the street name, the amount of Yankee memorabilia, etc. Some discussion followed. Comments concerning long-term care in the City: Statistics on demographics and long-term care in the City. Staff requests to open public hearing. Receive comments. Close public hearing. Staff is recom- mending approval for 3 items. Commissioner Schindler — Under actions requested, in the outline of recommendations, item # 3, will we need to remove (the first bullet), "Removal of the five-foot concrete walk..." Staff Yes. Petitioner — David Stradt is available for questions — he reiterates that the (emergency exit) door on the north side of the building, from the security stand point, will not be an entry point. People will come and go through the front entrance. The door itself would not have any hardware on the outside. As far as a transition from commercial to residential; the petitioner feels that this is as soft as a transition could be in the neighborhood and similar in the architecture to Primrose. Chair Melander invites anyone present to come and speak. Vincent Scholtz (15455 Embry Path/Primrose) — Mr. Scholtz is the owner of Primrose School of Apple Valley and was in front of the Planning Commission five years ago as the Petitioner for CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2020 Page 4 of 8 Primrose. Although he has not had a chance to talk to David or anyone else at Rachel Development, he wanted to say that they are overall happy with the use of this space, considering the other pos- sibilities such as gas stations, auto repair, restaurants, which he considers as worse (than the pro- posed plan). In response to residents' concerns, he considers (Summers Ridge) a better alternative. Some questions — I would like to better understand the water main work that is to be done. How will water main shutoffs (if any) affect Primrose? Legally - running water is required 6am — 6:30pm M-F. So, if there are any shutoffs, it would be preferred they occurred on the weekends or outside their hours of operation. Staff response the City Engineer will be able to respond to that question. What is the anticipated traffic flow through (Primrose's) parking lot? Staff response that answer is not readily available. It would be dependent on the (L fesprk) em- ployees who will be coming and going. You may see the morning (lam) shift coming through the same time as morning drop-offs, but possibly a shift change of 3: 30pm would help to eliminate congestion at pickup times. The mid-night/late-night shift would have no effect. Is this the forum to consider shared maintenance cost such as snow plowing, resealing, etc.? Staff response If approved, that would be something to be considered in the cross -access ease- ment agreement between (Primrose and Rachel Dev.) Concerning construction driving and parking, how will that be enforced (ie: signage)? We would like to minimize construction vehicle parking and cross -traffic use. Staff response the City will work with the developer to ensure that only the right-in/right-out entrance is used during construction. Rachel Development will provide the staging area and park- ing area separate from the shared parking area. Melander asks both Staff and Developer if they believe these conditions can be worked out ami- cably. Response from both Yes Chair Melander asks the Organizer if there is any who wish to speak. Response No MOTION: Commissioner Burke moves to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Commis- sioner Scanlan. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays - 0. Chair Melander: I will close this public hearing (strike gavel). It is the policy of the Planning Commission not to act on an item on the same night as its public hearing, however it seems that all questions from the previous evenings have been answered and there are no outstanding con- cerns, therefore an exception is being made. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2020 Page 5 of 8 MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moves to recommend approval of Planned Development No. 856 Ordinance Amendments, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan. Rollcall vote: Ayes-6—Nays-0. MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moves to recommend approval of the Replat of Outlot A, Apple Valley East Commercial into Lot 1, Block 1, Apple Valley East Commercial 2nd Addition, seconded by Commissioner Schindler. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays -0. MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moves to recommend approval the Site Plan/Building Permit Authorization to Allow for Construction of a 64-unit High Acuity Senior Care Fa- cility on 3.9-acre Lot subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report, excluding the first condition, starting with number two through number eight, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays - 0. 5. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Alvarado Driveway Variance — PC20-15-V Planner Kathy Bodmer, is requesting consideration of a variance from Sect. 155.378 to exceed maximum residential driveway width from 36' to 40' (4' variance). LOCATION: 969 Redwood Drive PETITIONER: Abel Alvarado Bodmer presented information concerning a request from Abel Alvarado variance to expand the width of his driveway from 36' to 40' (a 4' variance) at 969 Redwood Drive. Sect. 155.378 of the City Zoning Code limits the width of a residential driveway to 40% of the lot width up to a maximum of 36'. This regulation applies to the area of the driveway that is out- side of the City boulevard. Mr. Alvarado's lot is 96.14' wide, so he could construct a 36' wide driveway outside of the boulevard. Mr. Alvarado explained to staff that he went to the City to find out what permits would be re- quired. He received conflicting information because his project involved only the portion of the driveway outside of the boulevard. He was told that because he was not making changes to the portion of the driveway within the City boulevard, he did not need a permit. He was not aware that the maximum driveway width outside of the boulevard was 36'. He believed he met the City requirements and did not need a permit. Bodmer stated that the City procedure when a resident requests information for a driveway, is to direct him/her to consult Public Works to see if a driveway permit is required and Planning to confirm maximum driveway width and impervious lot coverage. Bodmer said staff was con- cerned that the Alvarado driveway would be the widest driveway in the neighborhood. The driveway was 26' wide and he could expand it up to 36' wide. Typical parking spaces are 9' wide, so the Alvarado driveway would allow parking 4 vehicles side by side. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2020 Page 6 of 8 Mr Abel Alvarado has been established in another room and joins the Planning Commis- sion virtually. With him are an interpreter and his daughter, Jessica Alvarado. The issue is that he wanted to get a permit to make his driveway bigger on an area with poor grass. He said he tried to get a permit to make his driveway bigger and was told a permit was not needed. He was told that he could make his driveway as wide as he was able. He was told he needed to be 4' away from his neighbor's property. He said that was all he was told. After the completion of the concrete work he received (the Non -Compliance) letter for the City but the work was already completed. That's why there is so much confusion, because he said he did come in to find out if a permit was needed. He said he was never made aware that he needed to see a Planner. So, when he did try to get the permit the told the lady that it was only a little space of property. Unfortunately he did not know the exact measurements which were allowed. He said he was not told that there were minimum measurements. He said even his neighbors don't have a problem with it and wanted to know why he had to go through all this trouble. Jessica noted that it was the neighbors who brought up the idea to request a variance, since the Alvarados were not aware of what a variance was. They came back (to the Municipal Center) and spoke to many people and no one mentioned the limitation on how wide he could make the driveway. Chair Melander asks if there are any question from the commissioners. No. Chair — It is understood that the 4' may have been an oversight, unfortunately, with granting a variance for this situation, is that it invites others to do this same sort of thing — claiming that it was an accident when it was (actually) done on purpose. And people would make driveways way wider than what the ordinance allows. There are folks that would take advantage of such a situa- tion. The concern is setting a precedence. Commissioner Kurtz — was there a specific need for the driveway to be 40' wide? Response I did not actually want to make it 40', but decided to cover up the bad piece of land, not realizing that 40' exceeded the Code for the City, which I now know. That is exactly why I did try to get the permit. I wanted to be sure to do it the right way, but I was told no permit was needed. IfI had known there was a limit, I would have done it that way. Commissioner Burke — concurs with Chair in that approving the variance would set precedence and if the petitioner had waited a couple of days that everything would have been done in compli- ance. Jessica although pictures were taken prior to the cement drying, no one had phoned and/or reached out. CD Director Nordquist — it is procedure to take pictures prior to sending the letter, to verify the complaint, which does take time as the Code Compliance personnel respond to nearly 3,000 com- plaints annually. We don't maintain (owner's) phone numbers, we do have addresses. Code viola- tions are addressed to the property owner. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2020 Page 7 of 8 Commissioner Scanlan (to Kathy) — look @ lot survey, it looks like the addition goes through the drainage easement. Kathy Yes. That is not uncommon, driveways and fences are allowed to be within a drainage and utility easements. Chair Melander (to Legal) requests clarification on approval; pass or fail? Attorney Sharon Hill The request is for a variance and your motion would be to approve or deny. Chair — So if a motion to deny is made, a vote of "yes" is okay? Attorney Yes. If a motion to approve is made, then the person who makes the motion has to de- fine what the practical difficulty is for the variance. MOTION: Commissioner Scan moves to recommend denying the approval the variance that has been outlined by the City report, seconded by Commissioner Kurtz. Rollcall vote: Ayes - 6 — Nays - 0. Legal advised that the (Request for Variance) can move onto City Council, which is to be sched- uled at a future date. 6. OTHER BUSINESS A. Roers Companies Sketch Plan — Village of Founders circle 2°d addition — PC20-14-Misc Bodmer presented information concerning the 4.8-acre parcel on the southwest corner of Galaxie Avenue and Founders Lane owned by the Dakota County CDA. Roers Com- panies was selected by the CDA to develop the property to provide an "active senior (55+)" development with 80% market rate units and 20% affordable units. Roers Com- panies' sketch plan includes a 4-story, 160-unit apartment building with underground parking and 16 townhome units for a total of 176 units on the site. The proposed density of the site would be 36.7 units/acre. B. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates. The next regular Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 21 at 7pm. C. Retirement of Planning Commissioner Ken Alwin — Community Development Director pre- sents Commissioner Alwin with a Certificate of Appreciation CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes October 7, 2020 Page 8 of 8 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, Mari Salamanca, Planning Department Assistant Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commission on 10/21/2020 Tom Melander, Chair