Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/18/2014 Meeting Location: Municipal Center City of 7100 147th Street West Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 JUNE 18, 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 JUNE 4, 2014 4. CONSENT ITEMS --NONE-- 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS --NONE-- 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Caribou Coffee Drive-Thru Project – Consideration of amendments to Planned Development (PC14-17-ZCB) No. 290, Zone 4, to allow drive-thru in connection with Class III Restaurant. LOCATION: 14638 Cedar Avenue PETITIONER: Caribou Coffee Company B. MVTA Bus Layover Facility – Consider zoning amendments to PD-507 to allow for a bus layover facility; subdivision by preliminary plat of a 10-acre lot into two (2) lots; interim use permit for 231-space parking lot; and site plan/building permit authorization for bus layover facility with (PC-14-15-ZSIB) approximately 600 sq. ft. building. LOCATION: 155th Street West and Cedar Ave PETITIONER: MVTA C. Amendment to Chapter 154 (Sign Regulations) - Consider amendments to Chapter 154 (Sign (PC14-20-O) Regulations) to amend Appendix C. LOCATION: City Wide PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates. 8. ADJOURNMENT NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS Wednesday, July 16, 2014 Regular Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. -Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 18, 2014 -Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, July 7, 2014 Wednesday, August 6, 2014 Regular Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. -Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, July 9, 2014 -Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, July 28, 2014 NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Thursday, June 26, 2014 Regular Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. Thursday, July 10, 2014 Informal 5:30 P.M. 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. 1. CALL TO ORDER CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4, 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, Tim Burke, Keith Diekmann, Paul Scanlan, and David Schindler. Members Absent: Brian Wasserman Staff Present: City Attorney Sharon Hills, City Planner Tom Lovelace, 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 Scanlan, approving the agenda. Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MAY 21, 2014. Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the minutes. Hearing none he called for a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the minutes of the meeting of May 21, 2014. Ayes - 6 - Nays — 0. 4. CONSENT ITEMS --NONE- 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Caribou Coffee Drive-Thru Project — Public hearing to consider amendments to Planned Development No. 290, Zone 4, to allow drive-thru in connection with Class III Restaurant. (PC14-17-ZCB) LOCATION: 14638 Cedar Avenue PETITIONER: Caribou Coffee Company Chair Melander opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 2014 Page 2 of 11 Planner Kathy Bodmer stated Caribou Coffee is located in the Cedar Marketplace development at 14638 Cedar Avenue. The property is zoned PD -290, Zone 4 which prohibits a drive-thru in connection with a restaurant facility. Caribou is requesting an amendment to the PD zoning district to allow a drive-thru in connection with a Class III Restaurant (Neighborhood Coffee House, Sandwich Shop, Delicatessen, etc.). The Glazier Townhomes immediately abut Caribou Coffee to the north. When the PD sub-district was created in 1999, there was a concern that a drive-thru window in connection with a restaurant could negatively impact the Glazier Townhome development to the north. As a result, the zoning specifically prohibits drive-thrus for restaurants. Caribou proposes to construct the drive-thru on the west side of their building. A total of eight parking spaces would be removed along with the remnants of the former driveway access that was cut off as part of Cedar Avenue reconstruction project. Vehicles would enter the west drive-thru lane, drive north and then circulate clockwise around the loop so that they end up southbound on the west side of the Caribou building. Once in the lane, there is no by-pass lane provided. A 10 tall masonry wall is proposed to be constructed along the north property line to provide screening between the drive-thru and the townhomes to the north. The masonry wall, in addition to an extensive landscape planting area, are intended to help absorb noise and block headlights. The interior of the restaurant would be remodeled to move the service counter from the east side of the restaurant to provide window service from the west side of the building. She stated the petitioner hired as a noise consultant to study how noise from the drive-thru might impact the townhouses to the north. She reported the noise consultant's findings, reviewed hours of operation and identified the importance for bicycle and pedestrian access. She provided conditions that must be met in order to obtain a CUP for drive -thru in connection with a Class III Restaurant in the RB zone. If the City were to approve a zoning amendment to allow a drive-thru window, requirements should be included in the amendment. Commission Alwin requested clarification that the bus station on Cedar Avenue is intended as a neighborhood walk-up and not a park and ride. Ms. Bodmer answered that is correct. It is expected in future that there could be a skyway constructed and that it is expected to remain a walk-up station. Commission Alwin commented that he believes the mall area there already has signs that disclose no transit parking or drop-off. He wondered where the pedestrian traffic would be going to and coming from. He thought they might already be on Cedar Avenue. He thought it would be to Caribou's benefit if there was pedestrian access provided. Ms. Bodmer commented there may already be some kind of natural spin-off between Caribou and the transit stop. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 2014 Page 3 of 11 Commission Scanlan, referring to the transit area, asked if the landscaping would be enough to prevent shortcuts to the drive-up area and not walk to the pedestrian crossing. Ms. Bodmer commented that the island if pretty well landscaped and thinks it would be difficult for a cut-thru. Commission Scanlan inquired if there would be a landscape maintenance plan in place for the future. Ms. Bodmer answered that the applicant would have to come back for a site plan review building permit authorization and in the resolution that approves the project, there are specific requirements that the owner has to comply with the plan. If plantings die off, the owner would need to replace them. There is a requirement to stay consistent with the approved plan. Commission Scanlan asked if there were any other locations that Caribou is doing like this type of drive-up and suggested that staff could take a look at them. He asked Ms. Bodmer if she knew the pedestrian numbers that would be using the crosswalk area. Ms. Bodmer answered no. She did not know the numbers. She said the concern was re-establishing a link that was lost. Commissioner Diekmann commented that he has driven by this Caribou in the morning hours and saw a truck unloading product to the back of the store. He asked how the operation would be affected by this. Would they come in from the other end of the building. He inquired if delivery would use this drive-thru as part of their operations. Ms. Bodmer said the applicant would have to answer that question. Commissioner Diekmann commented that years ago there was another situation at 140th Street and Pilot Knob Road where they looked at a drive-thru in that area and he believes they approved that. Ms. Bodmer answered yes. Commissioner Diekmann said that seems to be similar and did not remember if that was a Planned Development or not. He suggested that should be reviewed to see what restrictions were put on that operation. Ms. Bodmer said that led to the zoning amendment that gave us those performance criteria. She would look to see those specific conditions. Jerry Roper, Caribou Coffee, sited other Caribou locations and commented that sound studies were taken at the one in Brooklyn Park as well as Apple Valley. He said truck deliveries are typically brought through the front door. He is not aware of any deliveries through the back doors. Once they develop this Caribou, truck deliveries would need to be through the front door and commented it is actually a security reason why they do that. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 2014 Page 4 of 11 Commissioner Diekmann questioned if they would be fully remodeling this store to make room for this drive-thru. Mr. Roper answered that the plan at this time is pretty much gutting the inside because they would need to flip the design for the service line to be on the exterior wall. Bathrooms and storage room would be kept intact. Commissioner Scanlan asked what their delivery times are at this location. Mr. Roper answered they vary and most likely would be after 1:00 p.m. Their busiest times are early morning to 11:00 or noon. They will try to schedule deliveries around their peak times. Chair Melander commented he would have expected someone from the townhomes if there was a problem for them. He questioned if they were notified. Ms. Bodmer answered yes they were notified. She stated the City had met with the people from the townhomes and reviewed the plans with them and identified some issues. Caribou has been working with that so they may feel like their concerns have been addressed. Chair Melander said it seems to him that a 10' fence is not intrusive for this site if it helps to block light and noise. Chair Melander closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. B. MVTA Layover Project — Public hearing to consider a proposed subdivision by preliminary plat of 10-acre site into two (2) lots; zoning amendments to allow for a bus layover facility; rezoning of property from PD-507, zone 7b to zone 7a; interim use permit for approximately 231-space parking lot; and site plan review/building permit authorization for layover facility with approximately 600 sq. ft. building. (PC14-15-ZSIB) LOCATION: 155th Street West and Cedar Ave PETITIONER: MVTA chair Melander opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Planner Margaret Dykes reviewed the applicant's request of the following actions: • 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. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 2014 Page 5 of 11 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; and 2) Rezone the future bus layover site from "PD-507, Zone 7h" 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 10-acre lot is currently platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Menard Addition. The preliminary plat for Menard 2 Addition shows two lots. Lot 1, which would be used for the existing AVTS, parking ramp, lot, and future bus layover facility, is approximately 7.7 acres. Lot 2, which would be used for the interim parking lot, is approximately 2.3 acres. Staff believes a trail connection would be needed from the transit site to the lots to the north. 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. A pedestrian connection easement should be dedicated as part of the plat. Staff continues to work with the adjacent property owners on a design that would allow transit riders to access the existing retail users north of the site. 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 155th St. W). 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. The 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. Due to the increase in impervious surface area, the plan shows an infiltration basin on the northeast corner of the site. All utilities are available to the lot. The City Engineer had no concerns about the stormwater infiltration basins. 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 would have restrooms, a break area, and vending machines; it would not be open to the general public. Staff has no issues with the proposed building. