The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/07/2014 Meeting Location: Municipal Center City of 7100 147th Street West Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 MAY 7, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE AGENDA 7:00 P.M. This agenda is subject to change by deletion or addition to items until approved by the Planning Commission on the date of the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 16, 2014 4. CONSENT ITEMS --NONE-- 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Quarry Ponds West – Public hearing to consider the subdivision of 10.5-acre outlot into 33 (PC14-11-S) single-family lots. LOCATION: Northwest corner of CSAH 46 and future Johnny Cake Ridge Road PETITIONER: Arcon Land III, LLC and Fischer Sand and Aggregate, LLP 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Chapter 155 Amendments– Consideration of Amendments to Chapter 155 (Zoning) related to number of Council votes required for rezoning, window wells, front decks with railing, and . (PC14-08-Z) rooftop mechanical unit setback LOCATION: City Wide PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. MVTA Layover Project – Sketch plan review of zoning amendments to allow for a bus layover facility; rezoning of property from PD-507, zone 7b to zone 7a; proposed subdivision by preliminary plat of 10-acre site into two (2) lots; interim use permit for an approximately 230-space parking lot; and site plan review/building permit authorization for layover facility with (PC14-15-ZSB) approximately 600 sq. ft. building. B. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates. 8. ADJOURNMENT NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS Wednesday, May 21, 2014 Regular Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. -Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 23, 2014 -Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, May 12, 2014 Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Regular Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. -Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 7, 2014 -Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, May 27, 2014 NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Thursday, May 8, 2014 Informal 5:30 P.M. Regular Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. Thursday, May 22, 2014 Regular Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. Regular meetings are broadcast live on Charter Communications Cable, Channel 16. Agendas are also available on the City's Internet Web Site http://www.cityofapplevalley.org. 3 ITEM: May 7, 2014 City of PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: Approval of Minutes SECTION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Approval of Minutes of April 16, 2014 STAFF CONTACT: DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Joan Murphy, Department Assistant Community Development Department Action Requested Recommend approving the minutes of the meeting of April 16, 2014. Summary N/A Background N/A Budget Impact N/A Attachment(s) April 16, 2014 Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 16, 2014 The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Melander at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Tom Melander, Ken Alwin, Keith Diekmann, Paul Scanlan, David Schindler and Brian Wasserman. Members Absent: Tim Burke Staff Present: City Attorney Sharon Hills, Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, Planner Kathy Bodmer, Planner Margaret Dykes, Assistant City Engineer David Bennett and Department Assistant Joan Murphy. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the agenda. Hearing none he called for a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, approving the agenda. Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES APRIL 2, 2014. Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the minutes. Hearing none he called for a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Commissioner Wasserman, approving the minutes of the meeting of April 2, 2014. Ayes - 4 - Nays — 0. Abstained — 2 — Alwin and Diekmann. 4. CONSENT ITEMS --NONE-- 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Chapter 153 Amendments — Hold public hearing to consider Amendments to Chapter 153 (Subdivision), related to Council waivers, minor subdivisions, and other items for purposes of clean-up and clarification, by City of Apple Valley. (PC14-09-0) CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes April 16, 2014 Page 2 of 4 Chair Melander opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. Planner Kathy Bodmer stated staff reviewed Chapter 153 (Subdivision) of the City Code and found several sections that require editing for purposes of clarification and/or consistency with State law. A draft ordinance had been prepared to address minor edits that are considered housekeeping in nature. She summarized the sections of the subdivision chapter that staff proposes to amend. The following minor amendments were proposed: 1. Delete Council Waiver Provisions 2. Replace Term "Bulk" 3. Update/Clarify Section Regarding Recorded Plats Not Meeting Dimensional Requirements 4. Delete "Minor Subdivisions" Provisions 5. Insert Term "Subdivision" Related to Preliminary Plat and Public Hearings 6. Remove requirement for Planning Commission Chair and Secretary to sign Final Plats Discussion followed. Chair Melander closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Alwin recommending approval of the draft ordinance amending Chapter 153 (Subdivision) for the purposes of consistency with State Law. Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0. B. Chapter 155 Amendments — Hold public hearing to consider Amendments to Chapter 155 (Zoning) related to number of Council votes required for rezoning, window wells, front decks with railing, and rooftop mechanical unit setback, by City of Apple Valley. (PC14-08-Z) Chair Melander opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Planner Kathy Bodmer stated four minor amendments are proposed that are considered housekeeping in nature. The proposed amendments included the following: 1. Revise the number of City Council votes required for rezoning and zoning amendments 2. Window well encroachments 3. Allow decks, stoops and uncovered porches with railings in the front yard 4. Remove rooftop mechanical unit setbacks She stated staff reviewed Chapter 155 (Zoning) of the City Code and found several sections that require editing for purposes of clarification and/or consistency with State law. A draft ordinance had been prepared to address four minor edits that are considered housekeeping in nature. She summarized the sections of the zoning chapter that staff proposed to amend. Discussion followed. Chair Melander closed the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes April 16, 2014 Page 3 of 4 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Chapter 154 Amendments — Consider amendments to Chapter 154 (Signs Regulations) to allow for and regulate tenant signage on area identification signs for commercial, industrial, and business park zones, by Spowd Developments, LLC. (PC14-07-0) Planner Margaret Dykes stated Area Identification Signs are used to identify the names of business or industrial complexes; the code does not allow individual businesses or tenants of the complex to be identified on Area Identification Signs. Spowd Developments, LLC, the property owner of Apple Valley Business Campus, generally located northeast of 147th Street W. and Flagstaff Avenue, has requested an amendment to the sign code to allow for and regulate tenant signage on Area Identification Signs for non-retail commercial (i.e. office), industrial, and business park zones. The requested amendment would allow individual tenants to be identified on Area Identification Signs. Dog Day Getaway, a business located in Apple Valley Business Campus, is representing the owner. Chapter 154 currently allows commercial or industrial complexes consisting of two or more businesses to have up to two Area Identification Signs (Al Signs) to identify the name of the complex. The Code does not allow individual tenants or businesses to be listed on the Al Signs, only the name of the complex. Due to the recent development of the Apple Valley Business Campus, and the future development of the Mixed Business Campus, staff believes a code amendment allowing business identification on Al Signs could be useful. Staff and the City Attorney have drafted a sign code amendment that would allow the identification of businesses on Al Signs, but limit these signs in terms of number, size and placement to ensure that there is not a proliferation of signs creating clutter. Discussion followed. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Alwin recommending approval of the draft ordinance amending Chapter 154 of the Code of Ordinances pertaining to Area Identification Signs with recommended changes. Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0. 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates. Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist stated that the next Planning Commission meeting would take place Wednesday, May 7, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. 8. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Melander asked for a motion to adjourn. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes April 16, 2014 Page 4 of 4 MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann to adjourn the meeting at 8:26 p.m. Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0. Res ectfully Submitted, 7 114- 1A-- Jo Murphy, Plannir Dep ent Assistant Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commission on 5A ITEM: May 7, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: City of Public Hearings SECTION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Quarry Ponds West: Public hearing to consider a proposed subdivision that will create 33 th single-family lots on 10.5 acres. The site is located north of 160 Street West (CSAH 46), approximately ½-mile west of Pilot Knob Road (CSAH 31). STAFF CONTACT: DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Thomas Lovelace, City Planner Community Development Department 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 An application has been submitted for a preliminary plat for the subdivision of Outlot D, REGENT’S POINT, according to the proposed final plat. The applicant is proposing to plat this 10.5-acre parcel into 33 single-family residential lots. This will result in a gross density of 3.14 units per acre. Lot sizes will range from 8,450 sq. ft. to 19,002 sq. ft. in area. th Access to the proposed subdivision will be via 157 Street West and Johnny Cake Ridge Road, both collector streets that do not currently exist. The right-of-way for these streets is being dedicated with the REGENT’S POINT final plat. Direct access to the individual lots will be from local residential streets whose right-of-way will be dedicated with this plat. No direct access from the lots within this th plat to 157 Street West and Johnny Cake Ridge Road will be allowed. Background APPLICANT: PROJECT NUMBER: Arcon Land III, LLC and Fischer Sand and Aggregate, PC14-11-S LLP APPLICATION DATE: 60 DAYS: 120 DAYS: April 8, 2014 June 7, 2014 August 6, 2014 A rezoning request of the property from “SG” to a “PD” (Planned Development) was made with the earlier Quarry Ponds development request. The Planning Commission did recommend approval of the rezoning and the City Council will consider it at the same time as final consideration of the Quarry Ponds final plat, which has been renamed REGENT’S POINT. The project is proposed to be done in two phases. The most southerly 16 lots will developed in the first phase, with the remaining 17 lots developed in the second phase. Therefore, all residential lots in the second phase should be platted as an outlot. The Natural Resources Coordinator has reviewed the landscape plan and has several comments for revisions that are contained within this report. Revisions to the landscape plan should be made per staff’s comments. The applicant is proposing to develop the property in two phases. The first phase will be the most southerly 16 lots. The second phase will include the remaining 17 lots. Approval of the Quarry Ponds preliminary plat included a condition that stated if the second phase was not approved within th two years of the first phase; the City could choose to construct 157 Street West from the Regatta th development to Pilot Knob Road and the remaining section of Johnny Cake Ridge Road to 157 Street West. This condition will be incorporated as a condition of approval of the Quarry Ponds West subdivision. Street B will be extended to serve the lots in the first phase. The street will not be a through street no turnaround is shown at the north end of the street. A public access turnaround shall be constructed to City standards within a dedicated temporary easement. A section of the unnamed tributary of to the northern branch of the Vermillion River is located in this proposed subdivision. This public watercourse is under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Staff will be in contact with the DNR to determine what needs to be addressed related to the portion of the tributary in the proposed plat. Budget Impact Not available Attachment(s) Project Review Resident’s Letter Location Map Quarry Ponds Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat Preliminary Utility Plan Preliminary Grading Plan Staging Plans Landscape Plan QUARRY PONDS WEST PROJECT REVIEW Existing Conditions Along the north side of 160 th Street West CSAH 46), approximately ½-mile west of Property Location: Pilot Knob Road (CSAH 31) Legal Description:The northeast 10.5 acres of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 35 Comprehensive Plan Designation “LD” (Low Density Residential/2-6 units per acre) Zoning Classification “SG” (Sand and Gravel) Existing PlattingUnplatted Current Land UseCrop production Size:10.5 acres Topography: Flat Existing Vegetation None Other Significant Natural Features None Adjacent Fischer Sand and Aggregate Mining Operation NORTH Properties/Land Comprehensive Plan “MBC” (Mixed Business Campus) Uses Zoning/Land Use “SG” (Sand and Gravel) Storm Water Pond SOUTH Comprehensive Plan “P” (Parks and Open Space) Zoning/Land Use “P” (Institutional) Proposed REGENT’S POINT (formally known as Quarry Ponds) EAST Single-Family Development Comprehensive Plan “LD” (Low Density Residential/2-6 units per acre) Zoning/Land Use “SG” (Sand and Gravel) Regatta Residential Development WEST Comprehensive Plan “LD” (Low Density Residential/2-6 units per acre) Zoning/Land Use “PD-632/zone 1” (Planned Development) Development Project Review Comprehensive Plan: The site is designated on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map “LD” (Low Density Residential/2-6 units per acre). The “LD” is designed to accommodate residential developments