Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/04/2021 Agenda Packet M eeting L ocation: M unicipal C enter 7100 147th S treet West Apple Valley, M innesota 55124 Planning C ommission meetings have resumed at the Municipal C enter and are open to the public with physical distancing restrictions. Attendee procedures and access inf ormation are posted on the C ity's website and include virtual participation opportunities. August 4, 2021 PLA N N IN G C O MMIS SIO N T EN TAT IVE A G EN D A 7:00 P M 1.C all to Order A.Planning C ommissioners will be attending either in-person or virtually. A roll-call will be taken. 2.Approve Agenda 3.Approve C onsent Agenda Items C onsent 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 f or consideration. A.A pprove Minutes of J uly 21, 2021, Regular Meeting. 4.Public Hearings 5.Land Use / Action Items A.Eagle Brook C hurch - PC 21-09-P Z C onsider Zoning Amendment to Add C hurch to the List of Uses in Planned Development No. 646/Zone 1 LO C AT IO N: 14960 Florence Trail P ET IT IO N ER: Eagle Brook C hurch and Menard, Inc. 6.Other Business A.Review of Upcoming Schedule and Other Updates Planning C ommission - Wednesday, August 18, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Planning C ommission - Wednesday, September 1, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. C ity C ouncil - T hursday, A ugust 12, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. C ity C ouncil - T hursday, A ugust 26, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. B.Review and Discussion on Draft Animal Ordinance 7.Adjourn Regular meetings are broadcast, live, on Charter C ommunications C able C hannel 180 and on the C ity's website at www.cityofapplevalley.org I T E M: P L A NNI NG C O MMI S S I O N ME E T I NG D AT E :August 4, 2021 S E C T I O N:S pecial Notification Description: Planning Commi ssion meetings have resumed at the Municipal Center and are open to the public with physi cal distancing restricti ons. Attendee procedures and access information are posted on the Ci ty's website and include virtual participation opportunities. S taff Contact: B reanna Vincent, Department A ssistant D epartment / Division: C ommunity D evelopment Department AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Please let us know you have joined us by either signing at the door or requesting to be an attendee on-line. S UM M ARY: Note: Planning C ommission meetings have resumed at the Municipal C enter and are open to the public with physical distancing restrictions. B AC K G RO UND : N/A B UD G E T I M PAC T: N/A I T E M: 1.A . P L A NNI NG C O MMI S S I O N ME E T I NG D AT E :August 4, 2021 S E C T I O N:Call to O rder Description: P lanning Commissioners will be attending either in-person or virtually. A roll-call will be taken. S taff Contact: B reanna Vincent, Department A ssistant D epartment / Division: C ommunity D evelopment Department AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: N/A S UM M ARY: During the C O VID-19 Pandemic, the C ouncil C hambers in the Apple Valley Municipal Building has been set-up to allow for the Planning C ommissioners 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. B AC K G RO UND : N/A B UD G E T I M PAC T: N/A I T E M: 3.A . P L A NNI NG C O MMI S S I O N ME E T I NG D AT E :August 4, 2021 S E C T I O N:C onsent Agenda Description: A pprove Minutes of J uly 21, 2021, Regular Meeting. S taff Contact: B reanna Vincent, Department A ssistant D epartment / Division: C ommunity D evelopment Department AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: Approve minutes of regular meeting of J uly 21, 2021. S UM M ARY: T he minutes of the last regular Planning C ommission meeting is attached for your review and approval. B AC K G RO UND : State statute requires the creation and preservation of meeting minutes which document the official actions and proceedings of public governing bodies. B UD G E T I M PAC T: N/A AT TAC HM E NT S: Minutes CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 21, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Kurtz at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Jodi Kurtz, Tim Burke*, David Schindler, Paul Scanlan, Keith Deikmann, Philip Mahowald, Becky Sandahl Member(s) Absent: None City staff members attending: Community Develo pment Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, City Planner Kathy Bodmer, City Engineer Brandon Anderson, Water Resource Specialist Samantha Berger, City Attorney Sharon Hills, and Department Assistant Breanna Vincent. * Present Virtually 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Kurtz asked if there were any changes to the agenda – None. MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the agenda. Roll call vote: Ayes - 7 – Nays - 0. 3. CONSENT ITEMS MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the minutes of the meeting of June 16, 2021. Roll call vote: Ayes – 7 – Nays – 0. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Ordinance Amending Residential Impervious Surface Coverage Requirements Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the staff report. Vice Chair Kurtz opened the public hearing. Vice Chair Kurtz asked who would provide the calculations to homeowners when filling out applications. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2021 Page 2 of 6 Planner Bodmer advised that most contractors would do these calculations as well as Natural Resources. Chair Burke agreed with the proposal stating that it was a reasonable request and would allow homeowners to improve their homes. Commissioner Schindler asked what the goal of the additional storm management facility requirement is. City Engineer Anderson advised it would be to help mitigate the increase in storm water that would occur with the additional impervious surface. Planner Bodmer advised that there are a variety of methods that could be used to offset the coverage such as various plantings, cisterns, and pervious pavers. Commissioner Diekmann asked how this would affect Planned Developments. Planner Bodmer advised that this ordinance amendment would apply to the Planned Developments as long as they did not already have an ordinance set in place which would supersede this amendment. Resident Brad Blackett (457 Reflection Road) mentioned that in the application process, a requirement is that the applicant must state their case for the additional impervious coverage. Mr. Blackett asked who would review and make the determination. City Attorney Sharon Hills advised that this requirement is in the ordinance currently and the only change that staff is making is the lot size as to what percent applies. Mr. Blackett asked if a resident in a Planned Development like Cobblestone wanted to go over their impervious surface limit, would they be allowed the 5% increase. City Attorney Hills advised that if the Planned Development has a current ordinance regarding impervious surface, then that would govern. This ordinance amendment would apply to all other developments which do not have restrictions in place. Planner Bodmer commented that Planned Developments typically are not designed so tightly that they cannot make improvements. In the case of Cobblestone, they would not be allowed the 5% increase, but could request a variance if needed. Mr. Blackett expressed concern over allowing impervious surfaces to increase and how this may affect the current protections in place for our water. Vice Chair Kurtz asked if there were any other questions – None. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2021 Page 3 of 6 With no further questions, Vice Chair Kurtz closed the public hearing. It is the policy of the Planning Commission to not act on an item on the night of its public hearing, though the Planning Commission is recommending approval. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler to consider Ordinance amending Sect. 155.350 (C) and (D) concerning residential impervious surface coverage. Roll call vote: Ayes - 7 – Nays - 0. 5. LAND USE A. Eagle Pointe Planner Tom Lovelace presented the staff report. Chair Burke commented on the proposed plan and applauded the work done by Planner Lovelace, the developer, and the City Engineer. He mentioned that the new plan appears to provide a solution to the storm water management issues currently on the site. Commissioner Scanlan asked if condition number six in the staff report should have the words “shall include” instead of “should include”. Planner Lovelace advised yes. Commissioner Schindler asked if the pathway going between the two sides of the development will be a bike pathway or will vehicles be able to pass through as well? Planner Lovelace advised that it is a private trail and is not open to the public. Only residents and Apple Valley staff providing maintenance for the ponding areas will be able to access that pathway. Commissioner Schindler commented that this plan was a great improvement from where the plans started several years ago. Planner Lovelace mentioned that the developer was able to confine the development into a smaller area to keep 60-70% of green open space on the site. Commissioner Mahowald commented that the Wildwood Development nearby has a higher density than the proposed project though traffic did not seem to be a concern and Commissioner Mahowald believes it will not be a concern for Eagle Pointe either. Vice Chair Kurtz asked if the dry pond will have a buffer. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2021 Page 4 of 6 City Engineer Brandon Anderson advised that it would have a buffer though it would not be the same as the buffer around the other ponding areas. The dry pond is designed to act as a backflow. MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann to recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Roll call vote: Ayes - 7 – Nays - 0. MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann to recommend approval of the site plan/building permit authorization to allow for 27 detached villa homes and 49 townhome dwelling units subject to the following conditions. Roll call vote: Ayes - 7 - Nays - 0. 6. OTHER BUSINESS A. Orchard Place Commercial Phase II Sketch Plan Planner Tom Lovelace presented the staff report. Developer Chris Moe with HJ Development provided additional information regarding the proposal. Broker Russ McGinty with Rockport provided additional information regarding the site plan. Chair Burke asked if we ended up going with 329 parking spaces, would the square feet of the addition be limited. Planner Lovelace advised that would be the case. He mentioned that our parking is more restrictive than other communities and it may be necessary to adjust those requirements in the future. B. Buller Property Single Family Sketch Plan Planner Kathy Bodmer presented the staff report. Mark Sonstegard with JMH Land provided additional information regarding the plan. Vice Chair Kurtz commented that the preservation of the trees is a great improvement. Vice Chair Kurtz asked if the lot sizes are comparable to the lots currently around Farquar Lake. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2021 Page 5 of 6 Mr. Sonstegard said he believes the lot sizes are varied around Farquar Lake with some being much larger and some smaller. Chair Burke asked about a comment in the staff report regarding Dakota County possibly restricting one of the access points to the site at a later date and asked whether this was typical. City Engineer Anderson advised that it does occur though it is not common. Dakota County is reviewing various aspects of Diamond Path. Chair Burke commented that he hopes the potential homeowners would be made aware of this possibility prior to purchasing one of these homes. Commissioner Scanlan asked if it would be a single builder for all of the homes. Mr. Sonstegard stated that one builder would be the intent. Commissioner Scanlan asked what lake access to each lot would be. Mr. Sonstegard advised that the lots would have access to the lake though there is a challenge for three of the homes as they have a wetland on the property and homeowners would need to work with the City with establishing lake access through use of a boardwalk. C. Review of Upcoming Schedule and Other Updates The next Planning Commission meeting is Wednesday, August 4, 2021, 7:00 p.m. The next City Council meeting is Thursday, July 22, 2021, 7:00 p.m. 7. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Vice Chair Kurtz asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, to adjourn the meeting at 8:34 p.m. Roll call vote: Ayes – 7 – Nays – 0. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2021 Page 6 of 6 Respectfully submitted, ______________________________________ Breanna Vincent, Planning Department Assistant Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commission on 8/04/2021 . Jodi Kurtz, Vice Chair I T E M: 5.A . P L A NNI NG C O MMI S S I O N ME E T I NG D AT E :August 4, 2021 S E C T I O N:L and Use / A ction I tems Description: E agle B rook C hurch - P C21-09-P Z Consider Z oning Amendment to A dd Church to the L ist of Uses in P lanned D evelopment No. 646/Zone 1 S taff Contact: T homas L ovelace, City P lanner D epartment / Division: C ommunity D evelopment Department Applicant: E agle Brook Church and Menard, I nc. P roject Number: P C21-09-P Z Applicant Date: 3/22/2021 60 Days: 5/21/2021 120 Days: AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: If the Planning C ommission concurs staff is recommending the following action; 1. Recommend approval of a zoning amendment to allow for a church use as a permitted use in zone 1 of Planned Development No. 646. S UM M ARY: Eagle Brook C hurch and Menard, Inc. originally submitted a request for the following: 1. Comprehensive Plan re-designation of the 13.86 parcel from "C " (Commercial) to "IN S" (Institutional); and 2. Zoning amendment to allow for a church use as a permitted use in zone 1 of Planned Development No. 646. T he property is currently designated "C " (C ommercial). T his designation is intended for a wide variety of retail, office, and service uses. C ompatible zoning districts would be Limited Business, and Neighborhood C ommercial. Higher-intensity districts include General Business and Retail. Religious centers are permitted uses in Limited Business zoning district and religious facilities are permitted in the Retail Business zoning district. T herefore, a C omprehensive Plan re-designation of the property is not required. T he property is located at 14960 Florence Trail and is the former Menard's building supply store. T he applicant is proposing to remove a portion of the existing building and will add parking in the former outdoor yard area, north and east of the building. No detailed plans have been submitted as part of this request. However, the applicant has submitted two preliminary concepts for the site. T hese concepts show a reduction in the size of the existing structure and the establishment of the main entrance to the building via a driveway off Flagstaff Avenue. T he plans show the current access of Florence Trail remaining, as well as the the two access drives to the Sam's Club property to the west. Redevelopment of site as shown on the concept plans will require review by the Planning Commission and consideration by the C ity C ouncil. Any redevelopment review shall be subject to an amendment to the "PD-646/zone1". T he Planning C ommission held a public hearing for this request on A pril, 21, 2021. No comments from the public were received the night of the meeting. A letter, which is attached with this report, was submitted and read into the record. T he letter writer expressed her desire to see the area developed into either low-income housing or a homeless shelter. B AC K G RO UND : Comprehensiv e P lan: T he C ity's 2040 C omprehensive Plan currently designates the property "C " (C ommercial). T he C ommercial designation includes a wide variety of retail, office, and service uses that vary in intensity and off-site impacts. T he C ity uses the zoning ordinance to regulate the intensity and characteristics of development. Lower-intensity commercial districts include Limited Business, Neighborhood C ommercial, General Business and Retail. Religious centers are permitted uses in Limited Business zoning district and religious facilities are permitted in the Retail Business zoning district. T herefore, a Comprehensive Plan re-designation is not necessary. Zoning: T he property is currently zoned "PD-646/zone 1" ( Planned Development). Uses allowed within this zone include a variety of retail uses. T he petitioner is requesting that a church be added as a permitted use within zone 1 of this planned development zoning district. Churches are currently listed as permitted uses in the "P" (Institutional) and "LB", "LB-1" (Limited Business), "RB" (Retail Business) and "PD-341/zone 5 zoning districts; and as a conditional use in the "BP" (Business Park) zoning and "I-1" (Limited Industrial) zoning districts. Accesses and C irculation: T he site currently has 510 parking spaces in the front of the building. T he submitted concept plans indicate approximately 175 spaces in the front of the building, with Option 1 showing 425 new spaces along the east and north side of the site and Option 2 showing 375 spaces along the east and north side of the site. Per the request of the C ity, the applicant has prepared a traffic impact study. T he study's conclusions and recommendations are included in Section 7.0 on pages 7-1 and 7-2. T he 152-page appendix, which contains traffic volume tables, level of service tables, level of service worksheets, and turn lane design worksheets is not included with this report. T hat information can be provided upon request. T he C ity's traffic consultant and Engineer have reviewed the traffic study and their comments are included in the attached memo. T he proposed traffic mitigation should adequately address any potential changes in traffic generated by the proposed change in use. T hese mitigation measures include the following changes to the proposed access on Flagstaff Avenue: Provide two exiting lanes and one entering lane Add a northbound left-turn lane on Flagstaff Avenue Add a southbound right-turn lane B UD G E T I M PAC T: N/A AT TAC HM E NT S: L etter Applicant L etter Background Material Memo Area Map Map Map Plan S et Anita Burke 13966 Eveleth Ct Apple Valley, MN 55124 April 20, 2021 Planning Commission Members Apple Valley Municipal Center 7100 147th St. W. Apple Valley, MN 55124 Planning Commission Members, I am unable to attend the April 21, 2021 planning commission meeting due to a prior commitment but would like to give my input regarding the public hearing on proposed amendments to the Apple Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Map and Planned Development No. 646. related to the Menard, Inc property. I am against changing the land use from commercial to institutional in order to allow a church to occupy the Menard, Inc property. Eagle Brook Church is a mega church that has many campuses. I do not think that the large amount of traffic that would be generated on Sunday mornings would be appropriate for that area of the city. The property is not directly connected to a large thoroughfare and would clog the adjacent streets before and after services. The attendants would not necessarily live in Apple Valley and would not necessarily add to the economy of Apple Valley. Apple Valley is already home to three large churches and several smaller ones, and there is no pressing need for another church in the city. I would rather see the area developed into either low-income housing or a homeless shelter. In the 2040 Comp Plan Chapter 3 titled Community Context on pages 3-32 and 3-33 one of the potential plan considerations listed is to “reduce in-commuting of the lower wage workforce by expanding housing options and other pathways to increasing housing affordability.” Another consideration listed is