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 2014 Page 6 of 11 Commissioner Burke remarked that in the layover comments it states that MVTA does not support the idea of allowing potential development over the layover site. Ms. Dykes answered that these were comments the City received today from the MVTA. She would like them to address those comments. They are concerned about all of the issues we raised - Length of the interim use permit, need for any kind of retention for development potential over the layover area, and the pedestrian easement. Kraig Klund, project manager for the design firm TKDA, an architectural and engineering firm from St. Paul, was present to answer questions. Chair Melander commented that it seems this property has been passed around a few times. Mr. Klund said yes and, for his involvement, he could not give a detailed explanation of any of those passes. Commissioner Burke asked if he could comment on the pedestrian easement or access. Mr. Klund stated it is MVTA's position that they prefer not to do that. He did not think they would fight it to any great extent but it is not their preference. Chair Melander said they have been pretty strong on requiring that pedestrian access and that would probably be required. Jane Kansier, Senior Project Manager for MVTA, stated she would be happy to answer any questions they would have for her. Chair Melander commented that they had just received the MVTA comments tonight and may not have had a chance to review all of them and prepare for them. Commissioners Diekmann questioned the interim use permit (IUP) and commented that in the MVTA's letter it says that they would prefer the overlay parking lot be allowed for a period of ten years rather than five years. He did not believe the City was saying you cannot have it for ten yens, just that the City preferred five. He asked if the MVTA was opposed to that. Ms. Kansier answered it is not that they are opposed to it as much as the practical matter is, if everything goes perfectly, they are awarded a grant to build the upper decks. They are still looking at a minimum of seven years. At a minimum they would like to see the IUP for seven years. They can work with the five years. They would prefer, just from a practical standpoint, to look at a minimum of seven years. Chair Melander commented that development cycles come and go and when it seems things are looking upwards right now but the City obviously has other occasions for development and overflow parking. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 2014 Page 7 of 11 Ms. Kansier said she does appreciate that and they are looking from a practical standpoint, the grant cycle. The solicitation occurs this fall. The awards would be determined in later 2014 or early 2015. The money does not come available, at a minimum, until 2019. It would take at least a year to 1 V2 years to construct the upper decks. So that is why, just from a practical standpoint, they would not be able to do anything on that site for seven years. Chair Melander said the Commission would take that under consideration and would be talking about this again in two weeks. Commission Scanlan requested information regarding the security issues the MVTA had been having and a little bit about mitigating those. Ms. Kansier commented they had some vandalism issues. Some things just happen due to being in a large parking lot. There were some broken windows, car breakins, just vandelism issues. She knows Apple Valley Police have reports on some issues that have occurred on this site. The MVTA does a great deal of work with security cameras and lighting to try to prevent that but it does happen. Commission Scanlan questioned if video surveillance cameras would be incorporated within this building. Ms. Kansier answered yes. They have a pretty extensive camera system in the transit station. They would also be providing a system at both the layover site and the temporary parking site. They have taken into consideration the comments provided by the Apple Valley Crime Prevention staff. She thought the biggest issue they have not addressed here is focusing the camera onto the door of the layover facility. They will do that. Chair Melander closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. The Legacy of Apple Valley Sixth Addition/Remington Cove Apartments — Consideration of subdivision by preliminary plat of 5.21-acre site into two lots for the L egacy of Apple Valley Sixth Addition; Zoning Amendment to existing Planned Development Agreement; Site Plan review/building permit authorization for 101-unit apartment building. (PC14-14- ZSB) LOCATION: Southeast of Galaxie Avenue and Founders Lane PETITIONER: Trident Development, LLC Planner Margaret Dykes stated the property owner, Trident Development, LLC, is requesting the following actions: • Zoning Amendment for change to approved site plan. • Subdivision by preliminary plat of a 5.21-acre lot into two lots. • Site Plan Review/Building permit authorization for one 101-unit apartment building. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 2014 Page 8 of 11 The property is zoned "PD-716, zone 2". No amendment to the zoning code is required, but because this is a Planned Development district, a change to the existing Planned Development agreement is needed; this agreement would be prepared by the City Attorney. The applicant is requesting a subdivision by preliminary plat of the subject 5.21-acre site into two lots; the subdivision will be called The Legacy of Apple Valley Sixth Addition. Lot 1 would be 2.66 acres; this lot would be developed in the future. Lot 2, which is where the Remington Cove apartment building would be located, would be 2.54 acres. The proposed 101-unit apartment building would be required to provide cash-in-lieu of land park dedication. No driveway access would be allowed to Galaxie Avenue except in the location shown on the site plan. The revised site plan showed a U-shaped 3 -story 101-unit building with an underground garage that meets all setbacks set forth in the zoning ordinance. Trash and recycling would be located on the first floor, and garbage trucks would pick up in the courtyard area. All mechanicals would be located in the garage. She reviewed the grading plan, parking requirements, site access, building materials, and utility, lighting and landscaping plans. She addressed any public hearing comments. Roger Fink, Trident Development, provided additional information. Discussion followed. MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann recommending approval of amendments to the Planned Development Agreement for The Legacy of Apple Valley Fourth Addition to allow for the subdivision of Lot 1, Block 1 into two lots, and allow for the construction of a 101-unit apartment building, as shown on the revised plans received in City offices on May 29, 2014. Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0. MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann recommending approval of The Legacy of Apple Valley Sixth Addition, a subdivision by preliminary plat of a 5.21-acre lot into two lots, as shown on the plans received in City offices U11 A -1 2,3, 2014, su'oject to all applicable r'ity codes and standards, and the following conditions: a. All necessary drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the plat for any existing and future public utility infrastructure. b. The property owner shall provide for park dedication for the 101-unit apartment building, which shall be in cash-in-lieu of land and paid prior to the release of the final plat for filing. c. The developer shall grant access restriction easements to the City to limit direct access from The Legacy of Apple Valley Sixth Addition to Galaxie Avenue, except at locations permitted by the City. Ayes - - Nays - 0. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 2014 Page 9 of 11 MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann recommending approval of site plan/building permit authorization for Remington Cove Apartments, as shown on the revised plans received in City offices on May 29, 2014, subject to all applicable City codes and standards, and the following conditions: a. No building permit shall be issued until the final plat of The Legacy of Apple Valley Sixth Addition is filed with Dakota County Recorder's Office, an Amended Planned Development Agreement is executed by the developer and City and all the conditions of the executed Development Agreement have been met by the applicant. b. The 101-unit apartment building shall be located on Lot 2, Block 1, The Legacy of Apple Valley Sixth Addition. c. There shall be a minimum 116 parking spaces constructed in the parking garage, 66 on-site surface parking spaces, and two on-street parking spaces shall be installed. d. No building permit shall be issued until a Natural Resources Management Permit has been obtained. e. Submission of a nursery bid list that confirms the landscape materials, irrigation system and other common area amenities meet or exceed 2% percent of the value of the construction of the building based on Means Construction Data. Ayes - 6 - Nays - O. B. Cobblestone Lake Commercial 5th Addition and Prestige School — Consideration of the rezoning of Outlot 0, COBBLESTONE LAKE COMMERCIAL 3RD ADDITION from Planned Development No. 703/zone 8 to Planned Development No. 703/zone 6; zoning amendment to allow for day care centers/preschools as a permitted use in Planned Development No. 703/zone 6; the subdivision by preliminary plat of a 3.22-acre outlot into two lots; and site plan/building permit authorization to allow for the construction of a 10,850-sq. ft. building on a 1.25-acre lot. (PC14-12-ZB and PC14-13-S) LOCATION: Southwest corner of 158th Street West and Emperor Avenue PETITIONER: South Shore Development, Inc., and Red Mountain Retail Group Planner Tom Lovelace reviewed the petitioner's request and stated there is an existing cross access easement and maintenance agreement between the effective parties for Emperor Avenue, which allows for unrestricted access and identifies responsibility for the ongoing maintenance private street. These new lots should be part of this agreement. Information had been provided which shows that the subject property is already part of the recorded agreement. The site plan shows 31 surface parking spaces for a 10,850 sq. ft. building footprint, which has 10,593 sq. ft. of usable area. The minimum required parking for a facility of this size is 31 spaces. The revised site plan shows a bike rack located to the south of the front elevation. The trash enclosure's wall shows a "Quik Brick" wainscot and painted smooth face concrete block. An integrally colored decorative block shall be required in place of the painted smooth face concrete block. The playground would be enclosed with a white steel fence. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 2014 Page 10 of 11 No pedestrian connections are being proposed to the Pilot Knob Road pathway. Staff initially recommended that a direct pedestrian connection from the site to the Pilot Knob Road pathway be made. The applicant had submitted a letter that provided their rationale for not putting in this pedestrian connection. Staff believes that these are legitimate reasons and are recommending that a sidewalk from the site to Pilot Knob Road not be installed. Jacob Fick, South Shore Development, provided additional information. Discussion followed. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan recommending approval of the rezoning of Outlot 0, COBBLESTONE LAKE COMMERCIAL 3RD ADDITION from Planned Development No. 703/zone 8 to Planned Development No. 703/zone 6. Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan recommending approval of an amendment to Planned Development No. 703 to include daycare centers/preschools as permitted uses in zone 6. Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Burke recommending approval of the COBBLESTONE LAKE COMMERCIAL 5TH ADDITION preliminary plat and that the easement would be subject to City approval. Ayes - 6 - Nays - O. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan recommending approval of the site plan/building permit authorization to allow for construction of a 10,850 sq. ft. daycare center and 31 surface parking spaces in accordance with the plans dated May 29, 2014, subject to the following conditions: • A maintenance agreement shall be executed to ensure the ongoing function of the infiltration basin prior to issuance of a building permit. • An integrally colored decorative block shall be required in place of the painted smooth face concrete block for the trash enclosure. Ayes = = Nay's = O. C. Tide Dry Cleaners — Site plan/building permit authorization to allow for construction of a two-lane car-side valet canopy along as part of 3,255 sq. ft. dry cleaning operation. (PC14-19-B) LOCATION: West end of the Time Square Shopping Center II building, 7540 149th Street West PETITIONER: CM Architecture and Time Square Shopping Center II Planner Margaret Dykes stated the applicant would like to install a 28' x 35' canopy and two asphalt drive lanes to accommodate valet service at Tide Dry Cleaners, which would be located at the west end of south Time Square Shopping Center building and occupy approximately 3,255 sq. ft. Each drive lane would be 11 feet wide. Employees of Tide would meet customers in the drive lanes, and pick up or return their laundry at the cars. Tide states that each transaction generally takes less than CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 2014 Page 11 of 11 one minute to complete. The drive lanes and canopy would require the removal of approximately 2,800 sq. ft. of green space. The applicant is proposing two raingardens to accommodate the additional impervious surface area. The Natural Resources Coordinator had concerns about the landscaping plan that must be addressed by the applicant. John Holten, CMA project manager, provided additional information. Discussion followed. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler recommending approval of site plan/building permit authorization for a 28' x 35' canopy and two asphalt drive lanes to accommodate valet service at Tide Dry Cleaners, 7540 149th Street W. in the Time Square Shopping Center, as shown on the plans received in City offices on May 27, 2014, subject to all applicable City codes and standards, and the following conditions: a. The applicant shall address the comments raised by the Natural Resources Coordinator in his memo of May 30, 2014. b. The property owner shall agree to a maintenance agreement for the on-site infiltration areas. c. The property owner shall apply for a Natural Resources Management Permit Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0. 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates. City Planner Tom Lovelace stated that the next Planning Commission meeting would take place Wednesday, June 18, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. 8. ADJOU Jda Murphy, Planning prior to beginning any site work. MENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Melander asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler to adjourn the meeting at 8:27 p.m. Ayes - 6 - Nays - 0. Resp-ctfully Submitted, part t Assistant Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commission on Background ry Summa ••• •••• ••••• •••• •• City of AppVaIi ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 6A June 18, 2014 Land Use ITEM DESCRIPTION: Caribou Coffee Drive -Thru Ordinance Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Kathy Bodmer, Planner DEPARTMENT /DIVISION: Community Development Department Action Requested Recommend an amendment to Planned Development No. 290, Zone 4, to allow a drive -thru in connection with Class III Restaurant as a conditional use. The following conditions must be met in order to obtain a CUP for drive -thru in connection with a Class III Restaurant in PD -290, Zone 4: • Noise, headlights, traffic volume and emissions from idling vehicles resulting from the operation of the window shall not negatively impact surrounding residential and institutional uses. • The drive -thru lane shall not impede or conflict with vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic circulation on the site as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. • When a Class III restaurant is located less than 1,000 feet from a residential or institutional use, the City Council may restrict the hours of operation of a drive -thru window to mitigate any adverse impacts caused by noise, headlights, traffic volume and emissions from idling vehicles. Caribou Coffee is located in the Cedar Marketplace development at 14638 Cedar Avenue. The property is zoned PD -290, Zone 4, which prohibits a drive -thru in connection with a restaurant facility. Caribou is requesting an amendment to the PD zoning district to allow a drive -thru in connection with a Class III Restaurant (Neighborhood Coffee House, Sandwich Counter, Ice Cream Shop, Delicatessen, etc.). Two key issues related to this request are potential impacts to the Glazier Townhomes immediately to the north and the reduction of parking resulting in a parking deficiency for the shopping center. APPLICANT: Caribou Coffee Company, Inc. APPLICATION DATE: May 12, 2014 60 DAYS: July 10, 2014 PROJECT NUMBER: PC 14- 17 -ZCB 120 DAYS: September 9, 2014 Zoning Issues: When the PD sub - district was created in 1999, there was a concern that a drive -thru window in connection with a restaurant could negatively impact the residential developments to the north and northeast. As a result, the zoning specifically prohibits drive -thrus for restaurants. Drive -Thru Lane Design: Although they are not seeking building permit authorization at this time, Caribou Coffee submitted plans to demonstrate that a drive -thru could be designed to address the issues raised by the City. A total of eight parking spaces would need to be removed to install the drive -thru. Vehicles would enter the west drive -thru lane, drive north and then circulate clockwise around the loop so that they end up southbound on the west side of the Caribou building. Once in the lane, there is no by -pass lane provided. A 10' tall masonry wall is proposed to be constructed along the north property line to provide screening between the drive -thru and the townhomes to the north. The masonry wall and an extensive landscape planting area would be installed to help absorb noise and block headlights. The interior of the restaurant would be remodeled to move the service counter from the east side of the restaurant to provide window service from the west side of the building. Proximity to the Glazier Townhomes: The drive -thru lane would be located approximately 35' from the nearest townhome building to the north. Negative impacts associated with drive -thru lanes include vehicle emissions, noise from outdoor speakers, noise from idling vehicles and headlights. A six foot tall privacy fence is currently located on the townhome property, but it does not screen the upper story windows which are visible from the Caribou parking lot. Noise Study: The petitioner hired a noise consultant to study how noise from the drive -thru might impact the townhouses to the north. The study made the following findings: • Cedar Avenue has a traffic volume of approximately 50,000 average daily trips (ADT) in this location. • Sound levels at the order board and pick up window will be below ambient noise levels most of the time. • When there is little or no noise from Cedar Avenue, there is a possibility of audible sound from speakers at the order board and pick up window. • An improved 8' tall solid fence or sound barrier of 3 /4" wood plank or denser material is recommended to mitigate potential noise. Hours of Operation: The restaurant's website indicates that the coffee shop is open at 5:00 a.m. weekdays and closes at 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights. The City may wish to limit the drive -thru to be consistent with the noise ordinance which limits noise between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Between the hours of 5:00 - 6:00 a.m., and 10:00 — 11:00 p.m., customers could be required to park and walk inside the restaurant to place their orders. Loss of Parking. Approximately eight parking spaces would be lost as a result of the construction of the drive -thru. The petitioners state that many of their customers currently park and then pick up their coffee and that a drive -thru would help to decrease the demand for parking. A parking analysis for Cedar Marketplace done in 2011 showed that the center is currently 6.2 spaces short of the required number of spaces. Staff has learned that a 60 -seat fast - casual restaurant is expected to occupy half of the former Archiver's space, which will increase parking demand significantly. A parking study could be conducted in connection with a parking variance to ensure the site has all of the parking spaces that are needed for the shopping center. Budget Impact N/A Attachment(s) 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Area Map 4. Survey 5. Site Plan (w /Shadow Study) 6. Demolition Plan/Grading Plan Page 2 of 33 7. Landscape Plan 8. Petitioner Responses to Glazier Townhome Questions 9. Noise Study, David Braslau 10. Oblique Aerial 11. Aerial Photo with Landscape Plan Inset 12. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Excerpt 0000 00000 0000 000 City of Apple VaIiey ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: : Caribou Coffee Drive -Thru Ordinance Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Kathy Bodmer, Planner ** Update ** 6A June 18, 2014 Land Use DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development Department Action Requested uested Recommend an amendment to Planned Development No. 290, Zone 4, to allow a drive -thru in connection with Class III Restaurant as a conditional use. The following conditions must be met in order to obtain a CUP for drive -thru in connection with a Class III Restaurant in PD-290, Zone 4: • Noise, headlights, traffic volume and emissions from idling vehicles resulting from the operation of the window shall not negatively impact surrounding residential and Institutional uses. • The drive -thru lane shall not impede or conflict with vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic circulation on the site as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. • When a Class III restaurant is located less than 1,000 feet from a residential or institutional use, the City Council may restrict the hours of operation of a drive -thru window to mitigate any adverse impacts caused by noise, headlights, traffic volume and emissions from idling vehicles. • If the installation of the drive - through facilities result in the loss of parking spaces, then the resulting parking spaces available for the entire site shall meet the parking requirements set forth in this Chapter or the petitioner shall demonstrate that the resulting parking on the entire site can satisfactorily serve the current and any future uses in accordance with the zoning code provisions. Property Location: 14638 Cedar Avenue Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 1, CEDAR MARKETPLACE ADDITION Comprehensive Plan Designation C- Commercial Zoning Classification PD -290, Zone 4 Existing Platting Platted lot. Current Land Use Multiple tenant retail Size: Parcel - 4.19 acres Topography: Flat Existing Vegetation Urban landscape Other Significant Natural Features NA Adjacent Properties /Land Uses NORTH Glazier Avenue Townhomes Comprehensive Plan LD -Low Density Residential (0 -6 units /acre) Zoning /Land Use M-5C-Multiple family (6 -10 units /acre) SOUTH Cedar Marketplace /Applebee's Comprehensive Plan C- Commercial Zoning /Land Use PD -290, Zone 4 EAST Garrett Square Condominiums Comprehensive Plan HD -High Density Residential (12+ units /acre) Zoning /Land Use M -8C- Multiple Family (12 -24 units /acre) WEST Paul's /Kennedy Transmission Comprehensive Plan C- Commercial Zoning /Land Use RB- Retail Business Pete' s)/GB-General Business (Kennedy) Existing Conditions Development Project Review Caribou Coffee Drive -Thru PROJECT REVIEW Comprehensive Plan: The comprehensive plan guides the development of this site for "C" (Commercial) uses. The Comprehensive Plan states that buffering of residential areas is an important value of the City "to preserve vitality, social interaction and cohesiveness." The Comp Plan states that appropriate buffering techniques include the use of landscape materials, berms, distance, fencing, site and building orientation and other design orientation methods. The Comp Plan goes further to state that as a "guiding principle" the portion of buildings containing a drive -up facility may not be located adjacent to any residential uses. However, if the petitioner is able to address all of the potential impacts, the proposed development may improve conditions for the townhomes to the north. Zoning: The Caribou Coffee is located within Planned Development No. 290, Zone 4. The zoning district was established to provide retail uses that have minimum nuisance characteristics adjacent to a residential development. The zoning district specifically prohibits a drive -thru window in conjunction with a Class I or Class III restaurant. The text of the zoning district would need to be amended in order for Caribou to construct a drive -thru in this location. • Performance Criteria for Class III Drive -Thru. The conditions listed below must be met in order to obtain a CUP for a drive -thru in connection with a Class III Restaurant in an "RB" (Retail Business) zone. The City may wish to use these performance standards as a model for a zoning amendment if an amendment is approved. Page 3 of 33 1. Noise, headlights, traffic volume and emissions from idling vehicles resulting from the operation of the window does not negatively impact surrounding residential and institutional uses. 2. The drive -thru lane shall not impede or conflict with vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic circulation on the site as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. 