that range from zero to six units per acre and include most of the existing single-family residential areas that are zoned “R-1”, “R-2”, “R-3”, and “R-CL”. Other zoning districts eligible for this land use category include “R-5” (two family); “M-1”, “M-2”, and “M-3” (multiple family); and “PD” (planned development). The proposed 33-lot single-family residential development on 10.5 acres will have a gross density of 3.1 units per acre, which exceeds the minimum required density within the “LD” designation. C MBC MBC MD LD LD C 155TH ST W LD PILOT KNOB RD P 156TH ST W LD LD FINCH AVE C C HD LD LD FJORD AVE 157TH ST W 157TH ST W EMPEROR AVE SITE INS 158TH ST W LD FJORD LN P FIRTREE DR FINCH LN FENNEL CT LD HD 160TH ST W EXCEL WAY LOWER 161ST ST W DODD LN 161ST ST W 2030 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION “LD” (Low Density Residential/2-6 units per acre) Livable Communities impact: The proposal will create up to 33 market-rate single-family dwelling units to the City’s existing housing stock, which is consistent with the following Livable Communities Act principle:  Provide a balanced supply of housing supply, with housing available for people of all income levels; and  A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle. Zoning: The property is currently zoned “SG” (Sand and Gravel), which allows limited agricultural pursuits, including crop and plant production and commercial greenhouses and nurseries as permitted uses, and sand and gravel mining as a conditional use. No mining has occurred on this property with the exception of some stockpiling and processing of black dirt in the northeast corner. The applicant has requested a rezoning of the property from “SG” to a “PD” (Planned Development) with the earlier Quarry Ponds development request. The Planning Commission did recommend approval of the rezoning and the City Council will consider it at the same time as final consideration of the Quarry Ponds final plat, which has been renamed REGENT’S POINT. The planned development designation will establish the uses, area requirements, and performance standards for the planned development district, consistent with the proposed subdivision developments. It will address such things as a minimum lot size of 8,440 sq. ft. and lot width of 65 feet. This is different than our typical “R-3” zoning district which has minimum lot area of 11,000 sq. ft. and lot width of 80 feet. A conditional use permit (C.U.P.) has been approved for the “SG” zoned property within the proposed development, which allows sand and gravel mining. This proposal will end the ability of Fischer Sand and Aggregate, the current owner, to mine the property. Therefore, the owner will need to release the sand and gravel mining C.U.P. on the subject property. Staff will work with the developer and property owner with an amendment of their C.U.P. Mining operations will continue north of the proposed development, which could result in potential conflicts. This will need to be addressed through the zoning code regulations that establish setbacks between residential property and mining operations, operating hours, and screening. 1 I-1 5 BP A 2 22 3 A P P PD-254 PD-254 3 RB PD-679 2 PD-739 1 SG 3 2 PD-716 PD-679 4 1 1 PD-716 2 2 5 6 1 PD-703 M-8B 8 6 1 3 2 3 PD-632 PD-632 1 7 PD-714 SITE 3 3 4 6 1 8 4 41 4 8 4 A A A ZONING MAP DESIGNATION “SG” (Sand and Gravel) Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat consists of the replat of the 10.5-acre Outlot D, REGENT’S POINT, according to a proposed final plat, into 33 single-family lots. This will result in a gross density of 3.14 units per acre. Lot sizes will range from 8,450 sq. ft. to 19,002 sq. ft. in area. th Access to the proposed subdivision will be via 157 Street West and Johnny Cake Ridge Road, both collector streets that do not currently exist. The right-of-way for these streets is being dedicated with the REGENT’S POINT final plat. Direct access to the individual lots will be from local residential streets th whose right-of-way will be dedicated with this plat. No direct access from the lots within this plat to 157 Street West and Johnny Cake Ridge Road will be allowed. This proposed preliminary plat was part of the Quarry Ponds preliminary plat that reviewed by the City in 2013. That 56-acre preliminary plat identified 107 single-family lots and an existing 12-acre storm water pond. This pond, identified as WVR-443 and commonly referred to as the McNamara Pond is the last stop for storm water collected in the 4,814-acre West Vermillion River Watershed. The water that flows into this pond is eventually discharged into a pipe that travels to a large pond in Lakeville. During the review of the Quarry Ponds development proposal an issue arose regarding the maximum allowable flow rate of storm water that could be discharged into the Lakeville. This required the City to review the proposal to determine how much additional property would be needed to storm water storage. It was determined that, if needed, the pond would likely expand north of its current location on the subject property. Therefore, the residential lots on the west side of Johnny Cake Ridge Road plat the property as an outlot. Review of the storm water ponding/flow rate issue by Lakeville and Apple Valley concluded that the ponding area proposed in Outlots A and B of REGENT’S POINT would be sufficient. This allows the developer and property owner to proceed with platting the subject property as proposed. The subject property does not currently abut a public street. The right-of-way of two future streets, Johnny th Cake Ridge Road and 157 Street West, will be dedicated with the REGENT’S POINT final plat to the east. The dedication of these two streets will provide the necessary public street access needed for this preliminary plat. The project is proposed to be done in two phases. The most southerly 16 lots will developed in the first phase, with the remaining 17 lots developed in the second phase. Therefore, all residential lots in the second phase should be platted as an outlot. Grading Plan: Staff has reviewed the preliminary grading plan and there are no outstanding issues. Any development of the property will require the submittal of Natural Resources Management Permit application and final grading plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. Landscape Plan: A landscape plan is normally not required with a single-family development proposal. However, this development is located in a future planned development and will be adjacent to two collector streets. These two elements dictate the need for a landscaping plan that identifies the species type and location of plantings on lots located directly adjacent to future Johnny Cake Ridge Road and th 157 Street West. The Natural Resources Coordinator has reviewed the landscape plan and has the following comments:  The proposed deciduous tree group is represented by three maple species. Maple trees should be limited to one species and no more than 20% of the total shade trees. Two other tree species should be incorporated to replace the overabundance of maple such as swamp white oak, honeylocust, river birch or linden.  Black Hills spruce trees should be spaced a minimum of 12-14 feet from each other to allow air flow and minimize potential needlecast disease.  A detailed plan is requested to show elevations and individual species at each planting location.  Acer x freemannii is not a desirable front yard tree due to parent silver maple rootstock and shallow surface root characteristics that frequently cause uplifting of hard surfaces. Revisions to the landscape plan should be made per staff’s comments. Staging Plan : The development is proposed to be done in two phases. The first phase will be the most southerly 16 lots. The second phase will include the remaining 17 lots. This is consistent with the original phasing plan submitted with the Quarry Ponds preliminary plat. That plan identified up to 55 lots to be constructed with the first phase, 39 east of Johnny Cake Ridge Road and 16 west of the street. Johnny Cake Ridge Road, from CSAH 46 to Street B will be constructed as part of the REGENT’S POINT development and will be the only access to the lots in the first phase for both developments. th Construction of 157 Street West from the Regatta development to Pilot Knob Road and Johnny Cake th Ridge Road from Street A to 157 Street West would occur with the second phase. Approval of the Quarry Ponds preliminary plat included a condition that stated if the second phase was th not approved within two years of the first phase; the City could choose to construct 157 Street West from the Regatta development to Pilot Knob Road and the remaining section of Johnny Cake Ridge Road th to 157 Street West. This condition will be incorporated as a condition of approval of the Quarry Ponds West subdivision. Street B will be extended to serve the lots in the first phase. The street will not be a through street, no turnaround is shown at the north end of the street. A public access turnaround shall be constructed to City standards within a dedicated temporary easement. Availability of Municipal Utilities: Extension of existing utilities needed to serve this proposed development will be done as part of the REGENT’S POINT development. Watermain will be extended to the west from the intersection of Johnny Cake Ridge Road and Street B. Sanitary sewer will come from an existing line located along the north side of CSAH 46, which will be extended north along Johnny Cake Ridge Road. Storm sewer infrastructure will be installed to serve the site. Storm sewer pipes will be installed to collect water from lots in the subdivision and transport it to the storm water ponding area located directly to the south of the development. A section of the unnamed tributary of the northern branch of the Vermillion River is located in this proposed subdivision. This public watercourse is under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Over the years portions of this watercourse, which ran overland has been incorporated into storm sewer pipes and ponding areas in the Hillcrest Acres, Orchard Pointe, and Regatta developments. The storm sewer pipe currently discharges into the pond south of this proposed development. The rerouting included the vacation of drainage easements over the tributary. Documents submitted by the applicant do not identify any easements over the tributary. Staff will be in contact with the DNR to determine what needs to be addressed related to the portion of the tributary in the proposed plat. SITE DNR WATERS MAP Street Classifications/Accesses/Circulation: Streets A and B, two local streets will be constructed within the proposed subdivision and will provide direct access to the individual lots. Street B will intersect with th future Johnny Cake Ridge Road to the east and 157 Street West to the north. Johnny Cake Ridge Road will be constructed from CSAH 46 to the Street B intersection and will be the only access to the development th during the first phase. Any development within the section phase will require the construction of 157 Street West. Pedestrian Access: Sidewalks, trails or pathways shall be provided in accordance with provisions of the City’s pedestrian circulation plan. Sidewalks will be required along both sides of local streets within the th development and pathways will be installed on both sides of future Johnny Cake Ridge Road and 157 Street West. Recreation Issues: The City's subdivision regulations provide for dedication of land or easements for the purpose of offsetting the need created by new development for new parks or storm water holding ponds. The regulations also provide for a cash-in-lieu of land dedication and is based on a “benchmark” land valuation for raw land. The preliminary plat does not propose any land dedication, therefore it will be expected that the developer will be proposing the cash option to meet their park dedication requirement. 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. Gene Rechtzigel, Pro Se 6533 160e Street West Apple Valley, MN 55124 May 2, 2014 City of Apple Valley 7100 147t Street West Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 952-953-2500 voice 952-953-2515 fax Re: Quarry Ponds West Dear City Clerk, City Administrator, City Attorney, and Planning Commission Members, Before the Planning Commission Hearing of Quarry Ponds West can be properly ripe for a Hearing of the proposal, three concerns need to be addressed as follows: 1, Has there been a Retracement Survey done of the property between Rechtzigel's land and Fischer's land which retraces the 100 year old Farmer Fence Boundary Line, and if so, where is it shown or why is it not shown on the Quarry Ponds West Probe Engineering Drawings? 2. Does the paper Legal Description, that was mailed out with the Quarry Ponds West May 7, 2014 Planning Commission Hearing announcement, cross over or disturb the "Bridell Line" (the James Bridell Retracement Survey of the 100 year old farm fence property line)? 3. Does the Quarry Ponds West Proposed Development cause a, road, street or avenue, disturbance to the lake to the south? 4. Why has there not been proper notice sent out to the Rechtzigel's concerning the proposed Quarry Ponds West is situated next to a portion of the Rechtzigel's remainder land of 10.1 acres? S. Has "Safe Harbor" been provided to Mr. Gene Rechtzigel to attend and speak at the May 7, 2014 Hearing concerning the proposed development of Quarry Ponds West? A prompt response is needed and a postponement of the hearing should be considered if these issues couldn't be resolved before the hearing of May 7, 2014. Yours truly, By: Gene Rechtzigel, Sui Juris Pro Se GR/GR RECEIVED Q 2 2,O111 LYNN RENE WORKMAN NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 01/31/18 Stato of MiAks/E5677 tounty of 44-1-;6-2-4 Subscribed and sworn before me on 4 / 2611 . � J8 LOCATION MAP % � y 0,9 0'99 c!I 0" 9 0,9 0 )1\9'd INIOd Avno A311VA alddV JO A110 S„ LOS 69890 T 8 0 0 L VJ....LVOA2z1 1 \ I : \ i .----- i 2 ,---- • \ 1 .-• -----( / 7 \---- . , , 1 www cI LU ILL(! wLTcpj uJQ 6 CP,Od021.1 \ - , Q V C r .0 / 0.0 00'06 0 1 O 0 0 uJ Z '0 1 EL 1 a cp I 0 U) Lu z H 0 Z (5 rn CL a O < O 0 O z • N 2 O z a_ 0 HAM 00I0103X2 uJ 0IIN3AV NaZZIDZIIVA r, , c, _J }> J a L 21 LLJ 0- o 0 Z Z 1-- 1 ( I '1aL' L11 F- 0 (4 z r74 c, 0 2 2 I LF 7 i Z ; z 5 z - w (z) w 2 I 0 2 cc z am mu map map 8 LL 00 D _L N I S _L N 3 arou part Loma _ NATI-Lor 9 3 LT_ 0 t i LiJ 0 LL Olg ww < 111 (0 cl" CJ)0WW 0Q IT, , 0(/) / } ) Vd 1NIOd A VfO AD1 D1ddV JO A110 f7 e} O W I� ti ch f 1 / V V 1 O 3 J \ r I '\ \ . ' f \ ..._i____ , / \ i'f N ll W 3% � � d• Q Q h N N a ,Laa2LLs 0 Z2a2LLs aI1N2AV Naa2IO2IIV,! I-- 00 cc a. >- W Q z z 0 0 rc �} a a saaass )ifIdd INIOd m,p,ivno 3lddV JO Al10 r f ; f / r `d ` 1 `d , d ?