Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout051822 PC MINUTESCITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 18, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chair Kurtz at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Jodi Kurtz, Paul Scanlan, Keith Diekmann, Paul Mahowald, Becky Sandahl, and Jeff Prewitt Member(s) Absent: David Schindler City staff members attending: Community Develo pment Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Planner Kathy Bodmer, and City Attorney Sharon Hills. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Kurtz asked if there were any changes to the agenda. Community Development Director Nordquist stated there was an updated staff report for item 5.B. and there is an additional finding. Item 6.B. has also had a change in title from “Forecasting Staff Transitions” to “Development Update for 2022-2023 and Forecasting of Staff Transitions.” MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the agenda. Roll call vote: Ayes - 6 – Nays - 0. 3. CONSENT ITEMS MOTION: Commissioner Mahowald moved, seconded by Commissioner Sandahl, approving the minutes of the meeting of May 4, 2022. Roll call vote: Ayes – 5 – Nays – 0 – AB - 1. 4. PUBLIC HEARING None 5. LAND USE A. Lunds & Byerlys City Planner Lovelace presented the staff report. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2022 Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Scanlan asked if the landscaping could be more mixed with horizontal and vertical elements and also seasonal plantings. City Planner Lovelace stated that vertically would be a challenge as the easement allows for only 3 feet so will likely consists of shrubs. Petitioner Mitchell Avery (Lund Food Holdings, Inc.) stated that the Magellan Pipeline easement has strict requirements including no higher than 3 feet and no root structure which limits the types of plantings. Community Development Director Nordquist noted that there was a label of beer and wine sales on the conceptual fixture plan and that Apple Valley is a municipal liquor store city. Mr. Avery stated that it is referring to on-sale beer and liquor. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, to recommend approval of the LB Apple Valley preliminary plat, subject to conditions 1 through 9 in the staff report and an amendment to condition number eight changing the street number from 157th Street West to 155th Street West. Roll call vote: Ayes – 6 – Nays – 0. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, to recommend approval of the Site Plan/Building Permit to allow for construction of a 44,600 sq. ft. grocery store on 6.07 acre lot in accordance with the submitted plans dated April 28, 2022, subject to conditions 1 through 13 in the staff report. Roll call vote: Ayes – 6 – Nays – 0. B. Goze Retaining Wall Planner Bodmer presented the staff report. Chair Kurtz asked if the previous retaining wall was in the wrong location. Planner Bodmer advised that she was not sure as there were no permits pulled for the previous wall. Petitioner Anthony Goze stated that the previous wall was built around 1980 and have heard from neighbors that the fence was not in the correct property line nor was the retaining wall. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes May 18, 2022 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Scanlan asked if there were no permits for the original wall. Planner Bodmer stated that is correct. Commissioner Scanlan asked if the upper tier on the original wall was also in the School District’s property. Planner Bodmer stated that it would be difficult to ascertain, but that the fence definitely was. Commissioner Scanlan asked how the easement with the School District will be addressed when the house is sold in the future. Would that stay with the house and how would the new owners have record of this? Planner Bodmer stated that is correct. The easement between the homeowner and the School District is a private matter and the City is staying out of the matter. The City may not have the authority to require the easement to be filed since it is not a City easement. City Attorney Hills stated this is correct and not a City issue. The action requested is a variance for just the wall which does not extend into the School District’s property, just the fence does. Commissioner Mahowald asked if the new wall was replacing the existing wall and not extending past the property line. Mr. Goze stated that the existing wall was on the bottom two tiers and the upper wall is due to the change in elevation. Commissioner Scanlan asked if an as-built survey will need to be submitted to the City. Planner Bodmer stated they would not be required to, though one of the conditions is that a special inspector on site verifying the materials and placement. Some flexibility will be needed in order to make sure it is stabilized which is why a blanket variance is being requested. Commissioner Scanlan stated that an as-built survey could show where the property line is in relation to the wall so that the City has record of it and a prospective homeowner would have the information. City Attorney Hills said that the engineering plans and site plans will be kept with the building permit in the Engineering department and most title companies will see these documents.