3. When a neighborhood restaurant is located less than 1,000 feet from residential or institutional use, the City Council may restrict the hours of operation of a drive -thru window to mitigate any adverse impacts caused by noise, headlights, traffic volume and emissions from idling vehicles. Preliminary Plat: Not required. Site Plan: The drive -thru lane is proposed to be constructed on the west side of the building in the area where the parking lot and former drive access to Cedar Avenue are located. A total of eight parking spaces would be removed along with the former driveway stub. Vehicles would enter the west drive -thru lane, then proceed north and circulate clockwise around the loop so that they end up southbound on the west side of the Caribou building. Once in the lane, there is no by -pass lane provided. A 10' tall masonry wall would be constructed along the north property line to provide screening and help absorb noise. The interior of the restaurant would be remodeled to move the service counter from the east side of the restaurant to provide window service from the west side of the building. Site Plan Issues: • Loss of Parking. Approximately eight parking spaces would be lost as a result of the construction of the drive -thru. The petitioners state that many of their customers currently park and then pick up their coffee and that a drive -thru would help to decrease the demand for parking. A parking analysis for Cedar Marketplace done in 2011 showed that the center is currently 6.2 spaces short of the required number of spaces. Losing eight more parking spaces would result in a total deficiency of 14 spaces for the shopping center which is a concern. • Impacts to Glazier Townhomes. The drive -thru lane would be located approximately 35' from the nearest townhome building to the north. Negative impacts associated with drive -thru lanes include vehicle emissions, noise from outdoor speakers, noise from idling vehicles and headlights. The website indicates that the restaurant is open at 5:00 a.m. weekdays and closes at 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights. o Noise Study: The petitioner hired a noise consultant to study how noise from the drive -thru might impact the townhouses to the north. The study made the following findings: • Cedar Avenue has a traffic volume of approximately 50,000 average daily trips (ADT) in this location. • Sound levels at the order board and pick up window will be below ambient noise levels most of the time. • When there is little or no noise from Cedar Avenue, there is a possibility of audible sound from speakers at order board and pick up window. • An improved 8' tall solid fence or sound barrier of 3 /4" wood plank or denser material is recommended to mitigate potential noise. o Neighbor Issues /Concerns: Staff met with the representatives of the Dakota County Community Development Agency who manage the Glazier Family Townhomes development on May 14, 2014. The representatives raised the questions and concerns listed below. Caribou's architect prepared response to these questions which are indicated in italics. Page 4 of 33 • What are the hours of operation? Would like to have hours restricted to similar to noise ordinance: max 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Caribou: It would be Caribou's preference to have the ability to offer business through the Drive -thru beginning at 5:30 AM and stay open until 11:00 PM Saturday and Sunday. • Concerned about impacts from headlights. Would like to see cross section drawing to confirm headlights blocked by wall /landscaping and shadows from wall don't block sunlight on townhomes. Caribou: A site section has been added to the site plan sheet showing relationship of cars with wall and landscaping showing the headlights will be screened. The site section also shows the extent that shadows will extend onto property from the wall. • Prefer more evergreens to ensure year -round screening of headlights. Caribou: The site section shows that the wall, being a solid wall, can screen headlights year round. What is the recommendation ifmore evergreens are still preferred? • How will snow removal be conducted? Concerned that water run -off from snow storage does not drain towards the townhomes. Plans should identify snow storage location. Landlord: Snow removal would be done with a snow blower attachment and will be moved with a skid loader. Snow is stored in the far northeast corner of the property in the back lot. Who does the townhouse property use for snow removal and what are their limitations on when they can complete their work? We can make the necessary accommodations with our hired contractor. • When will trash pick -up and plowing occur? Concerned about noise and activity before 6:00 a.m. Landlord: Trash pickup, as well as the location of the trash enclosure will not change and will continue as it has been since 2000. There is one enclosure for that building and it is on the east end of the building. We use Republic Services and nothing would change at this point. • Would like to limit construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mon -Fri and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays. Caribou: We can agree to this one for the work in the Drive -Thru. Work will also be performed on the inside of the store, which we assume does not have to comply with this requirement. • Safety of the children is a concern. The Glazier Townhomes are a family townhome development. Caribou: This is a pretty broad statement which I don 't know how to address. Did City staff have any suggestions? • What will the design of the exterior of the wall be? Cover with ivy? Caribou: Wall will be constructed with masonry and detailed similar to building. The preference would be to stay away from any form of planting due to a number of reasons such as maintenance and repair, upkeep, life cycle to name a few. • Lighting — make sure shoe box light fixture. Caribou: All lighting is existing, one pole needs to move eastward to clear location of drive. Grading Plan: The site is flat so grading will be minimal. This will be reviewed in more detail in connection with the Site Plan review if the ordinance is amended to allow the drive -thru. Elevation Drawings: Elevation drawings have not been provided. Changes to the exterior of the Caribou building are expected to be minimal as a result of the installation of a drive -thru window. The Elevation Drawings would be reviewed in detail in connection with the Site Plan review. Page 5 of 33 Landscape Plan: The landscaping plan shows that Caribou intends to plant a variety of evergreens and deciduous trees and shrubs to help absorb sound in the drive -thru area. The planting plan shows that the value of the landscape plantings will exceed the minimum 2-1/2% value requirement. Availability of Municipal Utilities: N /A. No changes proposed to the utilities. Street Classifications /Accesses /Circulation: • Cedar Avenue (Principal Arterial Roadway - 200' ROW, 98' 6 -lane street with center median and turn lanes). A former right -in, right out driveway access to Cedar Avenue was removed in connection with the upgrade of Cedar Avenue. A 30' wide east -west easement access between Cedar Avenue and Glazier Avenue was dedicated in connection with the approval of the Cedar Marketplace plat. The easement does not currently allow for a drive -thru. The easement will need to be addressed in connection with the Site Plan Review if the ordinance is amended. Pedestrian Access: The Caribou Coffee is just over 200' from the 147 Street Red Line station platform. Ensuring pedestrian and bicycle access between the transit station and the Cedar Marketplace building is an important consideration. Caribou proposes to construct a pedestrian connection from the south side of the outdoor patio, through the south end of the drive -thru loop, and provide a connection to the trail on Cedar Avenue. Public Safety Issues: No issues identified other than ensuring fire exits are not blocked and pedestrian safety is ensured. Public safety will be reviewed in more detail in connection with the Site Plan Review if the City approves an amendment to the PD zoning district. Recreation Issues: N/A Signs: No sign approvals are given at this time. No signs may be installed prior to the issuance of a permit. A separate sign permit must be obtained prior to the installation of any signs on the site or the building. Public Hearing Comments: The Planning Commission held the public hearing at its June 4, 2014, meeting. No comments were received from the public. The Planning Commission asked for additional information concerning the East Valley Plaza drive -thru request which is included in the staff report. A combination of 4' high maintenance -free fencing and 6' evergreens were required to ensure screening of residential properties to the east and the south. Page 6 of 33 Response Letter 28 MAY 2014 WI LKUS Caribou Coffee, Drive -Thru, Apple Valley, MN Items below are responses to questions from a meeting that Kathy Bodmer had with Dakota County CDA, property owner of the residential property to the north. Responses are from Caribou except when referring to architectural documents and when noted that Landlord is responding. 1. Comment: What will be the hours of operation? Like the idea of restricting to similar to noise ordinance: max 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Response: It would be Caribou's preference to have the ability to offer business through the Drive -thru beginning at 5:30 AM and stay open until 11:00 PM Saturday and Sunday. 2. Comment: Concerned about screening of headlights. Response: A site section has been added to the site plan sheet showing relationship of cars with wall and landscaping showing the headlights will be screened. 3. Comment: Cross section drawing(s) needed to confirm: Headlights will be blocked by wall and landscaping and Shadows resulting from wall won't block sunlight of townhomes. Response: Again, a site section has been added to show that headlights will be screened. The site section also shows the extent that shadows will extend onto property from the wall. This is also shown on the site plan. 4. Comment: Prefer more evergreens between drive -thru lane and wall to ensure year - round screening of headlights. Response: The site section shows that the wall, being a solid wall, can screen headlights year round. What is the recommendation if more evergreens are still preferred? 5. Comment: How will snow removal be done? Plans should identify snow storage location. Need to ensure water run -off from snow storage does not drain towards the townhomes. Response: (from LL) Snow removal would be done with a snow blower attachment and will be moved with a skid loader. Snow is stored in the far northeast corner of the property in the back lot. Who does the townhouse property use for snow removal and what are their limitations on when they can complete their work? We can make the necessary accommodations with our hired contractor. 6. Comment: When will trash pick -up and plowing occur? Concerned about noise and www.wilkusarch.com info@wilkusarch.com 11487 Valley View Road P: (952) 941 -8660 Page 7 of 33 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 F: (952) 941 -2755 JVILKUS activity before 6:00 a.m. Response: (from LL) Trash pickup, as well as the location of the trash enclosure will not change and will continue as it has been since 2000. There is one enclosure for that building and it is on the east end of the building. We use Republic Services and nothing would change at this point. 7. Comment: Supports City's construction standard of limiting construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mon -Fri and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays. Response: We can agree to this one for the work in the Drive -Thru. Work will also be performed on the inside of the store, which we assume does not have to comply with this requirement. 