� / �1 LL f7 Q Q � N lA � LL LL to O LL c� n CQ O N LL m n Q Q Q d O 2 n M N r M ! Z •`fW E— O_ Z CL 0 0 O z w 0 N IR w NANG wig 0 O Nl1N N2 azio IIV, 0 (J) w 0 z z t - Id P • h lj j )1 !1. n n • 0 o • • / Or QUARRY PONDS WEST APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENTATION MAY 7, 2014 QUARRY PONDS WEST Development Request Publichearingtoconsideraproposedsubdivision thatwillcreate33single-familylotson10.5 acres.Thesiteislocatednorthof160Street th West(CSAH46),approximately½-milewestof PilotKnobRoad(CSAH31). LOCATION MAP EMBLEM WAY EMBRY PATH 155TH ST W PILOT KNOB RD REGATTA PARK 156TH ST W FINCH AVE FLACKWOOD WAY FLAGSTAFF AVE FINESSE WAY FJORD AVE 157TH ST W FLACKWOOD AVE SITE 157TH ST W EMPEROR AVE QUARRY POINT FESCUE CT PARK FIRTREE LN 158TH ST W FIRTREE DRELMHURST LN FINCH LN FENNEL CT 160TH ST W EXCEL WAY LOWER 161ST ST W FINCH AVE W FINLAND AVE W DODD LN 161ST ST W FAIRGREEN AVE FISHING AVE W FLAGSTAFF AVE W EXCELSIOR CT 162ND ST W EXCELSIOR DR 162ND ST W FERNANDO WAY FANTASIA AVE FISHING WAY W DODD BLVD 163RD ST W FINCH WAY W ELM CREEK LN COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP C MBC MBC MD LD LD C 155TH ST W LD P PILOT KNOB RD 156TH ST W LD LD FINCH AVE C C HD LD LD FJORD AVE 157TH ST W 157TH ST W EMPEROR AVE SITE INS 158TH ST W LD FJORD LN P FIRTREE DR FINCH LN FENNEL CT LD HD 160TH ST W EXCEL WAY LOWER 161ST ST W DODD LN 161ST ST W ZONING MAP 1 I-1 5 BP A 2 22 3 A P P PD-254 PD-254 3 RB PD-679 2 PD-739 1 SG 3 2 PD-716 PD-679 4 1 1 PD-716 2 2 5 6 PD-703 M-8B 1 8 6 1 3 2 3 PD-632 PD-632 1 7 PD-714 SITE 3 3 4 6 1 8 4 41 4 8 4 A A A ORIGINAL PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT UTILITY PLAN GRADING PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN STAGING PLAN STAGING PLAN ORIGINAL REVISED STAGING PLAN DNR WATERS MAP SITE DNR WATERWAY WATERWAY WATERSHED MAP APPLE VALLEY GAP PARCEL RECHTZIGEL LETTER 1.HastherebeenaRetracementSurveydoneoftheproperty betweenRechtzigel’slandandFischer’slandwhichretracesthe 100yearoldFarmerFenceBoundary,andifso,whereisitshown orwhyisitnotshownontheQuarryPondsWestdrawings?Staff Response–Thepreliminarysubdivisiondoesnotrequireany matchingofsurveys.Theinformationneededtobeprovidedon thesubdivisionapplicationissetforthwithinCityOrdinances. Whatisnecessarytoestablishtitletopropertythatisdesiredto beplattedandwhatneedstobeshownonaplataredetermined bystatestatuteandthecountysurveyor. 2.Doesthepaperlegaldescriptionthatwasmailedoutwiththe QuarryPondsWestpublichearingnoticecrossovertheordisturb the“BridellLine”?StaffResponse–SameasanswertoQuestion No.1. RECHTZIGEL LETTER 3.DoestheQuarryPondsWestproposeddevelopmentcausearoad, streetoravenuedisturbancetothelaketothesouth?Staff Response–AccesstoQuarryPondsWestwillbeprovidedby meansofJohnnyCakeRidgeRoad,whichisanticipatedtobe builtinconjunctionwiththedevelopmentofRegent’sPointto theeast. 4.WhyhastherenotbeenpropernoticesentouttotheRechtzigel’s concerningtheproposedQuarryPondsWestissituatednexttoa portionoftheremainderlandof10.1acres?StaffResponse– Thereisnostatutoryrequirementtogivenoticetothepublicor individualsofanapplicationtosubdivideproperty.UnderCity Ordinance,noticeistobeprovidedtopropertyownerswhose propertylieswithin350feetofthepropertytobesubdivided. TO: PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Apple Valley, MN 55124 FROM: GENE RECHTZIGEL 6533 160th Street West Apple Valley, MN 55124 Dated May 7, 2014 THE GENERAL MEMORANDUM FROM GENE RECHTZIGEL SUI JURIS PRO SE TIME: May 7, 2014 7:00 PM CONCERNING: QUARRY PONDS WEST THE COMMENTS ARE: Mr. Chairperson, and Planning Commission Members, 1. I am a victim of property rape, and am putting the Planning Commission and City on notice that you will be forcing me to file a Writ of Prohibition against this Commission and City if you do not follow the civil case law of the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Minnesota and State Statutes and governing rules pertaining to this boundary dispute and the disturbance of the Lake to the south of Quarry Ponds West. 2. As you see the police try to enforce criminal law, but it is the responsibility of "We the People" to enforce the civil law. 3. When a police officer stops someone for going 120 miles an hour in a 60 mile an hour zone, is ignoring the speed limit a valid excuse? No. Likewise, if the planning Commission or City ignores a 100plus year old property line by refusing to do a retracement survey of it and refusing to honor the one submitted by Mr. Rechtzigel, is that a valid excuse? Again the answer should be certainly not, No! 1 4. By ignoring a 100 plus year old property line, your basically saying, "I see nothing, nothing, I hear nothing, nothing" as Sergeant Schultz's said many times on Hogan's Heroes', which is not a valid excuse. 5. This morning I was watching Mother Nature, and saw a hawk flying over the trees and houses and had the thought: what if God would have made us a hawk, putting us at the mercy of man in allowing us to catch needed food to survive? 6. This lake to the south of Quarry Ponds West is such a place, a habitat for the birds and wildlife and needs to be left alone by the Quarry Ponds West Development. Or, do you want to be like the villain on the old Doctor Who show, where the fourth Doctor fought against the "mechanical robots" that said, "Exterminate, Exterminate." 7. Now let me get this straight, do you want to exterminate a 100 year plus property line and exterminate the habitat and the home of birds and wildlife? 8. And while your at it, do you want to exterminate property values by having smaller lot sizes than the houses that are next door in Regatta and street sizes for houses in Regatta, and park set aside by Quarry Ponds West? Remember, Regatta was not allowed to use the City Lake as park area for Regatta and neither should Quarry Ponds West in all do fairness. 9. I object to Quarry Ponds West, unless the 100 year old Fence Property Line of my Certified Retracement Survey is respected and not encroached upon, and unless the City Lake to the south is respectfully left undisturbed and not encroached upon, and home owners property values are respected and not encroached upon also by the Quarry Ponds West Development. 2 9. This is a Common sense question; a "We the People" question, not a question of the experts. 10. The sole responsibility is the Planning Commission, not the City Attorney, the sole responsibity of this decision is not the city staff, but that of the Planning Commission remembering that Common Law demands the respect of NO encroaching across the 100 year old property line, no encroaching into the City lake of wildlife and no encroaching into Regatta's Property Values. 3 URVEYt R'S CERTIFICATION F . �. •.., a ,, :�;h I i i C*SC Fite f O 33f fiE{ tiYt �! L pAf�M rt 2tt 22 { cc>wrz.HS this hCt tctzeef srx3a }. lS+ t7c7ctr3 ikx rxt Nit t48 (Ma 19Ti8 t ; K& V fl ri, etu r'To rat >k FtetcFtt girt. stmt. Tha Y2 °cyst t>ny -h o f h �,turtfnvast q f'� 1F2 S t;�i• r� n#� tht� ltttotvf �(1 ere:re>; of st ast+ans haFf cif fhe Scwihwc st O a tt c (L 1/Z of S J4), at! of in act W ticz+t } 35,' Ttnnntahip 915_ fttiiYS3a 2 , cantttrstr>g 110 ar: res. marts ar dtaset ttex ordir c� to 1t>e tantrsm survey+ thsreot. ?:pt tfsE pint & RrQA Glades >ta Cat+try, M nrsfzsr�ta; Attd itr< Mt of REGA 2NLJ ADD Ttr t. Czr4 to Catut M t n nssata, Suh t1 to tilt a assay ;snts rxafx>rdtti! 7ttd >:nretxsrdad. Thds knit dos+ >itaad at>ovs ctmd air» 2Q, f i stxes.:bat(t a' r} s; rdf zo d . t is ,,,(vier parficatatiy tirsrrita d as fr�lta+as: fa r €nine vii , tie. ,, tu t hz st Corr>er of a acrctian M; thtznrtz the i' fH? dt3yrstas ins nta e 5t se,.''''',,,, Erik i ;swoecf ht +7rin�, . tt;:zlrtr>c 90.00 feet Teri' the wr st dins of ut�id Sec vo 3.4; tf>onc rtt> 89 dctf)rac rnirttrtf s d2 ......*';:a.,„7 4 — aa , u ddstan,. of 50 t>ttyt . p itni on ship noat tdnct of t ..g.,. Cotanty R t , of Wfzy MKzp hta. ,,,, Ntztth'f l r tagrxzes 07 nttrtiarc*s 5D srax>nd East along thta t tt ddrte taf o f vy traff Avt�f»FS - aa shotrn on said : pat o f t �;CAAf 2 tf� AOD TK>N than.•. �•ontinuirtr� ak>r >g;'sadd r?,a3t linr� of 1'tag tiff Jstrsrcua a tidstrartfxa d ',7 2. 7 3 it>st afonfj z iine ., tist curca6 c . ,,,+. to ,,,, v..' r (' raf 1O50.ti0 foes; thantxt cantth aior g sa eta tinrt rrf FFygataif RYezntae a ctistanc a of :.,;15 ri fact; a,..,4,, o tangfsnttat; cur crir>cav� to ifs,,; t' 2 s4 zse 950- .n. cyci f t ,,,,, a tz South ft9 etz >grtses s7 t- ;+;uses k2 cossds East.. ,, a iii ..,, s of pla of loth, att>nfz the s not'ti r > tz t of u ei r4 plots of i e `3 2Nt7 , ;d3d7t' ION and f we TffA, :Ifrenr. ra S. 00 .,::Z,<s 07 m inute 5 f tasct>rads Wst t, a dicta >tce of 275,0.1 feet .tor,.. 8xa west k4..;,,,,,, ` f saint pint of t EGATTA; titrsnta South -5t de;grees 57 rninu3tts 42 :,, gars(, East a distar>cr of 968'36 .. 8tt , , the sauitt sirs, t f saz f pu >t of f 1 "TA 3a ttis sox dzt ant ctirrstxr of Rf I�A TTR the.".. PJcsrth Utt d r oes t 12 minutes 18 ri Eats, a riistsncs of 25fui.93 fi'" atang the tsast txs 0 st y e p»t czf , ,t h 0ATTA to the atartiteasi,,,Dyne'' tzf REGATTA; tht58 Nerds A d$SJ >•ctc s 57 mini cs 33 sea iar>d�> i*a atortg ti n orth tine of mid Saufhwest fluaricv of St ct+an 35, s tfisiarn e ttf f th ,` ,jars to QO dt +ti e t 0 2 s >t 18 s WaSI, a dd tttxt of 650,82 s ff:tt ,,i,„.„..,,..,,,, south tit? ticjgrz3 16 cndtu>cs +6 , , E, o cts t a,t, a drttancct 'o t 2.4,22 f.: the ,ousts Lino of said StwittaESt Cluarttai of Sftctian 35; tf z ... North t dragrx z s 5'f' rr>intittts ',„ . t.•>d.t +!,fast a te>ng zai4i south tetra r .a. SctutR+vxjr# ,,unites xzf Se"' 35, a tiistanca o f sS 1.;x7 feast, to tfttz "ptais>t o t >r3. Li t AL t3ESCRIPT tJf f k3? d EC t d f Iltt i F A M m_19 8 Wazrfsntp f�rxacd f3o<un >ent No, 3 899t1(AAsy ,968); Kdd tJntk+ etu>c k Rec tzaegst, fztat; ffhe West on6 ^haif caf tt>rz Southwt>st f taarttzr (W 1f2. of S 114) and t1# West : 30 atxes t$ thxt Eost r>tte ha# <rE ttta Sn> 4f>west ft „s s (E 172 tzf SW lid) all in �sction 3 Towrtat9 11 , i ?hrtc#e 2°. raarttaintnt� 9 9Q atxes rnrartt tar ltfss, tttrardir>t1 to the £�iavemment Stntrey d tF5 FZectitzigel Farm Land h W14 of Section Township 115 ,N, Range 20 SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION CERT NAT II- WAS , EPAPEL , , , t.,15., ViECT AND 7,, I AM A 1, LAW, CF , HE STA,E CF tANNESO7A ,AYE JAMES kiL,AEL BRIDE, R L 5 AGREEMENT to esdablish EAST PROPERTY LINE OF RECHTZIGEL FARM Smto of hthirmota. Coady ofOokma Tins agreement is between thc two pen., beam, Gene Rocaugei 6533 I6thh Salm West, Apple VOtcy, Won.. 55124. Comoty of Dakota end, Fkelfer Makct PMcc LLP and Fi.b. Sand and Graml LLP. m orprerenad Imre by Mallhow S .DuE, Mconoc /Imam* Dag 8000 Norsom Coma Drive, Sudo MOO Miaticapohs, Manama, 55437-1, Corey of Hems,. The Agreement, I_ The patio, own adysimeg west and east hods identified heran tho rom of - Land Hocmdmy Sun, d EAST PROPERTY 111. of Rechnog, From lam, basissafta calla! THE MAP, mil Wets Miami in Dakota C.ounry, Mimes, and mid nest lead described in Womanly Do. Domino, No 348.0 (May 19.1, Karl V., etim To Prank Rantaigol, otaL 2. TM into and mac, Imam, of moues common PROPER, talE made demise sad certain ea MM.'. an THE MA, and thes locatim is made stascoohly canna bY moo,. TektIoatmot . 3. Fc,r peace sod stabiEty. the patties have ',groat to othabbsta the PROPERTY LINE bossism their respoctive lands as thlMon, (I I EAST PROPERTY UNE m Mown oe THE MAE, eat (21 PROPERT Y UNE dacaled in thc LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EAST PROPER, LINE OF RECTIT7IGEL FARM TM pink, too, ago. dist the EAST PROEERTY LINE OF RECHT.GTE. FARM reprerems the immico of aa okl fem. hre now partial, emstrost sad path., obliteratod. The parties further egret that this EAST PROPERTY LINE removals the nue mat cam, PROPER,LINE between them as ardmmed on THE MAP. 4.11e paha how cach hen viewed this agmed EAST PROPERTY LINE mark, on thc ground m indica. on THE MAP. ancl the pasta, now was, mid desire the cam to bc tbc true and cone, PROPERTY LLNE berwcas them TM panics admit .s M bc the true arid correct PROPERTY LINE Totowa m dettathed in tizimespectim dooth 5. For and in considerstion of establistion ard making de.. and corthin the EAST PROMRTY uwE bassoon their respect= Loads, tho panics emu. that said EAST PROPERTY LINE. es dem.. below, is the true and coine, PROPERTY LINE lemma thew temective lauds, mid the roe trim and corre,PROPPR, UNE demilicd m theirremective deeds. District Court of the Honcrabic RoMot R. King Jr. on August 2, 2013 or a cemfied copy oft. entmcd imp ), to bo nmordol in the County Rceordas Of., County of Dakota hencesom. 7 The PROPERTY UNE agreed upon will be pansanent and Mndios upcm the heirs mai assimn of tte isidersigmed panics 6 The portico shall mum or penait this agmemont showiag sod estabiehmg the mated EltSf PROPERTY UNE cIDCilkiirg, THE MAP bisoin mad map of the Rochtiaigei Faun Tarnd irsto mhitat M the Dakota County In witness, ponies have moms, thMegreemeathamith, Gem& STATE OF MINNMOTA. COUNTY OF I I :JO.", Lb) ,ggis -or/ /Yr Ad • • • tfifm 232. e LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EAST PROPERTY 1-11,7! OF RIX7.177X2E1. FARkf TM EAST PROPERTY LINE is tha mot bound, tho folkming peal of Mei Weamty Dom Docommt No. 349.0 (May 19., Ksol Volker, am To Pm,* Rectithigol, Mat EAST PROPERTY UNE shmos as the east hand, on Um map of the Rechthigel Pima Loal det,x1 Tammy 14, 2013, es anciod Mao echtlin in the Dakota Comb Dimi, Court of the Homes.. Rabat R. Kkg on August 29. 2013. EA. PROPERTY LINE hes m cast onc-half of Southwest Quarter f.E 1/2 of SW 1 61.1„ in Section 35, Township 113, Ringo 20, EAST PROPPR, L/2. is mom particuledy dasathed m folkma Commocing at de South.. Ccencr of sad Sac,. 35 es shown mid map of the Recia,s, Farm Land. thence South 89 degrees 57 rain,. 42 smands Fam along the south him of the Sodlosest Qum, of said &cam 35 a distance of 1131.67 foe, to point of begimang of EAST PROPERTY LINE; theme North 00 degrees 16 mamas 56 secoods West a distance of 2004.72 roe, to an eng.le peat masked by m iron pi, monumerd with a ohmic cap sump. RLS 232. on at old Embed wire fence ha, biome Nath 00 dogma 02 mimms IS seconds East aloes said old bathed form o distance of 65022 feet, to m ison pi, monument with a plastic an, stamped RLS 23266 on the north Me of mid Southwest Quarter of &china 35, ad said EAST PROPERTY.. form mindathicg. eclitingel Individuai, and Trustee for Ertate °thank Recier.1 et al m dth OF ATIARY OR AUTHDTUEETTOFFICIAL SIGNATURE OF NOTARY CR AUT110ETLED OFFICIAL 4 2, AUEAPETA Mathew S. Duffy, Fax, tepresenthig Prather /Marta Piece LLP end Fischer Sand and Gun. LLP date STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF Subscribed and sworn to before me this dav of 2014 RECHTIMEL FARM LAND RECAT FA; 2ND voip! • , r ' t l N. • , \ • I % S ES E 1.1 5711 oomt EA, 9 7oPLE, 1571•• STREET Qf EAST 'R,E LINE Of FA,M - •\ 1 6'Xi SN:: • •••• 3" pl_os-NED fa. a 1 1 D , Land Boundary Survey of EAST PROPERTY LINE of Rechtzigel Farm Land In the SW of Section 35, Township 115 N, Range 20 W aattereananierar t_ f UJI_1 HOMES OF Mff`NNNESO A 3N i ; r t da#a 3£etCiYi #� f!o rt Suite 300 , XXXX hX� X� t?i ANN IN8 FNGiNe DN SuRVt:YNG Ffii;A t~tfNN St)7k 5 22 4 --�..