to “consider housing proximity to below-average wage industries in order to retain and grow this workforce in Apple Valley and support associated industries.” The Menard, Inc property in question would be a prime spot for lower wage earners to live as those earners would be within walking distance to businesses that provide those lower wage jobs. Apple Valley is long overdue in addressing the very real need for low-income housing that spans beyond the two manufactured home parks, which are both far from employment opportunities in Apple Valley. There are few options available to homeless individuals and families within Dakota County. If the property were to be transformed into a homeless shelter, it would provide easy access to transportation services and employment opportunities for those living in the shelter. Either of these two groups of people would also be close to emergency, health, and government services. Sincerely, Anita Burke M E M O R A N D U M TO: City of Apple Valley FROM: Mark Hennessey, Eagle Brook Church DATE: March 17, 2021 RE: Narrative Description of EBC’s Apple Valley Land Use Application Requests Eagle Brook Church (EBC) is a multi-site church that uses video to broadcast messages presented live at our Lino Lakes Campus to attenders gathered at EBC’s other satellite campuses. Currently, EBC is using Lakeville South High School as a temporary South Metro satellite campus until a long-term location is obtained. EBC believes that the former Menards store at 14960 Florence Trail in Apple Valley (Property ID: 01-26900-03-010) (the Property) is an ideal location for a permanent South Metro Campus. The Property is currently owned by Menards and EBC has signed a Purchase Agreement to buy the Property, contingent on land use approvals from the City. Through this application, EBC requests amendment(s) to the City of Apple Valley’s Comprehensive Plan (Plan) and Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance) necessary to allow EBC to use the Property for collective religious assembly. The Property is currently zoned PD-646, Zone 1. Currently, the Plan guides the Property “Commercial” and includes it in the City’s “Downtown Core.” The Ordinance now allows “theater (except open air drive-in),” “club lodge or convention center,” and restaurant uses in Zone 1 of PD-646, among other uses similar to EBC’s proposed use. Similarly, the Plan allows public/institutional/assembly uses in the Downtown Core and the plan anticipates “site transformations” of former big-box locations, “including reduced store footprints, adaptive reuse, or infill development as the retail market adapts to changing consumer preferences” at the Property and other properties in the Downtown Core. EBC anticipates that our use requires an amendment to the permitted uses allowed in PD-646, Zone 1 and, potentially, an amendment to the Plan’s future land use map to guide the Property “Public and Institutional.” Because of this, EBC requests that the City: (1)add “church” to the list of permitted uses in Zone 1 of PD-646 at Article 24, Section A24-2(A)(1) of the Ordinance; and (2)amend the Plan to guide the Property “Public and Institutional.” City of Apple Valley  March 17, 2021  Page 2        There are other options to rezone the Property and/or amend the Plan or Ordinance that would allow EBC’s proposed use of the Property for religious assembly and worship. EBC supports any City action or amendment that will allow EBC’s proposed use of the Property on equitable terms as the other assembly and institutional uses allowed in PD-646, Zone 1 and the Downtown Core. Additional information regarding EBC’s proposed use of the Property and renovations to the building is enclosed. We look forward to working with you and are available to provide any information that may be necessary for the City’s review and approval. SOUTH METRO CAMPUS | APPLE VALLEY AREA MAP N USE Eagle Brook (EBC) is a multi-site church that uses video to broadcast messages presented live at our Lino Lakes Campus to attenders gathered at satellite campuses around the Twin Cities metro area. EBC is currently hosting services at Lakeville South High School on Sundays at what we consider a temporary “mobile” site. Our proposed location in Apple Valley will become a permanent church location for EBC’s South Metro Campus. The Campus is planned to include approximately 1,000 seats in a Worship Auditorium, a spacious Lobby with a Café, an administrative area for church staff, and a secure Children’s ministry classroom area. EBC holds church services on Saturday evenings and Sunday mornings. Some campuses hold evening services on Sundays. These services are typically an hour in length. On Wednesday evenings, Eagle Brook hosts student ministry for junior high and senior high students. EBC staff will work in the building on weekdays, and we will host meetings at other times during the week. Attendance at these weekday events is significantly lower than weekend Worship attendance. LOCATION The former Menards property in Apple Valley is an ideal location for EBC’s South Metro campus. The property is central to our regular attenders connected to significant thoroughfares allowing access from all directions. Because our weekly worship services are held at off-peak business hours, EBC’s traffic will be complementary to Sam’s Club and other neighboring properties. Our traffic is much like a movie theater and brings additional customers to restaurants and other businesses that remain open outside of the normal hours for heavier business traffic. SOUTH METRO CAMPUS | APPLE VALLEY ANOKA CAMPUS ANOKA CAMPUS EBC’s proposed South Metro Campus will be similar to our Anoka Campus. In 2016, EBC re-purposed an abandoned K-Mart into one of our most attractive sites. We demolished a portion of the front of the original structure to create a welcoming entry plaza and added a new front wall with glass looking into the Lobby. Our Anoka Campus is similar in size to the planned South Metro Campus with 1,000 seats and approximately 650 parking spaces. BEFORE AFTER SOUTH METRO CAMPUS | APPLE VALLEY FIT PLAN REPURPOSE APPROX 80,000sf 225+ CARS 425+ CARS PLAZA BUILDING Similar to Anoka, EBC’s current plan for our South Metro Campus plan would remove approximately half of the existing building’s square footage, leaving around 80,000 square feet to accommodate approximately 1,000 seats in a Worship Auditorium. The campus would also include a generous lobby where guests can relax, connect, and grab coffee at EBC’s Café. A secure children’s ministry wing will provide age-appropriate programming for kids from birth to fifth grade concurrent with EBC’s worship services attended