8. Comment: Safety of the children is a concern because the Glazier Townhomes development is a family townhome development. Response: This is a pretty broad statement which I don't know how to address. Did City staff have any suggestions? 9. Comment: What will the design of the exterior of the wall be? Like idea of covered with ivy. Response: Wall will be constructed with masonry and detailed similar to building. The preference would be to stay away from any form of planting due to a number of reasons such as maintenance and repair, upkeep, life cycle to name a few. 10. Comment: Lighting —shoe box light fixtures are needed to ensure light cut -off. Response: All lighting is existing, one pole needs to move eastward to clear location of drive. 11. Comment: Another item for Caribou raised by City staff is this: would Caribou consider placing public art in the middle of the drive -thru loop landscape area? The City could investigate opportunities for funding of public art. It might be a unique and fun feature for the site. Something to discuss. Response: Will the artwork be a permanent fixture such as a sculpture or statue? We may be open to discussing this item if Caribou and /or their landlord is not burdened with the expense of the investment and the upkeep and as long as Caribou and /or their landlord has the right to review and approve the artwork that is proposed for the area. www.wilkusarch.com info@wilkusarch.com 11487 Valley View Road P: (952) 941 -8660 Page 8 of 33 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 F: (952) 941 -2755 L Site Caribou LF,ed Ex/ Kinkos .AEI Lo ro Glazier Townhomes CARIBOU DRIVE -THRU ZONING AMENDMENT Page 9 of 33 y R -3 =Pr I MI M -6C L� I RB 1 47T H ST W 148TH ST W RB 149TH a 0 0 -244 L :(D 1 M -8C • LAL I t K /H1/ 2 2 PD -2 7 R mom 11 MILMIth • 1- • I 2 150TH ST W w G B PD -541 P LB P w w X J CD s -409 PO -409 2 5 1 VV CARIBOU DRIVE -THRU ZONING AMENDMENT Proposed Drive -Thru Window Location CARIBOU DRIVE -THRU ZONING AMENDMENT Page 11 of 33 SANITARY' MA11(1'I0L5 3 U SIGN 3" TR 3'TRI% c cE 3 " TR 3" TR 3" TR 3 " TR !rn 10.0 10.0 GAS I/AL I/E SAN/TAR MAN/OL 8" TREE Y CATCH BAS//V M=953.0 BITUMINOUS SURFACE CONCRETE CURB • & GUTTER�� BITUMINOUS SURFACE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER X FENCE TREE BITUMINOUS SURFACE BITUMINOUS SURFACE PROPERTY LINE Page 12 of 33 3" TR 6';, TR °-L'eNCR9 RE ST//FACE =1 BITUMINOUS SURFACE BITUMINOUS SURFACE Ali LP DENOTES LIGHT POLE DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE %440):%00)=12 ')(%6%:)29) (6-:)8,639+,%((-8-32                )<-78-2+49&0-'7-();%0/ ')(%6%:)29) ')(%6%:)29)   10911H3W 'S11>1110, T13VF431r1.1.1-1018A .103 AMON G m -1 q m 0 7 17Z E9 NV`A11VA ]]ddV ]fN]AV HVG 3 9C9171. NO&gGV H0f0HHl ]AI HG 3 3h103 1W ]AN]AV Ntingn r woo :3N0Hd 2,Lgg NVN .noo 3001,8H.ON 969 91\1117r1SNO3 01-1SGMJE C71 CCi M N N N CV M j 2 g N N 7 V_LOS3NNIIN `1311VA 31ddV 33,,00 043.V0 MEMORANDUM TO: Duane Perry FROM: David Braslau RE: Caribou Coffee — Apple Valley, MN — Drive Thru Noise Assessment Summary of Findings CI vi bra l u associates, es, in r r a e 6603 Queen Ave So. • Suite N • Richfield, MN 55423 telephone: 612- 331 -4571 • fax: 612- 331 -4572 Sound levels were monitored near the north property line at the Apple Valley location from 3 pm until 8:30 am to establish an existing sound environment. Early morning observations and sound level measurements were also made at an existing drive -thru at the Brooklyn Park location. Sound from the order point and pickup loudspeakers was identified as the most likely sources to have an adverse impact on the adjacent apartment building in Apple Valley. Sound levels were then estimated for the order point and pickup locations in Apple Valley and found to be below the existing ambient level and well below state noise standards. Engine or exhaust noise from observed vehicles in the Brooklyn Park drive -thru was very low and mostly masked by highway noise. An improved 8 foot solid fence or sound barrier is nevertheless recommended as a replacement to the existing fence in Apple Valley to mitigate potential noise from vehicles immediately adjacent to the property line. If headlight impact is to be minimized, the fence would probably have to be approximately 14 to 15 feet high. This memorandum presents findings of our noise assessment of the proposed drive -thru at the Caribou Coffee facility located at 14638 Cedar Avenue in Apple Valley, Minnesota. Location of the facility is shown on the aerial photograph in Exhibit 1. Existing Background Sound Levels in Apple Valley 30 April 2014 Background sound levels were monitored over a 17.5 hour period (Tuesday 3 pm 22 April to Wednesday 8:30 am 23 April) that included the quietest time period the day and therefore, the most critical time for potential noise impacts from the proposed drive thru. The readings reflect sound levels primarily from traffic on Cedar Avenue which is a designated state highway and a major commuting arterial. The daily volume in 2011 was 45,000 and could be approaching 50,000 in 2014. Location of these background readings are shown on Exhibit 2. The most critical time for potential noise impact from the drive -thru is between 5 am when the drive -thru opens and is within the nighttime Minnesota noise standard, and 7 am, the nighttime period ends. The monitored 1- second average Leq (average sound levels) between 5 and 7 am are shown on Exhibit 3. The density of traffic is fairly constant during this period with the average sound level increasing from about 55 dBA at 5 am to 60 dBA at 7 am. y: \jobs \2014j ob s \214011 \report \c aribou -c offee- noise -as ses sment. doc Page 17 of 33 Caribou Coffee — Apple Valley, MN — Drive -thru Noise Assessment Page 2 Observations from an Existing Drive -thru in Brooklyn Park To provide some background information, observations and sound levels were taken at the Brooklyn Park Caribou Coffee location (Colorado Lane North adjacent to Zane Avenue). This location was identified by Jerry Roper, Caribou Coffee, as having a somewhat similar layout. The sound meter was located approximately 15 feet from the entrance roadway and 25 feet from the intercom loudspeaker. Vehicles provided some limited shielding of the loudspeaker at the meter for cars and less with SUVs, but the effect did not appear to be significant. The sound level meter location is shown on Exhibit 4. The order point intercom and pick up locations are identified on the aerial. Sound levels from vehicles were quite low, generally close to idle, although several vehicles were observed with more rumbly exhaust systems. No motorcycles or cars with a pronounced exhaust sound were observed and could be louder, although close to idle, these levels are likely to be close to background noise from Zane Avenue. The most obvious sound associated with the drive -thru was from conversations at the order point loudspeaker, with less conversation at the pickup. Because of the background noise from adjacent Zane Avenue, identifying drive -thru vehicle and related loudspeaker sound is challenging. Traffic volume on Zane Avenue in 2011 was report at 17,000 vehicles per day.The one - second sound level time history at Brooklyn Park is shown on Exhibit 5. This shows a similar increase as in Apple Valley although the range in sound levels is smaller there. To help identify sound associated with the drive -thru, primarily speech from loudspeakers, since vehicle noise was essential at background levels, the sound level spectra are compared. Sixty one - second "background" sound level spectra for the minute 6:02 to 6:03 am, during which the drive -thru was unoccupied, are shown on Exhibit 6. The peaks at 31.5 Hz represent engine noise from vehicles on Zane Avenue while the peaks at 1000 Hz represent tire /pavement noise. Sixty one - second sound level spectra for the minute 5:55 to 5:56 am, with two vehicles and audible loudspeaker usage, are shown on Exhibit 7. Differences between the background and occupied drive -thru spectra are primarily between the 500 Hz and 2000 Hz octave bands. While not all of this can be directly related to the loudspeaker, the typical voice spectrum for a female, who was handling the takeout when readings were taken, lies somewhere near this range. The 500 Hz time history is shown on Exhibit 8. One might imagine that the denser curves when loudspeaker talking was observed could be related to the loudspeakers. These state noise standard are expressed in terms of L10 (level not to be exceeded for 10% of an hour and L50 (level not to be exceeded for 50% of an hour). While the one - minute L10 values shown on Exhibit 9 are only a surrogate for the hourly standard, they do show that, even when vehicles are present, the L10 is not likely to exceed 62 dBA. Evaluation of Potential Drive -thru Impact in Apple Valley The proposed drive -thru is superimposed in Exhibit 10 on an aerial photograph at the Caribou Coffee location in Apple Valley. This exhibit shows the close proximity of the drive -thru relative to the adjacent apartment complex, and identifies locations of the order point and pickup loudspeakers. The distance from the loudspeakers to the apartment building are greater than the monitored distance described above, so adjusted for distance, the order point (1- minute L10) level is estimated to be 51 dBA at the apartment building while the pickup level is estimated to be 56 dBA at the apartment building. y: \jobs \2014j ob s\21401 1\report\c aribou- coffee - noise -as ses sment. doc Page 18 of 33 Caribou Coffee — Apple Valley, MN — Drive -thru Noise Assessment Page 3 On Exhibit 11 these levels are plotted against the monitored 1- minute L10 level between 5 and 7 am at the Apple Valley location and seen to fall well below the existing ambient level when the drive thru is in operation .The levels would also be well below the state noise standards for the adjacent residential property. While it is difficult to estimate potential impacts from vehicle - related noise, it is recommended, because of the proximity of the drive -thru to the adjacent apartment building, that the light- weight wood fence between the properties be replaced with a 3 /4' ' wood plank (or denser material) with no air gaps at least 8 feet high or higher if within zoning guidelines. This would provide some reduction in vehicle noise which is not really provide by the existing fence. If shielding of headlights is provided, a wall height of approximately 14 feet may be needed. The findings here do not exclude the possibility of audible sound from the drive -thru when there is little or no noise from Cedar Avenue or other sources. Speech could be audible, even if 15 dBA below the ambient dBA level, depending upon speech content and background spectrum. Vehicles with loud audio systems, especially very high boomy base, that can be heard a block or so away, could be problematical. However, under normal operation and traffic volumes on Cedar Avenue, and typical vehicles accessing the drive -thru, sound level are expected to be well below state noise standards and usually masked by traffic noise from Cedar Avenue. y: \jobs \2014j ob s\21401 1\report\c aribou- coffee - noise -as ses sment. doc Page 19 of 33 4 � I1.1. 1.' ■ z 0 O U N ct O U Lo c. Lo cD Ls, CD CD Lc, (yep) lanai punos LC) LO Q9:9 017:179:9 00:E9:9 0E:617:9 017:9 00:1717:9 OE:I-17:9 017:8C:9 00:9C:9 OE:CC:9 017:0C:9 00:8E:9 0E:9E:9 Q1::9 00:0E:9 OE:L I.:9 017:171:9 00:E [:9 OE:60:9 017:90:9 00:170:9 Q0:9 017:89:9 00:99:9 OE:C9:9 017:09:9 00:817:9 OE:917:9 017:E17:9 00:017:9 OE:LC:9 017:17C:9 00:C:9 0E:6E:9 017:9E:9 00:17E:9 OE: I-E:9 017:81:9 00:91:9 OE:C I.:9 017:01.:9 00:80:9 OE:90:9 017:EO:9 00:00:9 c) d co co O -..- co ;CI N W ■■1 ■ ■ ■ ■ M ..