� `,T�, "n..,a� S7RE '1 c � XeXX ..... Xhhcam......chb. T: . _ ......f" :,,, €7t t itpxeby c r•ttfy th t � k c (�n t v?t� pa "acsr�:tl b sT' ss n a� ter Ysy; #$r,rt sr'pttr��;zian txrad t#is� tsrn tx daty f# �ist+;r"d P F'rtt� net�r zrraer si fi,f Laws or f t e k) ht 5 fss #+� g ktiran ;sc�tei FR.:r>AC2FA .� l HQMrf a OF M NNE'OtA, N? . 1355 Ade 1ieie,lt,; Rued Suite' 300 ke?tc otsr Tai ht. 00 50i:�a 112 3 hone; (01) 462.-5200 POD PLANNOIG 3501 0 3� 30035, 5 003301)15 53132 301053 (512) 405-500 Ci P.3iflriRtkt. tt1J cs�3 #y' :f,�0ot this #aiasc w7 preiacrrec3 h�, r1e z�r t�n�er tnv t3ir•t9rt suisert s ixm grad brat tsrri a` dcsty 3 � r i tc�fl10 P33(11 tuest 50 1111101 ut�d�r thae laws a1 tt•t4 5111 n r.f kiintleao ci 011 Hedhand, • rtcyfsio` a frC�' « +7f Gene Rechtzigel, Pro Se 6533 160th Street West Apple Valley, MN 55124 May 2, 2014 City of Apple Valley 7100 147th Street West Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 952 voice 952-953-2515 fax Re: Quarry Ponds West Dear City Clerk, City Administrator, City Attorney, and Planning Commission Members, Before the Planning Commission Hearing of Quarry Ponds West can be properly ripe for a Hearing of the proposal, three concerns need to be addressed as follows: 1. Has there been a Retracement Survey done of the property between Rechtzigel's land and Fischer's land which retraces the 100 year old Farmer Fence Boundary Line, and if so, where is it shown or why is it not shown on the Quarry Ponds West Probe Engineering Drawings? 2. Does the paper Legal Description, that was mailed out with the Quarry Ponds West May 7, 2014 Planning Commission Hearing announcement, cross over or disturb the "Bridell Line" (the James Bridell Retracement Survey of the 100 year old farm fence property line)? 3. Does the Quarry Ponds West Proposed Development cause a, road, street or avenue, disturbance to the lake to the south? 4. Why has there not been proper notice sent out to the Rechtzigel's concerning the proposed Quarry Ponds West is situated next to a portion of the Rechtzigel's remainder land of 10.1 acres? 5. Has "Safe Harbor" been provided to Mr. Gene Rechtzigel to attend and speak at the May 7, 2014 Hearing concerning the proposed development of Quarry Ponds West? A prompt response is needed and a postponement of the hearing should be considered if these issues couldn't be resolved before the hearing of May 7, 2014. Yours truly, By: Gene Rechtzigel, Sul Juris Pro Se GR/GR LYNN RENE WORKMAN NOTARY PUBLIC MINNESOTA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 01131/16 • State of it4/WN —r lounty of Subscribed and sworn before me on sr at:* MEMORANDUM To: Bruce Nordquist, Community Development Director From: Mike Dougherty, City Attorney Date: 5/6/2014 Re: Gene Rechtzigel — Letter of May 2, 2014 have had an opportunity to review the letter Gene Rechtzigel delivered to City Hall regarding the Quarry Ponds West matter. For your information that you may pass on to Mr. Rechtzigel, offer the following comments: 1. The issue of preliminary subdivision before the Planning Commission does not require any matching of surveys. While the applicant may provide more information than is sought by the City, the information needed to be provided on the subdivision application is set forth within the City Ordinances. What is necessary to establish title to property that is desired to be platted and what needs to be shown on a plat are determined by state statute and the county surveyor. 2. See answer to Number 1. Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer D P.A. OUGHERTY MOLE Attorneys 1 Advisors 7300 West 147th Street Suite 600 Apple Valley, MN 55124 (952) 432-3136 Phone (952) 432-3780 Fax www.dmshb.com . Access to Quarry Ponds West will be provided by means of Johnny Cake Ridge Road, which is anticipated to be built in conjunction with the development of Regent's Point. 4. There is no statutory requirement to give a notice to the public or individuals of an application to subdivide property. Under City ordinance, notice is to be provided to property owners whose property lies within 350 feet of the property to be subdivided. 5. I have asked Tom Lovelace to coordinate with the police department to facilitate a safe harbor for Mr. Rechtzigel, should he choose to attend the meeting on May 7, 2014. While the City owes no duty to provide a safe harbor (Mr. Rechtzigel may submit written comments and concerns into the public record or have a representative address the Planning Commission), the police department will assure that the peace is observed and kept. The use of the presence of the police to control the interaction of attendees is the extent that the City can administratively do to accommodate Mr. Rechtzigel's attendance at a public forum. If anything more is expected or needed by Mr. Rechtzigel, it is beyond the responsibility of the City to address. cc: Tom Lawell, City Administrator Tom Lovelace, City Planner In the Matter of the Petitions of Randall J. ZAHRADKA, Winifred E. Zahradka, and Robert L. Reiling, William S. Reiling, for an Order Registering Boundaries and Revising Land Descriptions. No. CO-90-2557. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. FACTS 472 N.Wid 153 (19S1) June 18, 1991. Review Denied August 29, 1991. 154 *154 Stuart C. Bear, Chestnut & Brooks, P.A., Minneapolis, for appellants. Joseph F. Kueppers, Kueppers, Hackel & Kueppers, St. Paul, for respondents. Considered and decided by KALITOWSKI, P.J., and SHORT and DAVIES, JJ. OPINION KALITOWSKI, Judge. Appeal is from a judgment entered pursuant to the trial court's order revising the land descriptions contained in the parties' certificates of title so as to exclude a disputed piece of property from appellants' certificate. This action involves a dispute between adjoining landowners over ownership of a 38' by 50' piece of Torrens property located near the southwest corner of Randolph and Snelling Avenue in St. Paul. The disputed property is located on the southern boundary of property currently registered in the names of appellants Randall J. and Winifred E. Zahradka, and on the northern boundary of property registered in the names of respondents Robert L. and William S. Reiling. The Reilings are the registered owners, under certificate of title number 284369, issued May 8, 1972, of the following described land in Ramsey County: The South 115.64 feet of the North 255.64 feet of the East 255.64 feet of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 9, Township 28, Range 23, except the East 50 feet for Snelling Avenue and except the Northerly 38 feet of the Easterly 150 feet thereof. The Zahradkas are the registered owners, under certificate of title number 344144, issued September V, 19RQ, of the following described land in Ramsey County: The Northerly 38 feet of the Easterly 200 feet of the Southerly 115.64 feet of the Northerly 255.64 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 28, Range 23, except the Easterly 50 feet taken for Snelling Avenue. The land described on both certificates of title and other lands were originally registered as parts of one larger tract. In 1946, the City of St. Paul, then owner of all the land registered in the Torrens proceeding, conveyed to Leo C. Goodrich that part of the registered land now involved in this case. On April 18, 1946, Goodrich conveyed part of this land. The deed and the certificate of title which the Registrar of Titles subsequently issued to the grantee contained the same land description which now appears on the Reilings' certificate of title number 284369. The Registrar also issued a residue certificate to Goodrich. The residue certificate contained the same land description which fl OW appears on the Zahradkas l certificate of title number 344144. In 1946® a 36-unit apartment and an ancillary parking lot were constructed on the property described on the Reilings t certificate. The Reilings, as the sole shareholders of Snelling Investment Company, became owners of the property on December 31, 1970. After purchasing the property, the Reilings paved the ancillary parking lot. The parking lot is comprised of both the disputed property and other property owned by the Reilings. Continuously since December 31, 1970, the Reilings have made 155 exclusive and daily use of the disputed *155 property as a parking area for tenants of their apartment building. On May 21, 1946, Goodrich conveyed the land described on the Zahradkas' certificate to the Standard Oil Company. On December 7, 1961, the certificate of title in the Standard Oil Company's name was cancelled and a certificate was issued in the name of The American Oil Company (Amoco). In 1965, Amoco constructed an automobile service station which bordered the disputed property on the east and north. In addition, Amoco erected a 5' redwood fence which, together with the building, separated the disputed property from the service station property. Rubin Zamansky leased the Amoco property from 1946 through 1979. Zamansky testified at trial that he never maintained the disputed property after 1946, nor did he have occasion to go on the disputed property after that time. In 1979, the Zahradkas leased the service station property from Amoco. The building and redwood fence constructed in 1965 were in place. In June of 1989 the Zahradkas purchased the property from Amoco. On June 14, 1989, Randall Zahradka commissioned a survey of the land described in Amoco's certificate of title. The survey indicated that the disputed property was included in Amoco's certificate. Zahradka did not know before that time that Amoco's certificate included the disputed property although he had leased the service station for ten years. The Zahradkas initiated plans to make use of the disputed property and this lawsuit ensued. ISSUE ANALYSIS 862 (Minn. 1980). Did the trial court err in determining that certificates of title issued to adjoining landowners included the same property and in applying the doctrine of practical location of boundary line to resolve the disputed ownership? It is undisputed that the legal description in the Zahradkas' certificate of title clearly and unambiguously includes the disputed property. The trial court concluded that the legal description in the Reilings' certificate was ambiguous and did not exclude the disputed property. We must first determine whether the Reilings' certificate is susceptible of this interpretation. As with any written instrument, determination of whether a certificate of title is ambiguous is a question of law. See Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Morse, 261 Minn. 259, 263, 111 N.W.2d 620, 624 (1961). A reviewing court is not bound by the trial court's conclusion as to the existence of an ambiguity. See Lamb Plumbin. & Heatin. Co. v. Kraus-Anderson 296 N.W.2d 859 A written instrument is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation based on its language alone. Collins Truck Lines, Inc. v. Metropolitan Waste Control Comm'n 274 N.W.2d 123, 126 (Minn.19791. Thus, we must determine whether the following language is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation: The South 115.64 feet of the North 255.64 feet of the East 255.64 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9. Township 28, Range 23, except the East 50 feet for Snelling Avenue and except the Northerly 38 feet of the Easterly 150 feet thereof. We find this land description ambiguous on its face in that it may or may not include the disputed property. The ambiguity results from the use of two exception clauses in the land description. The description defines a larger parcel from which two smaller parcels are excluded, It is unclear whether the word "thereof at the end of the second exception clause applies to the main ;parcel of land minus the 5 feet taken for Snelling Avenue or to the larger parcel without any diminution by the excluded 50 feet for Snelling Avenue, If the former, the and description contained in the Reilings' certificate would not include the 156 disputed property. If the latter, *156 the land description would include the disputed property. Because we conclude the land description in the Reilings' certificate of title can be construed as including the disputed property, it is necessary to resolve the conflict between the Reilings' and the Zahradkas' certificates of title. The trial court found the doctrine of practical location of boundary lines applicable to resolve the question of ownership of the disputed property. We agree. Minnesota has long recognized the doctrine of practical location of boundary lines. See Beardsley v N.W. 740 (1893). A general description of the doctrine is set forth in Moore v. Henricksen, 282 Minn. 509, 165 N.W.2d 209 1968) • Id. at 516, 165 N.W.2d at 215 (citing Gifford v. Vore 245 Minn. 432 436 72 N.W.2d 625 628 1955 DECISION Affirmed. In Minnesota there are only three ways in which the practical location of a boundary may be established: (1) The location relied upon must have been acquiesced in for a sufficient length of time to bar a right of entry under the statute of limitations; (2) the line must have been expressly agreed upon between the parties claiming the land on both sides thereof and afterward acquiesced in; or (3) the parties whose rights are to be barred must have silently looked on, with knowledge of the true line, while the other party encroached upon it or subjected himself to expense in regard to the land which he would not have had the line been in dispute. ). Since the effect of a practical location of a boundary is to divest one of property to which he has a conceded title * * *, the evidence establishing such a location must be clear, positive, and unequivocal. Id., 165 N.W.2d at 215 (citing Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1, 6-7, 53 N.W.2d 553, 556 (1952)). The trial court's determination of a boundary is a fact issue, and is awarded the same deference as any factual determination. Wojahn v. Johnson, 297 N.W.2d 298, 303 (Minn.19801. The trial court found the evidence clear, positive and unequivocal that the Zahradkas and their predecessors had acquiesced in the service station building and fence as the boundary line for the requisite fifteen years. Minn.Stat. § 541.02 (1988). The evidence is sufficient to support this finding. First, the evidence shows that the Zahradkas and their predecessors made no use nor overt claim of ownership of the disputed property from 1946 through August 1989. The only action they took with respect to the disputed property was construction of the service station building and fence in 1965. This effectively walled off the disputed property from the other land described in the Zahradkas' and their predecessors' certificates of title. Second, the evidence shows that in 1946, an apartment building was constructed on property undisputedly owned by the Reilings' predecessors. At that time, ancillary parking was also laid out on land adjacent to the apartment building, including the disputed property. When the Reilings acquired their property on December 31, 1970, they paved the disputed property. Since that time, the Reilings have made exclusive, daily use of the disputed property as a parking area for tenants of their apartment building. This evidence clearly, positively and unequivocally shows that the boundary lines have been established in the Reilings' favor by the doctrine of practical location. The trial court properly applied the doctrine of practical location and ordered revision of the land descriptions contained in the parties' certificates of title so as to exclude the disputed property from the Zahradkas' certificate. Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar. OPINION MURPHY, Justice. N.W.2d (1968) Fred AMATO, Respondent, v. Helen Elizabeth HARADEN et al., Appellants. No. 40633., Supreme Court of Minnesota, June 14, 1968. 908 *908 MacDonald & Munger, Duluth, for appellants. Wangansteen & Bangs, Chisholm, for respondent. Heard before KNUTSON, C. J., and MURPHY, ROGOSHESKE, SHERAN and PETERSON, JJ. Defendants appeal from an order denying their alternative motion for amended findings or a new trial in an action to determine a boundary by practical location. The action was brought by Fred Amato against his neighbors, Helen Elizabeth and Mary Jane Haraden, to determine the boundary line between lots owned and occupied by them. The court found for plaintiff, and defendants assert error contending that the evidence was not sufficient to establish boundary by practical location nor to establish adverse possession. The plaintiff and defendants are adjoining property owners in the city of Chisholm. Plaintiff Amato acquired title to Lot 15, Block "M ", rearrangement of out lots "L" and "M ", original plat of Chisholm, in 1950. It came to him by descent and purchase, the title originating with his father who acquired the property in 1919. The defendants Haraden acquired title through descent and purchase of the adjoining lot to the west, which was originally acquired by their father in 1916. Lot 15 appears to be in the shape of a trapezoid which has a frontage on the south on Oak Street of approximately 50 feet and narrows to a width of 8 feet at the alley. The part of the Haraden lot immediately to the west of Lot 15 was an abandoned railroad right -of -way. Sometime shortly after the senior Haraden acquired this property, the Amatos extended use of the property to the rear of their premises by occupying the easterly part of the abandoned railroad right -of -way. This extension of use by the Amatos obviously grew out of the unique shape and dimensions of the adjoining lots and seems to have resulted from the consent and agreement of the Haradens, the object being to permit the Amatos to have more backyard space and a larger frontage on the alley. The record would indicate that the parties agreed to establish a line by fixing the west boundary of Lot 15 so that it would run parallel with the other platted lots facing Oak Street. Accordingly, the Haradens constructed a fence along the agreed line. As a result, a triangular tract east of the line was added to the north part of Lot 15 and a triangular tract to the west of the fence was added to the Haraden property on the south end of their lot facing Oak Street. The apex of the two triangles lies along the fence line, probably a few feet nearer Oak Street than the alley. From the record it appears that when the fence was erected in 1926, George Haraden, defendants' brother, then a young man, was present when his father suggested to the senior Amato that the property line between the two lots be "squared off." According to his testimony, a bargain was struck between the Haradens and the Amatos whereby the parties exchanged triangular tracts at each end of their respective lots. It was "more or less an exchange" of property in order that the senior 909 Haraden *909 would have the "straight line he wanted." In time, the wooden fence deteriorated and was replaced by the Haradens in 1956 with a new steel fence. While the defendants Haraden do not concede that there was acquiescence in the property line as established by the fence, nothing was ever done to assert possession until this action was started. After hearing the evidence, the trial court found: That during the period from 1926 to the present the plaintiff and his predecessors in title have used and occupied all of the property east of the fence, including Triangle "A"; that the uses were a garden for 25 to 30 years, garage for many years, piling of wood along the fence, chicken coop, clothes line poles with blacktop thereunder, a cement sidewalk, a tool shed, garbage can stand; that plaintiffs property was enclosed on all sides by a fence, including the one in dispute, since 1926; that defendants' property has also been enclosed by a fence on all sides, including the one in dispute; that it was the desire and intention of all parties in 1926 that there be a 'straight line to the sidewalk and alley between the respective properties, changing their shape from trapezoids to rectangles; that defendants and their predecessors in title have occupied and used from 1926 to the present all of the land west of the disputed fence, including Triangle "B"; that defendants and their predecessors have had no access to the land east of the fence, and plaintiff and his predecessors have had no access to the land west of the fence, since 1926; that the respective use of said land by the parties and their predecessors has been with the full knowledge of the parties, with knowledge of the true line, and while both parties subjected themselves to expense in regard to the land which they would not have done had the line been in dispute. 'That the boundary line separating the properties of the parties has been established by practical location 39 years prior to the commencement of this action, and that for all of that period it has been identified and determined by a wire fence, extending a distance of 125 feet in a generally north-south direction lying 30.38 feet west of and parallel to the east line of Lot 15, Block M rearrangement of out lots 'L' and 'M', original plat of Chisholm. 'That the plaintiff is the owner of the Easterly 30.38 feet of Lot 15, Block M, rearrangement of out lots 'L' and 'M', original plat of Chisholm, and the most northeasterly 30.38 feet, being Triangle A, of that part of the abandoned right-of-way of the Eastern Railroad Company lying east of and adjoining Lot 17, Block 35, in the village (now city) of Chisholm." As we view the pleadings and record, the action was brought to determine a boundary line pursuant to Minn.St. 559.234 It 910 should *910 be observed that defendants do not argue that principles of law relating to practical boundary questions apply only where the boundary in dispute is uncertain and unknown or that where the line is definite and certain a parol agreement changing its location is within the statute of frauds. The thrust of the defense goes to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence to establish either a boundary by practical location or title by adverse possession. It may be stated at the outset that boundary line agreements when fairly made are favored by the law. Where adjoining landowners occupy their respective premises up to a certain line which they mutually recognize and acquiesce in for a long period of time, usually the time prescribed by the statute of limitations, the general rule is that they are precluded from claiming that the boundary line thus recognized and acquiesced in is not the true one. The authorities upon which plaintiff relies are a long line of cases beginning with Beardsleyv continuing down to the more recent cases of Fishman v. Nielsen, 237 Minn. 1, 53 N.W.2d 553; Bjerketvedt v. Jacobson, 232 Minn. 152, 44 N.W.2d 775; and Aldrich v. Wilson, 265 Minn. 150, 120 N.W.2d 849. The thrust of these authorities, as applied to the issues presented and the theory upon which the case was tried, is that practical location of a boundary line can be established in one of three ways only: (1) the location relied upon must have been acquiesced in for a sufficient length of time to bar right of entry under the statute of limitations; (2) the line must have been expressly agreed upon by the interested parties and afterwards acquiesced in; (3) the party whose rights are to be barred must, with knowledge of the true line, have silently looked on while the other party encroached thereon and subjected himself to expense which he would not have incurred had the line been in dispute. We agree that there was ample evidence from the acts and conduct of the parties and their predecessors in interest over a period of at least 38 years to warrant the establishment of the boundary line determined by the trial court. Affirm '1 Minn St 559 2- pr-vides actor, may �� r aerson owntng laid or any interest therein against the owner, or persons interested madjoining land, to have the boundary lines established; and when the boundary lines of two or more tracts depend upon any common point, line, or landmark, an action may be brought by the owner or any person interested in any of such tracts, against the owners or persons interested in the other tracts, to have all the boundary lines established. The court shall determine any adverse claims in respec to any portion of the land involved which it may be necessary to determine for a complete settlement of the boundary lines, and shall make such order respecting costs and disbursements as it shall deem just." The record would also indicate that the action was in the nature of one to determine adverse claims pursuant to Minn.St. 541 .02, which provides: "No action for the recovery of real estate or the possession thereof shall be maintained unless it appears that the plaintiff, his ancestor, predecessor, or grantor, was seized or possessed of the premises in question within 15 years before the beginning of the action. "Such limitation shall not be a bar to an action for the recovery of real estate assessed as tracts or parcels separate from other real estate, unless it appears that the party claiming title by adverse possession or his ancestor, predecessor, or grantor, or all of them together, shall have paid taxes on the real estate in question at Ieast five consecutive years of the time during which he claims these lands to have been occupied adversely. "The provisions of paragraph two shall not apply to actions relating to the boundary line of lands, which boundary lines are established by adverse possession, or to actions concerning lands included between the government or platted line and the line established by such adverse possession, or to lands not assessed for taxation" Save trees - read court opini online on Google Scholar. .0... 0... city of App e VaIIey Kathy Bodmer, Planner Action Requested Background ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 6A May 7, 2014 Land Use/Action Item ITEM DESCRIPTION: Consider Ordinance Amending Chapter 155 (Zoning) by City of Apple Valley (PC14-08-Z) STAFF CONTACT: DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development • Recommend approval of the draft ordinance amending Chapter 155 (Zoning) for purposes of consistency with State Law, clean-up and clarification. Summary The Planning Commission is requested to consider an ordinance amending the zoning code which would include the following provisions: • Revise the number of City Council votes required for rezoning and zoning amendments. • Allow window wells to encroach into side and rear setbacks. • Allow decks, stoops and uncovered porches that are less than 30" from grade to encroach in the front yard setback up to eight feet (8'). Remove "no railing" requirement. • Delete setback requirements for rooftop mechanical units. Staff reviewed Chapter 155 (Zoning) of the City Code and found several sections that require editing for purposes of clarification and/or consistency with State law. A draft ordinance has been prepared to address four minor edits that are considered housekeeping in nature. April 16, 2014 Public Hearing Discussion/Questions: At the public hearing for the ordinance amendments, the Planning Commission asked staff to provide additional information concerning two items: (1) front patios and whether the ordinance should restrict sunken patios and (2) setbacks for rooftop mechanical units. No comments were received from the public. 1. The issue of sunken patios was discussed with the Building Official. He said that he has never encountered an issue with a home owner creating a depressed structure or feature in the front yard that resulted in a building code or structural issue. A sunken front patio would have similar characteristics to a front porch encouraging activity and use of the front yard. Sunken patios areas often include seating, a fire pit and other landscape features. Photos of examples of sunken patios are included in the staff report. • Staff does not have a concern regarding sunken patios and proposes making no changes to the ordinance to address this issue. 2. Staff researched other city ordinances regarding setbacks for rooftop mechanical units. Staff only found one example in the Twin Cities of setbacks for mechanical units. Burnsville's Commercial Recreation District (CRD) requires all mechanical units not screened by a parapet wall to be grouped together behind an enclosure and located a minimum of 1.5 times the height of the equipment away from the primary facade fronting a public street. It should be noted that this requirement is not found in Burnsville's standard commercial or industrial zoning districts or their Heart of the City design standards. Portland, Oregon requires a 15 foot setback for mechanical units from roof edges parallel to street right of ways. Albuquerque, New Mexico requires taller screening structures if a screen is closer to the edge of the building. For example, equipment that is 10' from the building wall must have a minimum screen height of 42". Equipment 20' from the building wall must be a minimum 30" screen, while beyond 20,' only an 18" tall screen is required. The Albuquerque ordinance does not take into account the actual height of the equipment. • Because the zoning code will continue to require full screening of the mechanical equipment, staff does not believe that additional setbacks are needed Removing the setback will allow architects and engineers more flexibility in design, especially with smaller buildings. Therefore, staffproposes making no changes to the ordinance to address this issue. Summary of Ordinance Amendments 1. Amend Number of Votes Required to Approve Zoning Amendment. State law requires a majority vote of the members ("simple majority") for most rezoning and zoning amendments. In the case of a rezoning from a residential zoning designation to either a commercial or industrial designation, State law requires a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote (essentially, four out of the five members). The proposed amendment would amend the Code consistent with State Statutes. 