by parents. SITE AND LANDSCAPING Removing a portion of the existing building will create a generous pad for a welcoming entry plaza. This initial diagram shows EBCS plan for an 80-foot- deep plaza stretching 450 feet across the south side of the building. Most of this area will be landscaped, but it will also incorporate outdoor sitting areas and hardscape to enable people to be dropped off and transition to and from vehicles. The property currently has ample parking under City ordinances, but EBC intends to add additional space even though we are not required. The property also has ample room for a service road around parking for circulation and to accommodate periods of increased traffic. Our current plan would provide for 650 or more parking spaces for EBC’s preferred ratio of parking to worship seats based on guests’ convenience and Eagle Brook’s experience at other campuses. N Review Summary www.srfconsulting.com 3701 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 100 | Minneapolis, MN 55416-3791 | 763.475.0010 Fax: 1.866.440.6364 An Equal Opportunity Employer SRF No. 14868.00 To: Brandon Anderson, PE, City Engineer City of Apple Valley From: Tom Sachi, PE, Associate Brent Clark, PE, Senior Engineer Date: July 28, 2021 Subject: Review of Traffic Impact Study for Apple Valley Eagle Brook Church Introduction As requested, SRF has completed a review of the Traffic Impact Study – Apple Valley Eagle Brook Church document, dated July 23, 2021 completed by Stantec Consulting Services. The proposed development is located in the northwest quadrant of the Flagstaff Avenue and Florence Trail intersection in the City of Apple Valley. A review of the memorandum identified the following questions and comments for consideration. Review Summary Based on our review, the following items were identified: Site Trip Generation/Distribution 1. The data collected at an existing Eagle Brook Church for entering/exiting percentages appear reasonable based on SRF’s historical data collection efforts at other churches. 2. The vehicle occupancy data provided by the church appears reasonable. The attendance projections represent a conservative estimate (approximately 1,000 attendees during peak service) 3. The peak hour trip generation using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition is accurate for the previous land use. Note that the Menards trip generation (previous land use) is only based on four (4) studies. 4. The time of day trip generation reductions for the previous land use are accurate. 5. The directional distribution percentages are reasonable for the previous land use and the approach for the proposed land use is accurate. 6. The volume routing appears to be accurate. An assumption of 10 percent of church attendees entering/exiting for the Sam’s Club parking lot appears to the accurate. 7. The proposed land use is expected to generate an additional 119 trips during the 8:15 to 9:15 a.m. peak hour, 205 trips during the 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. peak hour, and 591 fewer trips during the 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. peak hour. 8. The background growth rate of two (2) percent is consistent with historical rates. Review of Traffic Impact Study for Apple Valley Eagle Brook Church July 28, 2021 Page 2 Traffic Impact Analysis 9. PHF values were updated accordingly for the entering/exiting movements associated with the development. a. 8:15 to 9:15 a.m. – 0.46 for entering trips b. 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. – 0.34 for entering trips, 0.54 for exiting trips c. 12:00 to 1:00 p.m. – 0.48 for exiting trips 10. The traffic operations analysis results from the Highway Capacity Manual appear to be accurate with the updated PHF information. 11. The queues identified in the analysis results are provided from a SimTraffic queuing report and appear to be accurate. Conclusions and Recommendations 12. A review of the proposed site plan geometrics indicate the recommendation of a southbound right-turn lane along Flagstaff Avenue at the main access location in both site plan scenarios. This is determined to be safety benefit for the peak entering volumes. 13. The other proposed geometrics appear to be adequate with the updated traffic analysis information. i. For Option B1, adequate No Turn and Do Not Enter signing will be necessary to prohibit motorists from entering the site at both access driveways. However, a median may not be feasible to allow for vehicles to exit the driveway via left-turns. Additionally, Option B1 would likely require exiting vehicles to exit through the newly developed northbound left- turn lane, which can present safety issues. 14. The turn lane design along Flagstaff Avenue information appears to be accurate based on the 95th percentile queueing results and the LRRB Turn Lane Design Criteria presented in the report. 15. The internal queues (max 95th queue identified was approximately 150 feet) as a result of the proposed development should be noted to prohibit access from drive aisles during peak exiting times. This could be further resolved within the future operations plan for the Church. AREA MAP N SOUTH METRO 3.2021038.00 | JULY 28, 2021 N 175 Cars 200 Cars 100 Cars SOUTH METRO | OPTION 1 SITE PLAN 3 Hour Fire Wall26,000 sf 40,000 sf 3 Hour Fire Wall 3.2021038.00 | JULY 28, 2021 125 Cars Adjacency to Sam's Club requires Firewall in EBCRotation makes a clear "Front Door"Need to relocate electrical & water serviceContinues the "Anoka" lookThis Option has 330 lf of "new wall"NOTABLE CHARACTERISTICS SOUTH METRO | OPTION 1 SITE CONCEPT AERIAL 3.2021038.00 | JULY 28, 2021 Adjacency to Sam's Club requires Firewall in EBCRotation makes a clear "Front Door"Need to relocate electrical & water serviceContinues the "Anoka" lookThis Option has 330 lf of "new wall"NOTABLE CHARACTERISTICS N 175 Cars 175 Cars 120 Cars SOUTH METRO | OPTION 2 SITE PLAN 66,000 sf 3.2021038.00 | JULY 28, 2021 80 Cars Adjacency to Sam's Club requires Firewall in EBCRotation makes a clear "Front Door"Need to relocate electrical & water serviceContinues the "Anoka" lookThis Option has 330 lf of "new wall"NOTABLE CHARACTERISTICS SERVICE / OUTDOOR STORAGE SOUTH METRO | OPTION 2 SITE CONCEPT AERIAL 3.2021038.00 | JULY 28, 2021 Adjacency to Sam's Club requires Firewall in EBCRotation makes a clear "Front Door"Need to relocate electrical & water serviceContinues the "Anoka" lookThis Option has 330 lf of "new wall"NOTABLE CHARACTERISTICS I T E M: 6.A . P L A NNI NG C O MMI S S I O N ME E T I NG D AT E :August 4, 2021 S E C T I O N:Other B usiness Description: Review of Upcoming Schedule and Other Updates S taff Contact: B reanna Vincent, Department A ssistant D epartment / Division: C ommunity D evelopment Department AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: N/A S UM M ARY: Next P lanning Commission Meetings: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, J uly 21, 2021. Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 4, 2021. Wednesday, September 1, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 4, 2021. Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 18, 2021. Next City C ouncil Meetings: T hursday, August 12 , 2021 - 7:00 p.m. T hursday, August 26, 2021 - 7:00 p.m. B AC K G RO UND : N/A B UD G E T I M PAC T: N/A I T E M: 6.B . P L A NNI NG C O MMI S S I O N ME E T I NG D AT E :August 4, 2021 S E C T I O N:Other B usiness Description: Review and D iscussion on Draft A nimal O rdinance S taff Contact: A lex Sharpe, P lanning and E conomic Dev. S pec. D epartment / Division: C ommunity D evelopment Department AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D: No action is requested. T he Commission is asked to review and discuss the land use aspects of the draft animal ordinance S UM M ARY: T he Urban Affairs Advisory Committee (UA A C) was directed by the City Council to research and develop a draft animal ordinance regarding backyard chickens in D ecember of 2020. UA A C began their work in February 2021 with a presentation from a community advocate representing a petition of 350 supporting residents and a University of Minnesota Extension Services staff member detailing other city's ordinances and best practices. At the last UA A C meeting on J uly 27th the C ommittee reviewed a draft ordinance based on their direction. A public hearing is scheduled for August 24, 2021 with the Urban Affairs Advisory C ommittee. T he ordinance, which is attached to this report, has 9 primary topics outlined below. O f interest to the Planning Commission, to the benefit of the UA A C review, is any feedback on land use aspects; residential zoning districts permitted, setbacks as presented, and the coop/run as an alternate accessory dwelling. Where would chickens be permitted - Permitted to be kept in all single-family zones. T here remains members that have expressed that chickens should remain an agricultural animal as defined by the current ordinance. The draf t ordinance allows chickens to be kept in Institutional f or school educational purposes, and all single-f amily zones, this includes R-1, R-2, R-3, Residential C luster, and Planned Developments with single-f amily. Should roosters be prohibited - T he the keeping of roosters should be prohibited. The draf t ordinance prohibits roosters, which is consistent with all surrounding communities. T he total number of chickens/hens permitted on a single-family lot - T he keeping of four or five hens are proposed to be permitted as a best practice. Additionally, chicks were sought to be permitted on Institutional properties for the purpose of education. The draf t ordinance allows f or five hens on single f amily property and chicks to be kept f or education purposes on Institutionally zoned properties. Additionally, chicks are def ined as a chicken aged 0-4 weeks, which is consistent with the University of Minnesota, and neighboring C ity def initions. Butchering - permitted or prohibited? - The draf t ordinance prohibits butchering. This is consistent with surrounding communities. Permitting requirements - A permit is required, and does not require neighbors permission. The draf t requires a permit, which is renewed biannually with a f ee required f or the first application. Subsequent bi-annual renewals will be f ree. This allows the C ity to better monitor location and total number of coops. This also allows f or the C ity to monitor f or removal of the coop if it is no longer in use, which is required by the draf t ordinance. An educational requirement or certif icate is not a condition of approval, but will be advised. Application materials, best practices, and guiding management and care tips will be of f ered on the C ity website. The permit requires a site plan that details setbacks, size, and location of neighboring structures to ensure compliance. Additionally, building materials are required to meet all other accessory structure standards, which prohibits less prof essional materials. Photos will establish a record of the location and materials. Setbacks - T here is a general consensus on the required setbacks. Each of these is detailed below. Front yard - Not permitted Rear yard from lot line- 10' Side yard from lot line - 10' C oop/run must be closer to subject property dwelling than to neighboring properties dwelling Chicken coop size and materials - A coop/run will be considered an alternative accessory structure. The draf t code requires a coop to have 5 sq. f t. per chicken and 10 sq. f t. f or each chicken in the run with a maximum size of 100 sq. f t. Building materials must be consistent with other accessory structures and be "prof essionally constructed or out of similar standards and materials". The code requires the run to have a f ull roof as this was advised by the University of Minnesota Extension Services staff . The draf t code considers coops as accessory structures. C ode allows two accessory structures per lot. Coop waste - Regular cleaning is sought and coop waste is not be permitted to be composted on site. The draf t ordinance requires the coop to be kept in a clean manner and that all waste be disposed of through a licensed hauler. Food Storage - T he C ity Attorney was able to create code consistent with other cities and other sections of C ity Ordinance in accordance with the keeping of animal feed. T he draft code requires that feed be stored in metal, water-tight, rodent resistant containers which is consistent with neighboring cities and Apple Valley ordinance regarding animal feed. B AC K G RO UND : N/A B UD G E T I M PAC T: N/A AT TAC HM E NT S: Ordinance 1 CITY OF APPLE VALLEY ORDINANCE NO. _________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA, REVISING CHAPTER 91 OF THE CITY CODE REGULATING ANIMALS BY ESTABLISHING PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS WITHIN THE CITY The City Council of Apple Valley ordains: Section 1. Chapter 91 of the Apple Valley City Code is amended by adding to Section 91.01 the following definitions to be alphabetized with the existing definitions and to read as follows: § 91.01 DEFINITIONS. * * * * CHICK. A chicken between the age of 0 to 4 weeks. CHICKEN. Fowl of the genus Gallus and species Gallus domesticus that is commonly referred to as domesticated fowl. CHICKEN COOP. Any structure used for the housing of chickens. CHICKEN RUN. A outdoor area for the keeping and exercising of chickens. ROOSTER. A male chicken. Section 2. Chapter 91 of the Apple Valley City Code is amended by revising Section 91.06(D)(1) to read as follows: § 91.06 ANIMALS WITHIN CITY LIMITS. * * * * (D) Keeping of certain animals prohibited. (1) Prohibited animals. No person shall keep, maintain or harbor within the city any of the following animals: (a) Any animal or species prohibited by Minnesota or federal law. (b) Farm poultry or farm animal, except in the following cases: 2 1. Farm poultry or farm animals may be kept on property zoned for agricultural uses. 2. Horses may be kept on property zoned R-1 Single Family Residential (minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft.). 