■ In c. in c. in N- N- CD CD in (veP) xewl 0 LO 99:60:L 90:Q: 9 1-:00:L 9E:89:9 9C:99:9 917:179:9 99:E9:9 90: 1-9:9 91:617:9 9E:L17:9 9C:917:9 917:C17:9 99: 90:017:9 9 1-:8C:9 9E:9C:9 9C:17C:9 917:EC:9 99:0C:9 90:6E:9 9 1-:LE:9 9E:9E:9 0 9C:CE:9 E 1- 9: 1-E:9 99:61:9 90:81:9 91:91:9 9E:171:9 9C:E I.:9 917:01:9 99:80:9 90:L0:9 91:90:9 9E:C0:9 9C: 1-0:9 917:69:9 99:L9:9 90:99:9 9 I- :179:9 9E:E9:9 9C:09:9 917:817:9 99:917:9 90:917:9 9 I- :C17:9 .1- N 0 6 0 0 ) CO N CO 0 L (8p) lanai punos CO O T co M E. O I■I 10 ;CI N H O LO N W LO N T CO (0 LO CD T z 0 O U N ct U o c CO c C LS (8p) lanai punos CO O LC) ti O ti LC) CD O CD (8p) ldS LC) LC) O LC) in 6L:CO:L 117:10:L 30:00 :L Sz:859 9 60:SS:9 CS: [9:9 9[:09:9 LC:817:9 6S:91 :9 O3:S1:9 317:C17:9 90:3 L3:O1 :9 61:8E:9 L L:LE :9 CC: SC:9 9[:3C:9 8E:OE:9 [ 0:63:9 ((:L3:9 OC M 9-17:93 :9 C) E. "5 L0:173:9 1—i N 63:33:9 H E GS:OZ:9 31:61 :9 W LS:S[ :9 6[:17[:9 [17:3[:9 CO: [ [:9 93:60:9 L1:L0:9 60:90:9 [£:170:9 CS:30:9 51: [0:9 LC:65S 65LS:S [3:955 80:659 9(: [55 88:68:9 0[:8 36:98 :9 89:88:9 9[:C O d- CD N CD CD oo Lf') (vap) 01-1 CD LC) N LC) CO:L 10:L 69:9 L9:9 99:9 C9:9 19:9 617:9 917:9 - b - b:9 017:9 117:9 6C:9 LC:9 9C:9 O :9 6z:9 Lz:9 9z:9 1z�9 619 91:9 91:9 c1:9 119 60:9 90:9 170:9 - 10:9 - 69:9 - L9:9 - 99:9 - C9:9 - 09:9 - 97:9 - 917:9 - 1717:9 Lf') Drive-Thru Noise Assessment 1-minute L10 71\ A tl /V\ I x I\J MI V Li , /Je0 ._ ii■ l■ r� 4,0 CD N CD CD oo Lf') (vap) 01-1 CD LC) N LC) CO:L 10:L 69:9 L9:9 99:9 C9:9 19:9 617:9 917:9 - b - b:9 017:9 117:9 6C:9 LC:9 9C:9 O :9 6z:9 Lz:9 9z:9 1z�9 619 91:9 91:9 c1:9 119 60:9 90:9 170:9 - 10:9 - 69:9 - L9:9 - 99:9 - C9:9 - 09:9 - 97:9 - 917:9 - 1717:9 Lf') Drive-Thru Noise Assessment 1-minute L10 LO o �n CD �n (v8p) on 08:8 00:8 09:9 00:9 09:9 - 00:9 06:17 00:17 08:8 00:9 09:Z 09:1 00:1 08:0 00:0 a E - 09:8Z H - 00:8Z - 08:ZZ - oo:zz - 09:1Z - oo:1Z - 08:OZ - oo:o - 09:61 - 00:61 - 08:81 - 00:81 - 09:L1 - 00:L I- - 09:91 - 00:91 - 09:91 0051 0 ■ • LO o �n CD �n (v8p) on 08:8 00:8 09:9 00:9 09:9 - 00:9 06:17 00:17 08:8 00:9 09:Z 09:1 00:1 08:0 00:0 a E - 09:8Z H - 00:8Z - 08:ZZ - oo:zz - 09:1Z - oo:1Z - 08:OZ - oo:o - 09:61 - 00:61 - 08:81 - 00:81 - 09:L1 - 00:L I- - 09:91 - 00:91 - 09:91 0051 0 ^� W E 0 s c 0 1— L_ au N M co M O L.9 M O ca +-A 0 cu 5 cu 0— ID 0 CO • cu O 0 a, 4 4.) b cd A 0 0 cd L-1.1 0 0 Q •� z `i' ' u C4 A•., O O U Q 0 . U ...= 4) c y c b bA d . 0 a 4, `� ' c. r .+ U '� 0 bA ) 0 0 > . � rd o - 0 1 4) -5 . , to ' 4.) 3 t ° � � CI raq ' a, -•� Cd U , zt dU a O A-, br) a., ""0 5 • .•• 1 1 1 1 i T 4- ._h 4) tt tU 7:i Cd 4 a ' U 4.) U r „, t., C CA t4 ai 1 U , • bA 0.) U 4:43 0 0 - tj v, „, r bA . -4 cri cd 73 6( ,,t) U •71 b.) . Ct 5 ca ( .-C4a'' C4 ( 0 . b:A 4 1 a . ° 4.) 0 bA - .T.:i a., .__ u, . O 4 ae ..0 0 4.) O •d 4) 't v� 4 � Ct CI U ^ c a d cd •�, O U cd .., • Ck .4tt) •P''''''' • �., ) O • .� ^ 4.) ' d 4 ' E O 4) 71 :. --, -,e, • 4.) d) U rd 1 5 v 73 ° 4_, 0 Cd o . . , a 4-i O .O c U d s••+ 5 y O cd • 0 O c O A•� y � O - 0 1 L O O p U rd 4) O .—, vA • • • • • A 5 U • .� O U p cd 4-4 p . . � ' o bA 0 & '- O - bA c a d , ..� • .--r 0 U v] y --c; 0..4 ,..� -+ • ,. ,t d i-- VD CI O an .;-'2, • • • • . • a • • • • 1 t 1 V 1 V t 1 1 1 OM OM 0 OM - 0M O Q) 4--+ v (a a N Caribou Drive-Thru PD Ordinance Amendment Planning Commission Meeting June 18, 2014 Requested Action Requesting amendment to Planned • Development No.290, Zone 4, to allow drive-thru window in connection with Class III Restaurant Location Map 14638 Cedar Avenue 2030 Comprehensive Plan Zoning Map PD-290, Zone 4 ARTICLE 2. DESIGNATION NO. 290 §A2-2 PERMITTED USES. (D)Zone 4.The purpose of this zone is to provide for limited business and community-scale retail uses. The maximum size for any multiple-tenant building shall be 18,000 square feet with no single occupant larger than 6,000 square feet. The maximum size of any single occupant building shall be 6,000 square feet. Within this zone, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the City Council: (15)Restaurants, Class I or Class III only. No drive-thru permitted in conjunction with restaurant facility. Demolition Plan Site Plan Grading Plan Landscape Plan Issues 1.Potential impacts to Glazier Townhomes Noise from outdoor speakers and idling o vehicles. Headlights. o Emissions from idling vehicles. o 2.Loss of parking Glazier Townhomes Glazier Townhomes Noise Study Findings 1.Cedar Avenue has traffic volume of approximately 50,000 ADT in this location. 2.Sound levels at the order board and pick up window will be below ambient noise levels most of the time. 3.When there is little or no noise from Cedar Avenue, possibility of audible sound from speakers at order board and pick up window. 4.An improved 8’ tall solid fence or sound barrier of ¾” wood plank or denser material is recommended to mitigate potential noise. Noise Ordinance Restrictions Restaurant Operating • Hours: Mon –Thur5:00 AM – • 10:00 PM Fri –5:00 AM –11:00 PM • Sat –5:30 AM –11:00 PM • Sun –5:30 AM –9:00 PM • Noise Ordinance • Restriction –10:00 PM to 6:00 AM Shadow Study Shadow Study PkgCalcsw/ New Fast Casual Parking Calculations (June 2014) Floor Area# Parking CalcTotal PkgRequired Seats Building #1: 10,649 sf Caribou (Inside)1,6974141 seats @ 1:2.5 16.40 Caribou (Out)2424 seats at 1:5 after 102.80 Fed Ex/Kinko’s5,156@85% /15029.22 Kid’sHair1,100@85% /1506.23 El Loro2,5828181 seats @ 1:2.532.40 El Loro Patio2222 seats at 1:5 after 102.40 Building #2: 16,500 sf Buffalo Wild Wings5,750289289 seats @ 1:2.5115.60 Flooring Expo4,870@85% /15027.60 Massage Retreat & Spa3,220@85% /15016.55 FastCasual Restaurant2,6006060 seats @ 1:2.524.00 Total Spaces Required 273.19 Total Spaces Provided: 256.00 Spaces Above or (Below) Requirement-19.46 -15.46 Applebee’s Shared Parking+4 Spaces -8.46 Proof-of-ParkingSpaces (Agreement Needed)+7 Spaces Parking Proof-of- Parking? Joint Parking? East Valley Plaza Coffee Drive- Thru The plans shall be modified to address the City Traffic • Engineer’s December 14, 2007, memo. A combination of 6’ high Black Hills Spruce trees and a 48” • high maintenance-free fence shall be installed south of the drive-thru lane and east of the rear parking lot to completely block headlights from shining onto adjacent residential properties. The spruce trees shall be planted in a staggered layout 10-12’ • apart. The final landscape plan shall demonstrate that there will be no headlight trespass. The final landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Natural Resources Coordinator. A pedestrian connection shall be installed from the sidewalk in • front of the shopping center to the west to the trail along Pilot Knob Road. East Valley Plaza Coffee Drive- Thru The three parking spaces shown inside the triangular-shaped • island northwest of the stacking lane for the drive-thru lane shall not be installed, but shall be landscaped. A stop sign shall be installed at the southeast entrance to the • shopping center as it exits onto 141st Street. A “Do Not Enter/Wrong Way” sign shall be installed on the • drive-thru exit lane where it intersects with the shopping center’s east parking lot. East Valley Plaza Coffee Drive- Thru El Loro (Formerly El Toro) An 8’ high wall shall be constructed • on the north side of the outdoor dining area . . . The wall shall be constructed of the same materials as the building exterior. An awning shall be installed to • provide a buffer between the outdoor dining area and the townhome building to the north. No outdoor music or intercom • system shall be used on the patio. Service to the outdoor area shall end • no later than 9:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 10:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Trash enclosure shall be kept closed • at all times . . . Staff Recommendation Recommend an amendment to Planned Development No. 290, Zone 4, to allow a drive-thru in connection with Class III Restaurant as a conditional use. The following conditions must be met in order to obtain a CUP for drive- thru in connection with a Class III Restaurant in PD-290, Zone 4: Noise, headlights, traffic volume and emissions from • idling vehicles resulting from the operation of the window does not negatively impact surrounding residential and institutional uses. The drive-thru lane shall not impede or conflict with • vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic circulation on the site as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. Staff Recommendation When a neighborhood restaurant is located less than • 1,000 feet from residential or institutional use, the City Council may restrict the hours of operation of a drive- thru window to mitigate any adverse impacts caused by noise, headlights, traffic volume and emissions from idling vehicles. If the installation of the drive-through facilities results in • the loss of parking spaces, then the resulting parking spaces available for the entire site shall meet the parking requirements set forth in this Chapter or the petitioner shall demonstrate that the resulting parking on the entire site can satisfactorily serve the current and any future uses in accordance with the zoning code provisions. Questions? ITEM DESCRIPTION: MVTA Bus Layover Facility Site Plan STAFF CONTACT: Margaret Dykes, Planner DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development Department City of Apple Vall ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 6B - REVISED June 18, 2014 Land Use/Action Action Requested - REVISED Since the staff report was given to the Commission last week, staff has met with the MVTA to discuss the proposed bus layover project. MVTA expressed concerns about meeting certain federal funding deadlines, and has withdrawn their request for subdivision by preliminary plat. The City Attorney states the subdivision is not required at this time, but it will be necessary for any future redevelopment of the site. Staff has revised the motions to reflect MVTA's request. REVISED MOTIONS FOR MVTA LAYOVER PROJECT 1. Recommend approval to amend Planned Development 507, zone 7b to allow for bus layover facilities for the exclusive use of public transit providers as part of a mixed-use development. 2. Recommend approval of an Interim Use Permit for a 231-space overflow parking lot to be located on the eastern portion of the subject site, as shown on the plans received in City offices on June 18, 2014, subject to all applicable City codes and standards and the following conditions: a. The property owner shall dedicate a sidewalk easement in perpetuity in favor of the City in a configuration determined by the City to connect the subject property to the property to the north. The easement documents shall be prepared by the City Attorney. A 6'-wide sidewalk shall be installed when funding is identified or the subject property is redeveloped for a mixed-use project, whichever is sooner. b. The parking lot shall be constructed to meet City standards including concrete curb and gutter, impervious surface, and striping. c. The interim use permit shall expire on December 31, 2021. 3. Recommend approval of site plan/building permit authorization for a bus layover facility and approximately 600 sq. ft. building as shown on the plans received in City offices on May 7, 2014, subject to compliance with all applicable City codes and standards, and the following conditions: a. The MVTA shall terminate the lease for the Gaslight Drive transit facility and vacate the property upon issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed building. b. The property owner shall repair the block retaining wall located on the north end of the subject lot to comply with City standards. 1 c. The property owner shall address the comments raised by the City Engineer in his memo dated May 28, 2014. d. The property owner shall address the comments raised by the Fire Marshal in his memo dated May 13, 2014. e. The property owner shall address the comments raised by the Natural Resources Coordinator in his memo dated May 23, 2014. f. The property owner shall address the comments raised by the Crime Prevention Specialist in her memo dated May 22, 2014.The property owner shall address the comments raised by the Crime Prevention Specialist in her memo dated May 22, 2014. 2 Junk oaV y Trat Auth City of Apple Valley Attention: Margaret Dyke% AICP 7100-147t11 Street Apple Valley, IVIN 551 App e Va fley Layover ` e lary Pia App t Dear Nis. Dykes: On Tuesday, June 17, 2014, we discussed the need t result, we have agreed her s need to plat the s In light f this, VTA is Please feel free t contact 111 at 952-230-1256, at L questions. Sincerely, ne a s , R Manager Senior Project Kraig Klun, rt�K � the Apple Va his thdrawing the p e n 'nary pint pplication p v sly s t d \it deliver a y Layover site As a you have, any ›- ..›- `‘ > D F-- < 0 H GO • U) Z Z z< 2 ▪ I— "70,9, M,Z,ZO.00N r --- I / I / / // • Ct >rn LULUF > _J 0 >"- < > u_ _1 • Cir) CL < I \\\ \.\\\\\\\.\\\\\-\-\\\ .., ,.... , i'j A - ..,,' .,„ „ ,..>, 4, , .,. ,5.1.9 ,L2L...._:-. 11 5 • -••••••••-• I LU < o Ct 0 W Z > ct \OF x w (?) L T, B.P'11-1X3\s wd - I. OZ '81 11 mucnd City of Apple , Val ey ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 6B June 18, 2014 Land Use/Action ITEM DESCRIPTION: Menard 2 Addition/MVTA Bus Layover Facility Site Plan STAFF CONTACT: Margaret Dykes, Planner DEPARTM ENT/DIVISION: Community Development Department Action Requested 1. Recommend approval to amend Planned Development 507, zone 7b to allow for bus layover facilities for the use of public transit providers as part of a mixed-use development. 