2. Window Well Encroachments and Setbacks. The proposed amendment would allow for encroachment into a side or rear setback up to 48", provided no less than 5' is maintained from a property line and that there is no encroachment into an easement. This will allow for the minimum window well required horizontal width and depth of 36" each plus another 8" to 10" to allow for a block or timber wall. 3. Allow decks, stoops and uncovered porches with railing in front yard. Right now, patios and decks may encroach 8' into the front setback as long as they are 18" or less above grade at the building line and have no railing. This amendment removes the "no railing" provision on front decks and patios that encroach into the front setback, essentially allowing railing to be installed. In addition, the ordinance revises the height of the encroachment to less than 3 0" to allow 3 or 4 steps to encroach into the front setback. Last, the measurement is simplified by removing "at the building line" and measuring from the top of the platform to the finished grade. 4. Reduce Setback for Roof Top Mechanical Equipment. The zoning code requires that mechanical equipment must set back a minimum of 20' from the building edge. The code already requires that the equipment be fully screened with a screen that is the same height as the mechanical equipment, so the setback is less of an issue. Removing the rooftop mechanical equipment setback would allow for more flexibility in building design. No other changes to the screening requirements are proposed. Two other typos in this section are fixed. Budget Impact N/A Attachment(s) 1. Draft Ordinance Amending Chapter 155 of the City Code 2. Window Well Photos 3. Front Decks/Stoops with Railings Photos 4. Sunken Patio Photos 5. Rooftop Screening — Other City Examples Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments May 2014 CITY OF APPLE VALLEY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA AMENDING CHAPTER 155 OF THE CITY CODE GOVERNING ZONING REGULATIONS RELATED TO COUNCIL VOTE REQUIREMENT, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR WINDOW WELLS, SETBACK EXEMPTIONS FOR FRONT DECKS, PORCHES, STOOPS, ETC., AND ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS The City Council of Apple Valley Ordains: Section 1. Section 155.400 (A) and (G) of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: § 155.400 ZONING AMENDMENTS. (A) Purpose. The purpose of this section may be amended by the majority vote of a changing the regulations of any ex four fifths of the City Council. The purpose of this section is to prescribe the procedure and requirements for any change to the zoning classification or zoning boundaries of a property or any amendment to any provision of this Chapter. * (G) Council action; time limits . If the Planning Commission fails to make a report within 30 days after the close of the hearing, the City Council may act without the recommendation. The Council may g rant th e petition, in whole or in part, or it may continue the petition, from time to tirne, for further investigation and hearing. The Council may also request further information and report from the Planning Commission The City Council may adopt a zoning regulation, amend zoning zoning regulation her;in,orc the zoning classification or y zoning boundaries of a property by a majority vote of a ll its members, except any change to all or part of an existing classification of a zoning district rict from residential to either commercial or industrial requires a two-thirds majority vote of all members of the Council. Section 2. Section 155.333(C)(1) of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: § 155.333 REQUIRED YARDS AND OPEN SPACES. 5/1/14 Version (C) The following shall not be considered as encroachments &n-yithm yard area or setback requirements: (1) Projections and ftlindolvi TVells. (a) Chimneys, flues, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves, bays, gutters and other similar projections, provided they do not extend more than 30 inches into the required setback area and in no instance in the R districts nearer than three feet from a lot line. (1) A window mei? may encroach Lip to 48_inches, measuring from_plitside eciggsd the \yeti wall/support, into ihe required side or rear „setback, pr9v it is not closer than live feet (5') to a lot line or encroach into an easement. Section 3. Section 155.333(C)(2)(b) of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: § 155.333 REQUIRED YARDS AND OPEN SPACES. (C) The following shall requirements: 5/1/14 Version (2) In front . yards. not be considered as encroachments on yard or setback * * * (b) Patios, art-d-decks, uncovelorthes, ste s and stoo s that extend into the required setback area a distance of eight feet or less.. ,. * above grade at the building line and have no railing. No portion of a front deck, porch or stoop may have a height greater than 30 inches measured from the top of the platform to the finished gr_ak Section 4. Section 155.346(B)(3) of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 155.346 BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN. 2 (B) In order to assure that new construction is compatible with existing structures and neighborhood environments, it is necessary to establish minimum design and building material standards. These standards will serve to prevent new development from de-stabilizing adjacent neighborhoods by mitigating the intrinsic negative impacts associated with structures of greater bulk and density. The following standards are established to accomplish these ends: (3) Mechanical protrusions. 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. (a) For rooftop mechanical equipment, satisfaction of this requirement shall require that the all n echamcal equipment and related a • • urtenances exec s l solar collector panels, Whist be fully screened visually by e ° 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 wa.11s must be an extension of the primary building materials comprising the outside walls of the'buil ing; 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. qu-i-p ?: l wY t-b -ck For ground mounted equipment, satisfaction of this requirement shall require that the 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. 5/1/14 Version Section 5. 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 suns lary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. Section 6. Filing. The City Clerk shall file a copy of this ordinance in her office, which copy shall be available for inspection by any person during regular office hours. Section 7. 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. 3 Section 8. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication of its title and official summary. ATTEST: 5/1/14 Version PASSED by the City Council this day of 2014. Pamela J. Gackstetter, City Clerk Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor 4 CITY OF APPLE VALLEY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA AMENDING CHAPTER 155 OF THE CITY CODE GOVERNING ZONING REGULATIONS RELATED TO COUNCIL VOTE REQUIREMENT, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR WINDOW WELLS, SETBACK EXEMPTIONS FOR FRONT DECKS, PORCHES, STOOPS, ETC., AND ROOFTOP MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS The following is the official summary of Ordinance No. approved by the City Council of Apple Valley on , 2014. This ordinance amends Chapter 155 of the City Code, governing zoning regulations, related to the number of City Council votes required for a rezoning or zoning amendment, setback requirements for window wells, setback exemptions for front decks, uncovered porches, stoops, etc., and setbacks for rooftop mechanical units. A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk at the Apple Valley Municipal Center, 7100 West 147 Street, Apple Valley, 55124. y� 5/1/14 Version 5 Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication. Examples of Window Wells Timber Steel/Galvanized Metal Block/Pavers Examples Front Decks/Stoops with Railings EXAMPLES OF SUNKEN PATIOS Rooftop Screening Ordinance Excerpts Other Cities PLYMOUTH 21130.05. SCREENING OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT: All rooftop and ground mounted mechanical equipment of non-residential buildings shall comply with the following standards: Subd. 2. All rooftop and ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be designed (including exterior color) and located so to be aesthetically harmonous and cornpatible with the building. Screening of the equipment may be required where the design, color, and location of the equipment are found to not effectively buffer noise or provide aesthetic harmony and compatibility as observed by a ' six-foot tall individual standing at ground level — on the adjacent property or public right-of-wa . Screening shall be constructed of durable materials which are aesthetically compatible with the structure and which may be an integral part of the structure. Applicable requirements for access to the equipment shall be observed in the design and construction of the screening. Subd. 3. Rooftop mechanical equipment less than three feet in height, solar panels, and wind energy conversion systems (WECS) shall be exempt from the screening requirements of Section 21130.05, Subd. 2. of this Chapter. Woodbury Sec. 24-143. GW gateway district (a) Purpose and scope. Properties zoned with this designation are lands located at or near interstate highways or existing and future interchange areas or properties along roads leading to these interchanges and are shown as "Gateway" on the comprehensive plan. This zone mirrors the BC business campus district but allows for supportive retail uses as part of a planned unit development approval and provides for a desirable entry image as foliows: (1) Rooftops. b. Roof-mountedmechanica|equipmentvents, and stacks shall be minimized and positioned so that they will not be seen from public rig or adjacent properties. If the esuisment is visible from sublic hts-of-way or adjacent properties the equipment shall be screened. Screening c in the form of parapet walls colored an. constructed of the same building materials as the principal building. c. Rooftop solar collectors, skylights, and other potentially reflective rooftop building elements shall be designed and installed in a manner that prevents reflected glare and obstruction ofviews from other sites and structures. Screening shall be in the form of walls constructed of the same building materials and match coloring of the principal building. d. In those circumstances, such as freeway overpasses, where parapet walls would be unable to screen the equipment, screening may be accomplished using elements Maple Grove Screening of mechanical equipment. constructed ofone or more ofthe materials used on the principal building, as approved by the city. (1) All mechanical equipment, such as air conditioning units, erected on the roof of any structure or on the ground shall be screened so as not to be visible. (2) Air conditioning units need not be screened if located at least ten feet from any side lot line and between the rear of the house and the rear lot line of a lot on which a single-family, two-family orquadraminium structure is located. (3) The screening shall be constructed with materials that are architecturally compatible with the (4) The use ofwood, in whole or in part, as a screening material shall not be considered as being architecturally compatible unless the building is constructed with a wood exterior. Eden Prairie Mechanical Equipment: Heating, ventilation, exhaust, air conditioning, and communication units integral to and located on top of, beside or adjacent to a building and telecommunications mechanical equipment located on top of, beside or adjacent to a building. Screening: A barrier which blocks all views from public roads and adjacent differing land uses to off- street (k) Mechanical Equipment Screening: (1) All mechanical equipment mounted on the exterior of a building and possessing one or more of the characteristics listed below in k.3. shall be •h sicall screened from all alublic roads and acracent‘differing ` . building material in a manner architecturally integral to the building or buildings on site. (2) All mechanical equipment located on the ground and possessing one or more of the characteristics listed blow in k.3. shall be physically screened from all public roads and adjacent differing land uses with either plant material or factory prefinished metal, wood laminated with metal, or other building material in a manner architecturally integral to the building or buildings on site. (3) lrregutar in size and shape; Exposed and/or protruding fans, grills, pipes, tubes, wires, vents; unfinished metal covering, exposed rivets, exposed seams. Burnsville (E) Utilities: The view of all equipment and related piping dU��ng, electrical a Dd nl�:h� �|i�ab��o��bui|din��n�m��rJ�nu�m1.20�.m�U�� Di --.�- buildings ~ ' . the ground level view Screening may include parapet walis penthouses or other architecturally in egrated e ements. Wood fencing or chainlink with slats shall not be used for screening. 1,12Q term "ground level view" for this provision shall be defined as the view of the buildin• from the u es point of the wii o e th o wa from the property line(s) that abut a street. A cross at For buildings constructed prior to January 1.2OO8. for replacement ofexstingunitm.nernode|ing.end building expansions, the ground level view of all rooftop equipment and related piping, ducting, electrical and mechanical utilities shall be painted to match the building, designed to be compatible with the architectural treatment of the principal structure or screened by the use of parapet walls. Wood fencing shall not be used for screening. lO'2ZAl-7: GENERAL PROVISIONS: Newport Beach, CA (8) Mechanical Equipment: Mechanical equipment (ground mounted and rooftop) shall meet the following requirements: 1_. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall not exceed the buliding height ht standards by more than ten feet (10') for a single-story building or fifteen feet (15') for a multiple-story building. 2. Ati ground mounted equipment shall be completely screened from view from adjacent properties and the public right of way by enclosures constructed of durable and permanent materials with architectural elements (type, quality, and appearance) similar and compatible to the principal structure. 3. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from across adjacent streets fifteen feet (15') behind the curb or adjacent properties at the property line. building . equipment 4. m letely screened by the Rooftop e should be grouped behind an enclosure and set back a distance of one and one-half (1.5) times its heig rom any primary facade fronting a public street. 