3. Chickens when kept in compliance with this chapter. Section 3. Chapter 91 of the Apple Valley City Code is amended by adding Section 91.07 to read as follows: § 91.07 KEEPING OF CHICKENS. (A) Chicken permit required. It is unlawful for any person to keep, harbor, maintain, possess, or otherwise control any chicken within the city, except: (1) On property zoned for agricultural uses (A); (2) A chick kept for educational purposes on property zoned for institutional uses (P); or (3) Pursuant to a permit issued by the city under this subdivision on a property zoned R-1, R-2, or R-3, or on a property designated for one family detached dwelling within a planned development. (B) Permit application and fees. An application for a permit hereunder shall be filed with the Community Development Director or his/her designee upon an application form furnished by the city. The permit fee, which shall be paid and filed with the permit application, shall be in an amount established by City Council resolution. A permit issued hereunder shall be for the duration of two years from the date of issuance. The initial permit application shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) The full name and address of the following persons: (a) The applicant signed thereto; and (b) The owner(s) of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply. (2) The street address of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept. (3) The number of chickens sought to be kept on the premises up to a maximum of five. (4) A detailed sketch plan of the premises on which chickens are sought to be kept. The sketch plan shall include: the location of the residence on the premises; the location of accessory structures on the premises; and the location, dimensions, and design of the chicken coop and chicken run and setbacks to the side and rear property lines. The information regarding 3 the coop and run shall establish compliance with the chicken coop and chicken run specifications provided in this subdivision. (5) A statement certifying whether the property's homeowners' association rules, if any, prohibit the keeping of chickens on the property for which the application is sought. (6) If the applicant is not the fee owner of the premises on which the chickens are sought to be kept and for which the permit would apply, the application shall be signed by all fee owners of the premises. (7) Any other and further information the city deems necessary. (C) Permit renewal application. At least 30 days prior to the expiration of the current permit, the applicant shall file with the Community Development Director or his/her designee on a form prepared by the city an application for permit renewal. There shall not be a fee for a timely filed application for permit renewal. The renewal permit application shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (1) The number of chickens the applicant currently maintains on the property; (2) Confirmation that the chicken coop and chicken run remain in the same location on the premises. If the applicant seeks to move the location of the structure, the applicant shall file an initial permit application and pay the permit fee therefor; and (3) Any other and further information the city deems necessary. (D) Granting or denying issuance of permit. The Community Development Director or his/her designee may grant an initial or renewal permit under this subdivision; however, a permit may not be issued or renewed unless the application filed demonstrates compliance with the requirements of this subdivision. A permit shall not be issued or renewed until the city inspects and approve the premises, including the chicken coop and chicken run, at which chickens are sought to be kept. At the city’s discretion, the inspection may occur through the review of documentation and photos specified by the city. The Community Development Director or his/her designee shall deny a permit hereunder for any of the following reasons: (1) The application is incomplete or contains false, fraudulent or deceptive statements. (2) The applicant does not or has not complied with one or more of the provisions of this subdivision. (3) The premises for which the permit is sought, including, but not limited to, the proposed or existing chicken coop or chicken run, is not in compliance with any provisions of this subdivision, other City Code provisions or state laws relating to zoning, health, fire, building or safety. (4) The proposed chicken coop or chicken run would result in a violation of or be inconsistent with the accessory structure zoning regulations elsewhere in this Code. 4 (5) The applicant or owner of the premises where the chickens are to be kept has been convicted of a violation under this subdivision or a similar regulation of this state or political subdivision thereof. (6) The applicant does not own or lease the chickens proposed to be kept on the premises. (7) The applicant is not the occupant of the premises for which the permit is sought to be issued. (E) Conditions of permit. A permit granted under this subdivision shall be subject to the following conditions: (1) Occupancy. The owner of the chickens must occupy the premises for which the permit is issued; (2) Inspection. The premises, including the chicken coop and chicken run thereon, for which a permit is issued shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection by the Community Development Director or his/her designee or any other city official to determine compliance with this subdivision, other City Code provisions and state laws relating to zoning, health, fire, building or safety; (3) Transferability of permit. A permit issued hereunder shall be nontransferable. It is unlawful to keep, harbor, maintain, possess, or otherwise control any chicken on property that is not identified on the permit. (4) Specifications for chicken feed. All feed for the chickens shall be stored in