2. Recommend approval of a subdivision by preliminary plat of Lot 1, Block 1, Menard Addition into two lots, subject to compliance with all applicable City codes and standards and the following conditions: a. The future Lot 1 shall be the western lot, have an area of approximately six (6) acres, and have the following dimensions: 676.41' x 385'. b. The future Lot 2 shall be the eastern lot, have an area of approximately four (4) acres, and have the following dimensions: 455' x 385'. c. The property owner shall dedicate a sidewalk easement in favor of the City in a configuration determined by the City to connect the subject property to the property to the north. A 6% wide sidewalk shall be installed no later than 2021. d. The property owner shall enter into private agreements for the utility easements, and execute a maintenance agreement for any utility lines that cross from Lot 1 onto Lot 2. 3. Recommend approval of an Interim Use Permit for a temporary 231-space parking lot to be located on the future Lot 2, subject to all applicable City codes and standards and the following conditions: a. The temporary parking lot shall be paved and striped to meet City standards. b. The interim use permit shall expire on December 31, 2021. 4. Recommend approval of site plan/building permit authorization for a bus layover facility and approximately 600 sq. ft. building as shown on the plans received in City offices on May 7, 2014, subject to compliance with all applicable City codes and standards, and the following conditions: a. The MVTA shall terminate the lease for the Gaslight Drive transit facility and vacate the property upon issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed building. b. The property owner shall repair the block retaining wall located on the north end of the subject lot to comply with City standards. c. The property owner shall address the comments raised by the City Engineer in his memo dated May 28, 2014. d. The property owner shall address the comments raised by the Fire Marshal in his memo dated May 13, 2014. e. The property owner shall address the comments raised by the Natural Resources Coordinator in his memo dated May 23, 2014. f. The property owner shall address the comments raised by the Crime Prevention Specialist in her memo dated May 22, 2014. Summary The applicant is requesting the following actions: O Approve amendments to Planned Development 507 to allow for a bus layover facility O Subdivision by preliminary plat of the existing Apple Valley Transit Station 10-acre site into two (2) lots; O Interim use permit for a 231-space temporary parking lot; and O Site plan review/building permit authorization for a bus layover facility with an approximately 600 sq. ft. building. Background APPLICANT: Minnesota Valley Transit Authority ("MVTA") APPLICATION DATE: 60 DAYS: May 7, 2014 July 4, 2014 PROJECT NUMBER: PC14-15-SZIB 120 DAYS: September 2, 2014 Zoning: The property is zoned "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 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 regulates the eastern 4 acres of the site, which is where the bus layover facility and temporary parking lot will be located. Zone 7b requires multi-story, mixed-use development that must include high-density apartments, and allows for commercial and transit as permitted uses. The mix of commercial, housing and transit uses is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is concerned that a stand-alone bus layover facility will remove land that is zoned for mixed-use development, and believes that the future possibility of development occurring over the layover facility should be retained. To meet the City's objectives of retaining land for future mixed-use development, the existing zoning over the entire 10 acres should be kept as is. Zone 7a should not be amended, and should still govern the western 6 acres. To accommodate the bus layover facility, zone 7b could be amended to allow for this facility as part of a mixed-use development, and the zoning would still govern eastern 4 acres. The City could allow the phasing of mixed-use development on the property, but this will require the integration of the bus layover facility into any future mixed-use development. Subdivision: The 10-acre lot is currently platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Menard Addition. The boundaries of any future lots for the subdivision of the subject property should conform to the zoning amendments recommended by staff. The applicant should reconfigure the proposed "Menard 2 Addition". Lot 1 should be the western 6 acres, and have dimensions of 676.41' x 385'. Lot 2 should be the eastern 4 acres, and have dimensions of 455' x 385'. A sidewalk connection will be needed from the transit site to the lots to the north. A sidewalk connection would extend the existing 6'-wide sidewalk that bisects the site north to south, turn east and connect with the ApplianceSmart site. This sidewalk configuration would remove about 14 parking spaces. A pedestrian connection easement in favor of the City should be dedicated on the plat. The easement must be of sufficient length, width, and change in elevation to design, construct and maintain the 6'-wide sidewalk extension. 2 H:\DEVELOPM\2014 Projects\MVTA Layover Site\PC\061814 MVTA PC report2.docx Interim Use Per *t: The applicant is proposing a 231-space temporary parking lot as an overflow lot for transit riders on the future smaller lot. The proposed temporary lot is not permitted by the zoning, but the City could issue an interim use permit. Interim uses are temporary with a set end date. 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. MVTA would like the interim use permit to have a seven (7) year time limit, which means the permit would expire at the end of 2021. Staff supports the seven-year time frame for the interim use permit. Budget Impact N/A Site Plan: The 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 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. The property owner must repair an existing block retaining wall on the north end of the site that is crumbling. Due to the increase in impervious surface area, the plan shows an infiltration basin on the northeast corner of the site. All utilities are available to the lot. The City Engineer had no concerns about the stormwater infiltration basins. 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. Attachment(s) 1. Area Map 2. Comp Plan Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Proposed Preliminary Plat 5. Site/ Demolition Plan 6. Site Plan - North 7. Site Plan - South 8. Grading Plan - North 9. Grading Plan - South 10. Utility Plan 11. Revised Landscaping Plan 12. Landscape Details 3 H:\DEVELOPM\2014 Projects\MVTA Layover Site\PC\061814 MVTA PC report2.docx 13. Building Floor Plan 14. Roof Plan 15. Elevations 16. June 4 Applicant Letter 17. City Engineer Memo 18. Fire Marshal Memo 19. Natural Resources Memo 20. Crime Prevention Memo MENARD 2 ADDITION/MVTA BUS LAYOVER FACILITY PROJECT REVIEW 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 155 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 Cub Foods, ApplianceSmart, Dollar Tree Comprehensive Plan Zoning/Land Use Comprehensive Plan Zoning/Land Use Superior Storage Comprehensive Plan Zoning/Land Use Whitney Plaza Comprehensive Plan Zoning/Land Use 4 H:\DEVELOPM\2014 Projects\MVTA Layover Site\PC\061814 MVTA PC report2.docx "C" (Commercial) "RB" (Retail Business Red Robin restaurant/Chasewood Townhomes "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) Comprehensive Plan: The site is guided "MIX" (Mixed Use) in the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. The Mixed Use areas contain a mix of retail and service businesses, office, institutional, medium- and high- density residential, transit, and park uses. Provided the future use of property includes a mix of housing and/or commercial, and the transit uses, the property would be considered Mixed Use. No change to the Comprehensive Plan designation is requested. Zoning: The property is zoned "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 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 regulates the eastern 4 acres of the site, which is where the bus layover facility and temporary parking lot will be located. Zone 7b requires multi-story, mixed-use development that must include high density apartments, and allows for commercial and transit as permitted uses. The mix of commercial, housing and transit uses is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. MVTA states it has received grant money that must be expended by the end of 2014 for the construction of a bus layover facility. In order to allow the MVTA to build the bus layover facility, the zoning must be amended. 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 concerned that a stand-alone bus layover facility will remove land that is zoned for mixed-use development, and believes that the future possibility of development occurring over the layover facility should be retained. This was done at the Grand River Station in La Crosse, WI. To meet the City's objectives of retaining land for future mixed-use development, the existing zoning over the entire 10 acres should be kept as is. Zone 7a should not be amended, and should still govern the western 6 acres. To accommodate the bus layover facility, zone 7b could be amended to allow for this facility as part of a mixed-use development, and the zoning would still govern eastern 4 acres. The City could allow the phasing of mixed-use development on the property, but this will require the integration of the bus layover facility into any future mixed-use development. Subdivision: The applicant is requesting a subdivision by preliminary plat of the subject 10-acre lot. The lot is currently platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Menard Addition. The boundaries of any future lots for the subdivision of the subject property should conform to the zoning amendments recommended by staff. The applicant should reconfigure the proposed "Menard 2 Addition". Lot 1 should be the western 6 acres, and have dimensions of 676.41' x 385'. Lot 2 should be the eastern 4 acres, and have dimensions of 455' x 385'. Staff believes a sidewalk connection will be needed from the transit site to the lots to the north. A possible sidewalk connection that could work would extend the existing 6'-wide sidewalk that bisects the site north to south, turn east and connect with the ApplianceSmart site. This sidewalk configuration would remove about 14 parking spaces. A pedestrian connection easement in favor of the City should be dedicated on the plat. The easement must be of sufficient length, width, and change in elevation to design, construct and maintain the 6'-wide sidewalk extension. Recreation Issues: The future development of Lot 2 will require park dedication. The park dedication may be fulfilled by cash-in-lieu of land. The amount shall be determined at the time of site plan review/building permit authorization. Park dedication for Lot 1 may be waived if the sidewalk extension to the ApplianceSmart lot to the north is dedicated. 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 proposed temporary lot is not permitted by the zoning, but the City could issue an interim use permit. Interim uses are temporary with a set end date. 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 Gaslight Drive 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. MVTA would like the interim use permit to have a seven (7) year time limit, which means the permit would expire at the end of 2021. Staff supports the seven-year time frame for the interim use permit. According to MVTA, there are 768 parking spaces, including both the parking ramp and surface lot. The existing ramp has approximately 500 spaces on three (3) levels (1 ground, 2 structured). If the two additional levels are constructed on the ramp, the total number of parking spaces could reach about 1,100. 