5. Screens shall be of durable, permanent materials (not including wood) that are compatible with the primary building materials. 6. Exterior mechanical equipment, such as ductwork, shati not be Iocated on primary building facades. 20,30.02�� and �� Screening. This section provides standards for the screening and buffering of adjoining land uses, equipment, and outdoor storage areas. Multi-unit residential and nonresidential land uses shall comply with the requirements of this section A. Roof-Mounted and Ground-Mounted Mechanical Equipment. 1. Screening Required. The screening of roof-mounted and ground-mounted mechanical equipment is required in all zoning districts at the time of new installation or replacement. Roof-mounted and ground-mounted mechanical equipment (e.g., air conditioning, heating, ventilation ducts and exhaust vents, swimming pool and spa pumps and filters, transformers and generators, and similar equipment, but excluding solar collectors and related equipment), shall be screened from public view and adjacent residential districts, and shall comply with the requirements below. 2. Roof-Mounted Mechanical Equipment. a. Screening. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be visible in an direction 360 deerees frini a public right-of-way or ad'acent residential pro•ert as may ie seen from a point six feet above •-‘ • • eve n a•dition, screenin• o ei o• of roof-mounted mechanical equi•ment ma be re• uired b the Director if necessary to •rotect views from a residential zonin district located at a higher elevation. . Height Limit. Roof-mounte• mec anica equipment and screening shall be subject to the height limitations of Part 2 of this title (Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zoning District Standards) and any height limit exceptions in Section 20.30.060 (Height Limits and Exceptions). c. Screening Methods. Screening of roof-mounted equipment shall be accomplished with mechanical roof wells recessed below the roof line or by solid and permanent roof-mounted screens. Screening shall be compatible with the architectural style, materials, and color of the building upon which the equipment is located, subject to the approval of the Department. Jefferson County, CO Portland, OR Does meet standard 2, rcliechanical and electrical equipment shall not be sited on the roof of a building unless the equipment can be screened with walls twelve (12) inches taller than the equipment being screened. T e screening of roof top mechanical and e ec rca equipmen s a - 4 7 4esignes to compliment the architectural elements of the building and shall be clustered when feasible. (orig. 7-23-02: am. 9-15- 09) Height standard. The height standards for all structures are stated in Table 130-3. Exceptions to the maximum height standard are stated below. 1. Projections allowed. Chimneys, flag poles, satellite receiving dishes, and other items similar with a width, depth, or diameter of 5 feet or less may rise 10 feet above the height limit, or 5 feet above the highest point of the roof, whichever is greater. If they are greater than 5 feet in width, depth, or diameter, they are subject to the height limit. 2. Roof top access and mechanical equipment. All rooftop mechanical equipment and enclosures of stairwells that provide rooftop access must be set back at least 15 feet from all roof edges that are parallel to street lot lines. Rooftop elevator mechanical equipment may extend up to 16 feet above the heigiii imit. Stairwell enclosures, and Does not meet standard other rooftop mechanical equipment which cumulatively covers no more than 10 percent of the roof area may extend 10 feet above the height limit. 33.130.235 Screening A. Purpose. The screening standards address specific unsightly features which detract from the appearance of commercial areas. C. Mechanical equipment. Mechanical equipment located on the ground, such as heating or cooling equipment, pumps, or generators must be screened from the street and any abutting residential zones by walls, fences, or vegetation. Screening must comply with at least the L3 or F2 standards of Chapter 33.248, Landscaping and Screening, and be tall enough to screen the equipment. Mechanical equipment placed on roofs must be screened in one of the following ways, if the equipment is within 50 feet of an R zone: 1. A parapet along facades facing the R zone that is as tall as the tallest part of the equipment; 2. A screen around the equipment that is as tall as the tallest part of the equipment; or 3. The equipment is set back from roof edges facing the R zone 3 feet for each foot of height of the equipment. City of Albuquerque, NM 6) Screening. (a) Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the public right-of-way by parapet walls or structural features. The minimum height of the parapet walls or structural features shall be as follows: 1. 42" if the roof top equipment is within 10 feet of the building wall; 2. 30" if the roof top equipment is within 20 feet of the building wall; 3. 18" if the roof top equipment is beyond 20 feet of the building wall. b) Wall-mounted mechanical and electrical equipment on major facades is discouraged. If used, it shall be screened by dense evergreen foliage or by other acceptable screening devices. Wall- mounted mechanical equipment on non-major facades shall be painted to match the color of the subject building or screened by other acceptable screening devices. (c) Ground-mounted mechanical and electrical equipment, excluding transformers, adjacent to a major facade shall be screened through use of walls, earth berms, dense evergreen foliage or other acceptable screening devices. (d) Loading areas which face a public street or residentially-zoned property and which are not separated from the public street or a residentially-zoned property by intervening buildings, landscaping or by a distance of at least 100 feet, shall be screened with solid walls which are a minimum of six feet in height when measured from the finished grade exterior to the loading area. The distance of the screening wall from the loading area shall not exceed 100 feet. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Apple Valley Planning Commission Meeting May 7, 2014 Requested Actions Public hearing to consider various amendments to Chapter 155 (Zoning) of the City Code. 1.Amend number of votes required to approve zoning amendment. 2.Allow window well encroachments. 3.Allow front decks and uncovered porches with a railing to encroach in front setback. 4.Delete setback for roof top mechanical equipment. Public Hearing Comments April 16, 2014 1.Should ordinance regulate sunken patios? 2.How do other cities regulate setbacks for rooftop mechanical equipment? Front Decks and Porches §155.333 REQUIRED YARDS AND OPEN SPACES. (C)The following shall not be considered as encroachments on yard or setback requirements: (2)In front yards. (b)Patios,and decks, uncovered porches, steps and stoopsthat extend into the required setback area a distance of eight feet or less, provided that they are 18 inches or less above grade at the building line and have no railing. No portion of a 30 inches front deck, porch or stoop may have a height greater than measured from the top of the platform to the finished grade. Removes “no railing” provision • Increases height of structure from 18” to less than 30” • Measurement taken from top of platform to finished grade. • Sunken Patios? Screening of Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Zoning Code currently • requires a min. setback 20’ for rooftop mechanical equipment. And, all screening must • be same height as mechanical equipment. On smaller buildings 20’ • setback difficult to meet. Rooftop Mechanical Setbacks Pizza Ranch ~65’ Setbacks Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Proposed amendment • deletes setback for rooftop mechanical equipment. No other change to • screening requirement Screening must be o same height as equipment Full screening still o required. Review Other Codes CityMechanicalComments Equipment Setback? Eden PrairieNo. LakevilleNo. MapleGroveNo. PlymouthNo. WoodburyNo. BurnsvilleYes –Commercial Completely screenedby parapet or Recreation Dist. set back 1.5 times height of grouped (Buck Hill)equip from edge of bldg. EaganYes.Min. 20’ from building edge Portland, ORYes.15’ from roof edge. Albuquerque,NMYes.If within10’, 42” wall req’d If within 20’, 30” wall req’d If over 20’, 18” wall req’d Rooftop Mechanical Setback MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREEN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BUILDINGSTREET LEVELBUILDING Recommendation Staff recommends the following motion: 1.Recommend approval of the ordinance amending Chapter 155 (Zoning) for purposes of consistency with State Law, clean-up and clarification. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS 1. Amend Number of Votes Required to Approve Zoning Amendment. Zoning code currently states rezoning or zoning • amendment requires a majority vote of 4/5 of the City Council members. State law only requires a majority voteof the members • for a rezoning or a change to the requirements of a zoning district Exceptwhen rezoning from a residential zoning • designation to either a commercial or industrial designation a 2/3majority vote is required (works out to 4 out of 5 Council members). Proposed amendment needed to make the City Code • consistent with State Statutes. 1. Amend Number of Votes Required to Approve Zoning Amendment. §155.400 ZONING AMENDMENTS. (A) Purpose.The purpose of this section may be amended by the majority vote of a quorum of the City Council except that amendments changing the boundaries of any district or changing the regulations of any existing district may only be made by an affirmative vote of four-fifths of the City Council. The purpose of this section is to prescribe the procedure and requirements for any change to the zoning classification or zoning boundaries of a property or any amendment to any provision of this Chapter. (G) Council action; time limits.If the Planning Commission fails to make a report within 30 days after the close of the hearing, the City Council may act without the recommendation. The Council may grant the petition, in whole or in part, or it may continue the petition, from time to time, for further investigation and hearing. The Council may also request further information and report from the Planning Commission. The City Council may adopt a zoning regulation, amend a zoning regulation herein, or change the zoning classification or zoning boundaries of a property by a majority vote of all its members, except any change to all or part of an existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial requires a two-thirds majority vote of all members of the Council. 2. Window Well Encroachments Remodeling challenge -no room for • window well if home set at the 10’ minimum side yard setback. Bldg. code requires min. horizontal • area of 9 sq. ft., w/ a min. horizontal depth and width of 36” ea. Allowing an encroachment into the • setback of up to 48” would allow for the installation of a block or poured wall of 8” to 12”. Propose allowing an encroachment • into a side or rear setback up to 48”, provided: No closer than 5’ from a property • line No encroachment into an • easement. Window Well Encroachments §155.333 REQUIRED YARDS AND OPEN SPACES. (C) The following shall not be considered as encroachments within yard area or setback requirements: (1)Projectionsand Window Wells. (a) Chimneys, flues, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves, bays, gutters and other similar projections, provided they do not extend more than 30 inches into the required setback area and in no instance in the R districts nearer than three feet from a lot line. (b) A window well may encroach up to 48 inches, measuring from outside edge of the well wall/support, into the required side or rear setback, provided it is not closer than five feet (5’) to a lot line or encroach into an easement. 3. Front decks and porches with railing Allows patios, decks, steps, • stops and uncovered porches to encroach 8’ into the front setback. Deletes “no railing” provision • to allow the installation of railings on front decks. Revises height from 18” to less • than 30” Replaces “at the building line” • w/”top of platform to finished grade.” Front Decks and Porches §155.333 REQUIRED YARDS AND OPEN SPACES. (C)The following shall not be considered as encroachments on yard or setback requirements: (2)In front yards. (b)Patios,and decks, uncovered porches, steps and stoopsthat extend into the required setback area a distance of eight feet or less, provided that they are 18 inches or less above grade at the building line and have no railing. No portion of a 30 inches front deck, porch or stoop may have a height greater than measured from the top of the platform to the finished grade. 4. Delete Setback for Rooftop Mechanical Equipment Zoning Code currently requires a • min. setback 20’ for rooftop mechanical equipment. And, all screening must be • minimum height of mechanical equipment. On smaller buildings 20’ setback • difficult to meet. Proposed amendment • deletes setback for rooftop mechanical equipment. No other change to • screening requirement – complete screening still required. Reduce Setback Rooftop Mechanical Equipment §155.346 BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN. (3)Mechanical protrusions.