metal, water-tight, vermin-proof containers with properly fitting lids. (5) Specifications of chicken coop and chicken run. A chicken coop and chicken run are required. The construction and location of the chicken coop and chicken run shall be in compliance with the applicable building and zoning regulations of the city and the following requirements: (a) The interior floor space of the chicken coop shall be a minimum size of five square feet for each chicken authorized under the permit. (b) The chicken coop and chicken run shall be professionally constructed or of similar construction standards and materials. The exterior finish materials of the chicken coop shall be: (i) weather-resistant, protective covering material, decay-resistant wood, or if exterior finish wood is not decay resistant, then the wood finish shall be protected from the elements and decay by paint or protective covering (e.g., siding, fascia wrap); and (ii) in accordance with the accessory structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations in this Code. (c) The construction of and materials used for the chicken coop and chicken run must be adequate to prevent access by rodents. 5 (d) The chicken run shall be attached to the chicken coop. The chicken coop and run shall be deemed as a single accessory structure and subject to the accessory structure regulations set forth in the zoning regulations of this Code. (e) The floor area of the chicken run shall be a minimum size of ten square feet for each chicken authorized under the permit. (f) The total square footage of the chicken coop and chicken run shall not exceed 100 square feet. (g) The chicken run shall be fully enclosed by fencing or other similar material and may include a roof instead of fencing over the top of the run. (h) The chicken coop and chicken run shall be located on the premises in compliance with the following setbacks: (i) at least ten feet from the rear lot line; (ii) at least ten feet from the side lot lines; (iii) the chicken coop and chicken run shall be closer to the residence on the permitted property than an inhabitable building on a neighboring property. (i) The chicken coop and chicken run, or any portion thereof, shall not be located in the front yard, which is defined as any area located between the front lot line and the front setback line or front building line, whichever is further from the front lot line, running from side lot line to side lot line. (j) The chicken coop and chicken run shall be kept in good repair as to be in compliance with the property maintenance regulations elsewhere in this Code. (k) The chicken coop and chicken run shall be kept in a sanitary and odor-free condition, including the regular and frequent removal and proper disposal of any accumulated chicken feces or waste, dirt or filth that could create a safety or health hazard. Composting of chicken feces and waste is prohibited. (l) The chicken coop and chicken run shall be immediately removed when: (i) a permit granted under this subdivision expires or is revoked; or (ii) when the chicken coop and chicken run are no longer used for harboring chickens. (m) Supplying electricity to the chicken coop or chicken run by extension cord is not permitted. A separate electrical permit shall be required to install a supply of electricity to the chicken coop or chicken run. (6) Regulations. The keeping, harboring, maintaining, or possessing of any chicken under a permit issued pursuant to this subdivision shall be in accordance with the following: (a) No more than five chickens shall be kept or harbored on the premises to which the permit applies. (b) Roosters are prohibited. 6 (c) Slaughtering of chickens on any property zoned for residential or institutional use is prohibited. (d) No chickens shall be kept, maintained, housed or permitted inside any residential dwelling or any garage. (e) Chickens shall be kept in the chicken coop or chicken run at all times. When transferring a chicken into or out of the coop or run, the chicken shall be transported in a fully enclosed container such as a cage. (f) Chickens shall not be kept in such a manner as to constitute a public nuisance. Any violation of the provisions of this subdivision shall be deemed a public nuisance. (g) No chicken eggs shall be sold or offered for sale; all chicken eggs shall be for personal use or consumption. (7) Revocation of permit. A violation of any provision of this subdivision or any provisions of the permit issued hereunder shall constitute grounds for revocation of a permit. Section 4. Summary approved. The City Council hereby determines that the text of the summary marked "Official Summary of Ordinance No. _____” a copy of which is attached hereto clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. The City Council further determines that publication of the title and such summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. Section 5. Filing. A copy of the ordinance shall be filed in the office of the City Clerk. This copy shall be available for inspection by any persons during regular office hours. Section 6. Publication. The City Clerk shall publish the title of this ordinance and the official summary in the official newspaper of the City with notice that a printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the Office of the City Clerk. Section 7. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and the publication of its title and the official summary. 7 PASSED by the City Council this ____ day of ________, 2021. Clint Hooppaw, Mayor ATTEST: Pamela J. Gackstetter, City Clerk 8 CITY OF APPLE VALLEY ORDINANCE NO. _____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA, REVISING CHAPTER 91 OF THE CITY CODE REGULATING ANIMALS BY ESTABLISHING PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS AND REGULATIONS FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS WITHIN THE CITY. The following is the official summary of Ordinance No. ____ passed by the City Council of Apple Valley on _________________, 2021: Chapter 91 of the City Code is revised to add chicken related definitions and to permit the keeping of up to five chickens on property zoned “R-1,” “R-2,” or “R-3,” or on property designated for one family detached dwelling within a planned development, subject to regulations and a two year permit. Chapter 91 of the City Code is amended to permit the keeping of a chick for educational purposes on property zoned “P” for institutional uses. A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours in the office of the City Clerk at the Apple Valley Municipal Center, 7100 147th Street W., Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124.