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. (a)For rooftop mechanical equipment, satisfaction of this requirement shall require that the all mechanical equipment and related appurtenances, except solar collector panels, either must be fully screened visually by wethera 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 setback from the edge of the roof a minimum of 20 feet. Reduce Setback Rooftop Mechanical Equipment (b)For ground mounted equipment, satisfaction of this requirement shall require that the all mechanical equipmentand related appurtenances mustbe 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 asthe 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. Questions? City of Apple l Val ey Background ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 7A May 7, 2014 Other ITEM DESCRIPTION: MVTA Layover Facility - Sketch Plan STAFF CONTACT: Margaret Dykes, Planner DEPARTM ENT/DIVISION: Community Development Department Action Requested No action is necessary. The applicant is requesting feedback from the Planning Commission regarding the zoning amendments, rezoning, subdivision, interim use permit, and site and building design. Summary The applicant is requesting comments on the following: • Zoning amendments to PD-507, zone 7a to allow for a bus layover facility; • Rezoning of property from PD-507, zone 7b to zone 7a; • Subdivision by preliminary plat of the existing Apple Valley Transit Station 10-acre site into two (2) lots; • An interim use permit for a 231-space temporary parking lot; and • Site plan review/building permit authorization for a bus layover facility with an approximately 600 sq. ft. building. APPLICANT: Minnesota Valley Transit Authority ("MVTA") APPLICATION DATE: April 28, 2014 60 DAYS: N/A PROJECT NUMBER: PC14-15-SZIB 120 DAYS: N/A Zoning: In 2008, the 10-acre lot was rezoned to "PD-507, Zones 7a and 7b". Zone 7a regulates the western 6 acres of the site, which is the location of the Apple Valley Transit Station ("AVTS"). Zone 7b regulates the eastern 4 acres of the site, which is where the bus layover facility and temporary parking lot will be located. Zone 7a currently allows the transit station, the platform, and the parking ramp as permitted uses and the surface parking lot as a permitted accessory use. The subzone does not allow bus layover facilities. Zone 7b allows high density commercial and housing as permitted uses. The project requires two zoning actions: 1) Amend "PD-507, Zone 7a" to allow for bus layover facilities, and necessary changes to the ordinance due to the proposed site plan; 2) Rezone the future bus layover site from "PD-507, Zone 7b" to "PD-507, Zone 7a". The remaining future lot that is to be used on an interim basis for a parking lot will remain zoned "PD-507, 7b". The applicant states the bus layover facility is needed to improve the timing of transit service for the Red Line Bus Rapid Transit line, as well as MVTA local and commuter routes. Staff is supportive of the requested zoning amendment and rezoning. Subdivision: The 10-acre lot is currently platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Menard Addition. Staff believes the site should be subdivided into two lots to reflect the actual uses. The applicant has not submitted a draft preliminary plat to show the lot boundaries, but has indicated lot boundaries on the site plan. The larger lot would be approximately 7.9 acres and be used for the existing AVTS, parking ramp, lot, and future bus layover facility. The smaller lot would be approximately 2.1 acres and be used for the interim parking lot. Though the lot configuration is atypical, it keeps the uses separated. Staff believes a trail connection will be needed from the transit site to the lots to the north. A pedestrian connection easement should be dedicated from the transit site as part of the preliminary plat. A possible trail connection from the existing sidewalk that bisects the site north to south to the ApplianceSmart site would remove about 14 parking spaces. The construction of the trail would not be needed until the two additional parking decks are constructed. Interim Use Permit: The applicant is proposing a 231-space temporary parking lot as an overflow lot for transit riders on the future smaller lot. The applicant states the lot is needed because there is not sufficient parking on the site, and, due to federal transportation requirements, they must abandon the current overflow lot south of the subject parcel on the former transit site (southeast of Gaslight Drive and 155 St. W). MVTA states they are applying for federal transportation funds to construct two (2) additional levels on the existing AVTS parking ramp. However, until that funding is secured and the additional parking decks can be constructed, they need parking for transit riders. MVTA states the earliest construction could begin on the two additional parking decks would be 2019. It would take another 18- to- 24 months to construct the parking decks. The existing ramp has approximately 481 spaces on 3 levels (1 ground, 2 structured). The total number of parking spaces existing on the site is 749 (268 surface, 481 ramp), but if the two additional levels are constructed on the ramp, the total number of parking spaces could reach would be about 1,100. Staff supports an interim use permit for the 231-space temporary parking lot for a period of five (5) years or until 2019. After that time, if MVTA still needs the temporary parking, staff believes the City should reexamine the proposed interim use permit. Site Plan: The preliminary site plan shows the construction of a bus layover facility with spaces for 14 buses, and an approximately 600 sq. ft. building to be used by bus drivers. The bus layover area will have curbing to prevent transit riders from entering the area. The area will also be signed so that it will only be available to public transit providers; no other vehicles, including school buses, will be able to use the layover lot. The plan also shows a 231-space temporary parking lot. This portion of the subject site is currently composed of gravel and concrete. The bus layover area will be surfaced with concrete, and the temporary parking lot will be composed of bituminous pavement. The entire area will be restriped. Due to the increase in impervious surface area, the plan shows an infiltration basin on the northeast comer of the site. Stormwater calculations will be needed to ensure the basin is adequately sized. All utilities are available to the lot. The driver's building is composed of rockface block, which is consistent with AVTS. The building has the distinctive "swoop" on the roofline that mimics AVTS. The building will have restrooms, a break area, and vending machines; it will not be open to the general public. Staff has no issues with the proposed building. No additional pedestrian connections are shown. Staff believes a trail connection will be needed from the transit site to the lots to the north. A pedestrian connection easement should be dedicated from the transit site as part of the preliminary plat. Staff continues to work with the adjacent property owners on a design that will allow transit riders to access the existing retail users north of the site. Budget Impact N/A Attachment(s) 1. Area Map 2. Comp Plan Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Proposed Zoning 5. Letter from Applicant 6. Existing Site/ Demolition Plan 7. Site/Landscaping Plan 8. Site Plan - North 9. Site Plan - South 10. Grading Plan - North 11. Grading Plan - South 12. Utility Plan 13. Building Plan 14. Elevations Existing Conditions Property Location: Legal Description: Comprehensive Plan Designation Zoning Classification Existing Platting Current Land Use Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation Other Significant Natural Features Adjacent Properties/Land Uses 15450 Cedar Avenue; generally northeast of Cedar Avenue and 155u1 Street W. Lot 1, Block 1, Menard Addition "Mix" (Mixed Use) — No change to the Comprehensive Plan designation is proposed. "PD-507, Zones 7a and 7b" (Planned Development Platted, but subdivision by plat is needed. Apple Valley Transit Station 10 acres Flat Suburban lawn None identified NORTH SOUTH EAST WEST MVTA LAYOVER FACILITY PROJECT REVIEW Cub Foods, ApplianceSmart, Dollar Tree Comprehensive Plan Zoning/Land Use Red Robin restaurant/Chasewood Townhomes Comprehensive Plan Zoning/Land Use Superior Storage Comprehensive Plan Zoning/Land Use Whitney Plaza Comprehensive Plan Zoning/Land Use "C" (Commercial) "RB" (Retail Business "C" (Commercial)/"HD" (High Density Residential) "PD-507, Zones 1, 2 & 3" (Planned Development) "C" (Commercial) "GB" (General Business "C" (Commercial) "PD-532, Zones 1, 2, &3" (Planned Development) Lay over S ite MVTA LAYOVER SITE AREA MAP GI r 4 w IS -.$ i 1- 1 . 1-7 E1 101X" (Mixed Use) MVTA LAYOVER SITE COMP PLAN MAP %EEL [11 MIX ENE 3 1 2 MVTA LAYOVER SITE ZONING MAP "PD-507, Zones 7a and 7b" (Planned Development) 3 RB 153RD ST W PD-507 r Current Zoning: West 6 acres - PD-507, Zone 7a (Existing Apple Valley Transit Station) East 4 acres — PD-507, Zone 7b (Vacant) Proposed Zoning: Future large lot for AVTS and bus layover facility PD-507, Zone 7a Future small lot for interim parking lot/ future commercial PD-507, Zone 7b MVTA BUS LAYOVER FACILITY SITE Current and Proposed Zoning R 0 tLt Li Li T A April 28, 2014 Dear Ms. Dykes: 444 Cedar Street, Suite Sute15OD Saint Paul, MN 55101 651 292,4400 tkdo.com Plan Commission and Planning Staff Attn: Ms. Margaret Dykes City of Apple Valley 7100 147th Street West Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 Re: Sketch Plan Review Apple Valley Bus Layover Facility Minnesota Valley Transit Authority TKDA Project No. 15563.000 As representatives of Minnesota Valley Transit Authority we are pleased to provide this Sketch Plan Submittal for the proposed Apple Valley Bus Layover Facility located at 15450 Cedar Avenue. We wish to present this sketch plan at the Plan Commission meeting scheduled for May 7, 2014. We welcome this opportunity to discuss the proposed facility with you and gain your feedback prior to submitting our detailed plans. It is our intention to submit detailed plans for Site Plan Review, Zoning Amendment, and Subdivision at a later date. We hope the information gained during this Sketch Plan Review will help us in our design and submittals for the later reviews. MVTA and TKDA staffs have previously met with the planning staff at Apple Valley to discuss basic project parameters. From this meeting, the decision to request the following actions concerning the site with the City of Apple Valley was developed. • Complete a subdivision by plat of Lot 1, Block 1 Menard Addition into two lots. The larger lot would include Apple Valley Transit Station (AVTS) and the layover facility. The smaller lot would consist of the remainder of the parcel and be used as a temporary parking lot. • Complete a zoning amendment to PD-507, Zone 7a to allow for a layover facility. • Complete a zoning amendment to PD-507, Zone 7b to allow for interim use permit for a temporary parking lot for a period of five years. • Site Plan Review/Building Permit authorization for both the layover facility and the modifications for the temporary parking lot. The proposed Layover Facility will accommodate up to 14 buses for BRT, express and local service, and include a small driver facility with restrooms. An emptogee owned companj praniofln9 affirniotrve action and equal. opportunity Apple Valley Bus Layover Facility Sketch Plan Review April 28, 2014 Page 2 The intention for the remainder of site is to provide minimal improvements to the existing paved area as necessary to allow it to serve as temporary, overflow parking for the existing Apple Valley Transit Station. At this time the improvements envisioned include constructing asphalt access drives from the AVTS parking area to connect to the existing paved area, patch and repair the surface of the existing pavement to allow it to serve as parking, and striping. Other possible improvements to the area may include light poles for lighting and an asphalt overlay to provide a consistent parking surface. We appreciate the opportunity to meet with you and present this proposed facility. If you have any questions, please contact me at 651.292.4455. Sincerely, KEK/mas Enclosure Kraig E. Klund, P.E. cc: Jane Kansier, MVTA 1 1 gg \TO BAP'00 L s \11A!. \000£9Sg \14....1.,(911DANYIV.-6\,N:Hivd NlMa u.9g - Koz :gauoid iya 1 z z il ON .0,111,11, - 2 23 1 110 t - 2 0 0 - 2 E.P*PuDi L1 d \PIO\ 6 mP LOOZCI>11\ S.1.03rOdd \ :1 :H oN,AvH, V,OZ 40,01.06,4010410.,,x, 1 I in / 5 1 101 ONIX.1 snowy. L 11 00 cr Cr C CD (YD 1 5 .P . OZ \s \lisucul :Hivd 1 - .40 - mllo, .1.5,5, • 110 1 — GAST,- , I 1 1 1 1 7 ••■ <0 a. w w 1- (7) 8 wego, - 440Z . GZ aLva LZ I. \ s"P IIA!.\000£9Sci w ,avd >>— 1`; JQ L; --' 1 > 8 < D F— < 0 w (7) z z z< — W Z W 0< < 7) < ci ct 0 El Z 0 0 0 co 5.roco\se.p\ivq.\000cssgiVs...Lx2IPANvi\w ONIMa > , , N1)121 , r1 , 7,:1114 , 11.1. , 113 • I . t 1 1 1 I , . 1 . 1 . \- Ili W 0 < 0 < (7) 4 °Z c 0 0 0 1 f i 0 \ S"P RAP \000£9gg LV....PC.IIDANW\LU we60 - 41.0Z mficnd uJ JQ -71 1 < () > ?' < D F < W(7) Z Z z< rt : 14 \ • \ \ \ • \ \ \ \ • 1 I i -- - 4 ---- 7 1 [71 VOA dIC3 AADN I , ' ' d I , , , I ' 1 1 , r : ,, I . 1 , 1 r, I ,I 1 • r """"" , .NVS 'Aka T i LEM EE I -- - - H 6 6 i""----"--""--1 ,Il u , ------- i - CiAS GA , I— D l \ s \ \000£9gg lVsuw1A.IIDANW \,;)1;Hi NIM VI I3LLO]d 31 NON .9 'IRON .9 s--- 7/. MON .9 TION .9 r 71 10111 11 ■1 1 WI - 7 --- .9/971 00111 h1 WI 1 -----W—L. ( ell `--, tal r WI `.,--, MI (NON—RATED) 8 BURNISHED C.N.U. TO UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURE. PRCMDE BULL NOSE C.M.U. AT ALL OUTSIDE CORNERS. SEE STRUCTURAL FOR REINFDRCING. (PROVIDE DEFLECTION HEAD DETAIL 5/A81) (NON—RATED) B BURNISHED C.M.U. TO F3 ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR. SEE STRUCTURAL FOR REINFORcING. (PROVIDE HEAD DETAIL 4/.1) (NON—RATED) Plf411 1 271 1E 0OR C ZI I C ID ERAM 3 111TO E PPOSITE SIDE. SEE gRUCTURAL FOR REINFOFICING. (PROVIDE HEAD DETAIL 4/A&1) 33sl'al°4'N'VVVDAIT's BOO, MINS. 3AOEN . n - ro (031. Ucf- 4D „ 1; rA 4D CD 4i) lip r .0„ I z Orir ...rsardorAraro.— Immo %1P A 11 Ce 0 0 411) uJ _J UJ (.0 (1) u_ 0 — 70 a 1 I Lj c2, !, 7, 2 z —J z co < co a_ rt 2 0 0 r „>" 0 I- LL 5 5 (Ni — r LO \\\ • • • • • • • 5 cc; :! I d .1 iV\ S \ 01:111,1 DNIM.0 'gZ . :03.1101d DOOR SCHEDULE PREMINARY DESIGN 7 0 1 T,E5 (Ts 2 i 111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111 cY5 I. 2V\ s 00029gg w —5 \ ONIMV210 we.:6 - 41.0Z . gZ :C131101d 3.1.VO MVTA Layover Site Sketch Plan Presentation to the Planning Commission May 7, 2014 Applicant’s Request Zoning amendments to PD-507, zone 7a to allow for a • bus layover facility; Rezoning of property from PD-507, zone 7b to zone • 7a; Subdivision by preliminary plat of the existing Apple • Valley Transit Station 10-acre site into two (2) lots; An interim use permit for a 231-space temporary • parking lot; and Site plan review/building permit authorization for a • bus layover facility with an approximately 600 sq. ft. building for bus drivers. Reason: To improve timing of BRT line, and local and • commuter bus routes. Future bus layover site Current layover area Site Location 15450 Cedar Avenue –Northeast of Cedar Ave. and 155 th St. W. Site Aerial 15450 Cedar Avenue –Northeast of Cedar Ave. and 155 th St. W. Comprehensive Plan Designation “MIX” (Mixed Use) Existing Zoning “PD-507, Zones 7a and 7b” (Planned Development) Proposed Zoning “PD-507, Zones 7a and 7b” (Planned Development) Designation stays the same, but subzone boundaries change. Proposed Subdivision of 10-acre site map Site Plan Grading Plan Utility Plan Landscape Plan Existing Sidewalk Proposed Future Restaurant Restaurant Sidewalk Future Existing Loading Dock Restaurant (to remain) Parking Sidewalk Existing Gap Sidewalk City Desired Sidewalk Connection Building Floor Plan Approx. 600 sq. ft. –for bus drivers only Building Elevations Rockfaceblock, cement board siding Recommended Action No action is necessary. • The applicant is requesting feedback from the Planning Commission regarding the zoning amendments, rezoning, subdivision, interim use permit, and site and building design. NOTE: Applicant has submitted formal application that will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in June. Questions?