5 H:\DEVELOPM\2014 Projects\MVTA Layover Site\PC\061814 MVTA PC report2.docx Site Plan: The 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 to City standards. Upon completion of the project, MVTA must terminate the lease for the Gaslight Drive transit facility and vacate the property upon issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed building. The driver's 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. There is a block retaining wall on the north edge of the property that is crumbling and must be repaired as part of this project. Pedestrian Access: There is no pedestrian connection shown from the drivers' building; staff has no issues with the lack of a connection for this building. However, staff believes a sidewalk connection will be needed from the transit site to the lots to the north. A sidewalk connection should be made that would extend the existing 6'-wide sidewalk that bisects the site north to south, turn east and connect with the ApplianceSmart site. This sidewalk configuration would remove about 14 parking spaces. Staff believes the construction of the sidewalk should be completed as part of the construction of the driver's building and the temporary parking lot if funding is available. However, the sidewalk must be installed no later than the expiration of the interim use permit for the temporary parking lot, which will be December 31, 2021. Signs: Signs and/or sign structures are not included as part of the building permit authorization. A separate sign permit must be approved before any ground or building signage may be installed. Grading Plan: The City Engineer reviewed the grading plan and has no major outstanding issues. The increase in impervious surface area requires an infiltration area, which is located on the northeast corner of the site. The City Engineer has no issues with the infiltration basin. Availability of Municipal Utilities: All utilities are available to the site. The owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall enter into private agreements for the utility easements and shall execute a maintenance agreement for any utility lines that cross from Lot 1 onto Lot 2. The City Attorney's office will draft the maintenance agreement. Landscape Plan: The temporary parking lot is required to have landscape islands; these are shown on the west side of the parking lot and meet the requirements of the Code. The Natural Resources Coordinator has reviewed the plan and has comments that must be addressed by the applicant. He states some of the species shown on the plan should be replaced with others that are more suited for the proposed development. Elevation Drawings: Materials for the driver's building consist of rockface block, which is consistent with AVTS. The building has the distinctive "swoop" on the roofline that mimics AVTS. Staff has no concerns about the building elevations. 6 H:\DEVELOPM\2014 Projects\MVTA Layover Site\PC\061814 MVTA PC report2.docx Public Safety Issues: The Fire Marshal and the Crime Prevention Specialist provided comments on the plans. These comments must be addressed by the applicant. Public Hearing Comments: The public hearing for this item was held June 4, 2014. No comments were received from the public. Concerns expressed by the Planning Commission have been addressed in this report. 7 H:\DEVELOPM\2014 Projects\MVTA Layover Site\PC\061814 MVTA PC report2.docx MVTA LAYOVER SITE AREA MAP APP Valley 7,3EFEE7 oaMwoN �rm'un�'ti spTSa - �A b ry caxasW i�'4?.7.gPi;yp;XO:Suuouax+ +cry: vw�cu. »a. MD WHITNEY 6' MD WHITNEY (1) w a w MI MVTA LAYOVER SITE COMP PLAN MAP "MIX" (Mixed Use) MVTA LAYOVER SITE ZONING MAP 6 0 0 tn z 2 2 1 i 7:3 1°1 Ez, E %),° D'ci A ± 11 0 } DNICTIM3 OWILSIX3 00%11£ M.GZ,Z0.00N 11111111111111111111111111111 11 . 213NNO0 $V1,, N 11N3 A V Erin N01103S 0%100 M 11,1; I 1 I • z 0 0) z Lu 0) 0) R7 •::„\\ • - rri 8 " 6 N Y1:1 Z Z 00 Z HJ c/0 W 0 6Atp I. 3 \s \I!A!. 000F9gg lVsuakLAIPANIN w — \Of :H±vd wd6, - VLOZ '90 ACA hva z CD 0) 0) 0) 0 ........ v • . C.1 r bmp•cao\s6.p\um.VoomgL\ps...LAIRANvi\w-n\:>1:,,, w d zz'z - oz 'so it,(1 , H "8 ' 1 5 AP'1.73\s 6 m1 ) \1!"!.\000£9ggl\lisuallA 0 11DANIN\w—BA.Hivd Luda Z - 4,0Z 90 AfNI 3,va F2 E LJ `L aii E cr5 5 .P . O . COV 5 UP \ HAP \000c9Sg \PSUM-AIRANVi \ \;N:H±vd ONI(MJ( wd£EZ - OZ '90 qvg 3iva ›- >"- LLI 111 F- ."- > oe < 11.1 _3 LL EL U) CI < ciJ t" t ri fa. „.. .41 41 0,4 0 . 1 6r '.1Luziu CD < 0 < El (7) 7 C H 0 CO 0 Bur L \ s ',Vs...LA.11DM VI \w-- :N :Hivd Ludez z - no? 'so :a3110, irva r `HI 7- o E3# LIJ / .9 M. 'cL5ESS,7 1- 17:14 „ • ' 1AS • 1 Altii1461,4911%... AZ4,14:W ;f1 f_ft 6 APvto\sEmP\IIAP\000nsgi VsuwixaiiDANPI\.- 1 Lu t'ilPz/dtV” :co 110 1 d 31va Th x \xlxxM x�1 VHnnesota VaEley Transit Aluthortty „..,-- ,...., ......... ...: , ....... , -,.... • , • . i . i . MATURE �LANDSC LEGEND J I INSTnLL KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZ ROOT nn. Hal.0...A.. ON 2130,31 tal '' IA ,09 LH913H n ■x, n, n, NVId 3H1 NO NMOHS 531111W - 10 131H3A 01110 OHlf1N07 '37N31N3ANOJ S,H017V1i1NO3 3H1 110d 3217 311103HJS 9NI1NVld 31-11 NI NMOHS 531111NVflb SEED MIX LEGEND (FOR ALL SHEETS) ,3f17533MON, HlIM 1Em.mBa1ol Z9Z E XIW WO 0335 NW 31HIVHd 13M 3ALLVN XIW 0335 3dA1 ,3f17533 MOW ON, H11M 91; asrne atof IZ9 S£ XIW 0335 N W 39N1Hj 0 NVl13M XIW (17533 M0..N'. /M B9c1aaN 1 /£T - SZXIW033SNW 0335 dHf11lVIOH3WWOJ OOSONV1H91H CMS 31111,39 AHHVfIb 03H5f1H7 31111,39 03 H030,3335 Si1HJ „Z /T HJ1tiW OOOMO (HOIOJ 1VHf11VN) HJlf1W OOOMOHVH (L£ 83A0 HOd 51115,9 11011113133 HO 030005 13XNVl8lO31NOJ 110 35(1) 0301131111 NO XIW 3f1J53d M.S:0:01113: „ /M A8 0383(1510 SV33V llV OaNW 09Z100NW 2 23 2 2 2 2 2 N30Nn 011VA31nO9 AHH3.3V1-1 Al i 31dVW /WOOS 31dVW SOOOMHH12iON 7,11133111 353NVd,f H01119 8.111 37(11115 S OIH A7V19 3DOHdS AVMHON siiquapino 51 ;1a7 wnuegnes,a�y e;elnapa8 aup, s331111V1N3NIVNaO e ;es ua0 ,en eonep ea, 533111 N33B0a3n3 sage ea�ld i tr/±,. NON Ail L.A VP At.. MINI' ,-.' 8H ,., LAM 8H HH SN L-- `—::::, ',1:::-:•:, • • • • • • - • - • • .; • • • • - • • L?_`g 5, ° 2 < 2 2, 24 Ec„ - -< • • • 6 • • X 3 • 7 \70 LudO. - 41.0, 0 0 P L 0 L'AX \il^!3 \ \ 1.00ZONAS103 :Hivd oNI.a MUL -"; 3 rp, 5 8 E.P Lo'il\a"-.!w!1.,\I!",0\bmP\Z.1.00ZGAl\S.103rod\...i:Hiva , 44 re wd,g - 940Z '90 AEIN 3iva Sr .imorAr ..en y is ow I ammommmurtol-___ 111111111111taal • 0 OrMINair 0 11irIMESMIIIIIVV 0 neaminin 0 ..,...umminaiss.witi Amor 0 115%10 I 11111 _ 1 00 ------ 0 ocT, 1• I MEE EMI isimmae.SOIN 0 ii r: ' 11 4 ;111111Ftli OMPUIS 111111WIl , ainearn,_ 0 /PAR/ >->- WLLJF > Z 0 -- > < W U_ Q.. Co °ONCE 33S z 0 LU z ct cc 0 N 0 L. '9) =7, 1 2 1 8 8 !LA ee, 0 uj 0 w U w 2 oo 0 z Z 06 U) < cf) 0 0 0 ,„>-- 0 w -J I LLO 6N hit 6°E 1 P w - kW 1 Z - a 0 0 0 0 0 LO bmP'L Vs.) 04 DNIM.0 wd0. - 171.0Z '90 :03.110, ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE DOOR SCHEDULE S3dAl Th'M ,36. 'TWA 71 M3N NOWSNALL 210013 D CEILING PLAN RECESSED DOWN UGHT FIXTURE x 4 FlXTURE SURFACE NOUN1 7 [ii REFLECTE 0 0 Sr .imorAr ..en y is ow I ammommmurtol-___ 111111111111taal • 0 OrMINair 0 11irIMESMIIIIIVV 0 neaminin 0 ..,...umminaiss.witi Amor 0 115%10 I 11111 _ 1 00 ------ 0 ocT, 1• I MEE EMI isimmae.SOIN 0 ii r: ' 11 4 ;111111Ftli OMPUIS 111111WIl , ainearn,_ 0 /PAR/ >->- WLLJF > Z 0 -- > < W U_ Q.. Co °ONCE 33S z 0 LU z ct cc 0 N 0 L. '9) =7, 1 2 1 8 8 !LA ee, 0 uj 0 w U w 2 oo 0 z Z 06 U) < cf) 0 0 0 ,„>-- 0 w -J I LLO 6N hit 6°E 1 P w - kW 1 Z - a 0 0 0 0 0 LO bmP'L Vs.) 04 DNIM.0 wd0. - 171.0Z '90 :03.110, ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE DOOR SCHEDULE nano . 11,NLI38d ' I IIIMMI 1 11.111 NM .p kr3 \---21.116 - 11Y4 °N1.432id 0 .1 , r "-T, J . , . , 1 il )4 I rHIHH. J 7 11-Ltd Z Z Z 1 - 1 . 1 C.) 00 0 111 0 11.1 LL LLI z 41 --a 0 0 Pat. 0 w ._J La— w OG bmP, DNA wdSZ:z . 90 .1A1 :03llOrld 3,0 PREMINARY DESIGN ' I I .p kr3 \---21.116 - 11Y4 °N1.432id 0 .1 1 il ,. . . . . - - • • • . : . a .: -a .: ••1•.: • = .21 . , ,..4. =•-• -: _ - ii ---3ssna ONINIS—Ai08 U3W4161d , a130dX3 - lo 511i - 1.1 ..... . ., ....*...:. , 1 2 _4,............_,k 1 _ __ 7 11-Ltd Z Z Z 1 - 1 . 1 C.) 00 0 111 0 11.1 LL LLI z 41 --a 0 0 Pat. 0 w ._J La— w OG bmP, DNA wdSZ:z . 90 .1A1 :03llOrld 3,0 PREMINARY DESIGN ›- W " 0 > 0 < D 0 W co z z z< L t j E g z w w 0 $' CD or) z Z Z < o 0.) P: z o a) 0 W 0 §, w w w =111:1=1:1=1:LECEE_ crs 0 0 bm,l :H1Vd owAvaa PLOZ '90 , 03110, "LW *0* je.".,15,611pat swelinsuo0 d soplawoloqd ells JenoAei sne VIAV\J CITY OF Apple Valley Utilities • The sanitary sewer connection shall be made east of the manhole with a wye. MEMO Public Works TO: Maggie Dykes FROM: David E. Bennett, Asst. City Engineer DATE: May 28, 2014 SUBJECT: MVTA Bus Layover Facility Maggie, following are comments on the MVTA Bus Layover Facility plan dated April 28, 2014. Site Plan • The owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall enter into private utility easements and maintenance agreement for any utility lines that cross from Lot 1 onto Lot 2. Ponding, Infiltration & Grading • The storm water non-degradation requirements for the site have been accommodated on-site with the proposed infiltration facility. Erosion Control • The applicant shall apply for a Natural Resource Management Permit prior to beginning any site work. • Street sweeping shall be provided as necessary throughout construction. City of Apple 11 MEMO Fire Department TO: Maggie Dykes, City Planner FROM: Roy Kingsley, Fire Marshal DATE: May 13, 2014 SUBJECT: MVTA Layover Site • MSFC 505.1 Address Numbers: Requires numbers to be visible from the street. Will building be address off Gaslight drive or 155 St? • MSFC 906.1: Requires fire extinguishers to be installed were needed per the fire code. City of Apple Valley MEMO Public Works Department TO: Maggie Dykes, City Planner FROM: Jeff Kehrer, Natural Resources Coordinator DATE: May 23, 2014 SUBJECT: Minnesota Valley Transit Authority Bus Layover Facility Landscape Plan Review After reviewing the landscape plan for the Bus Layover Facility, I have the following comments: • The area between the bus layover and parking lot is less than five feet wide and better suited for narrow crowned ornamental trees than large shade trees. If the shade trees survive, there will be significant conflicts with tree branches and bus traffic. * Norway spruce trees shown along the northern boundary will easily outgrow their space. The area they are shown is about fifteen feet wide and Norway spruce will grow to be 25-30 feet wide. Norway spruce is one of the fastest growing spruce species. This area is better suited for smaller evergreen trees such as techny arborvitae or upright junipers. * The shade trees shown along the north boundary will outgrow their space. At 15 feet wide, this space is probably better suited for ornamental tree species. * There is space for one or two shade trees such as swamp white oak in the bottom of the infiltration area. • Further details on construction of the infiltration area are requested. APPLE VALLEY POLICE Neighborhood Collaboration Officer Program Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) recommendations for MVTA Layover Site Submitted by: Pam Walter, Crime Prevention Specialist, Apple Valley Police Department Exterior recommendations: 1. Visible display of address on building to allow emergency vehicles to easily locate the property. 2. Exterior doors should be secured with adequate access control (card access or keyed). 3. Adequate lighting on exterior of building — 5 footcandles at entrance and 2 footcandles on sidewalks adjacent to the building. 4. Maintain uniform lighting (no more than 10:1 ratio) throughout the surface parking lot. Landscaping: 1. Groundcover plants should not exceed a hei ht of 2 feet at maturity and should be used within 6 feet of the edge of walkways. 2. Shrubs should not exceed a height of 3 feet and should be used within 6-12 feet from the edge of walkways. 3. Trees planted should be pruned up to a height of 6 feet above ground. 4. Remove existing trees on the east side of the property if on MVTA site. The tree line has become known as the "tree tunnel" by area delinquents. Recommend taking the existing trees down and/or not planting others on that side of the site as indicated on the plans. Adding trees will offer more concealment and make the area more enticing for continued illegal activity. Interior recommendations: l. Recommend surveillance camera at main entrance point and on any exterior doors. 2. Consider concealment ofvending machines located inside the building so as not to be seen from the outside. Coin operated machines are an attraction for vandalism and theft. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached at 952-953-2706. APPLE VALLEY POLICE Neighborhood Collaboration Project VISION A clean, attractive and safe community, now and in the future. MISSION To be a relational and educational presence in our community and immediately address crime and quality of life issues at their root. Wiinnesota Va ley Transit Authority Apple Valley Layover Comments Need • MVTA's mission is to provide "mobility through an efficient, integrated network of equipment, facilities and services." The goal of the Apple VaIley Layover p ject is to improve and expand transit operations in Apple Valley and the Cedar corridor. • This p ject is necessary to reduce operational and maintenance costs. There is a significant cost involved in maintaining both the current Apple Valley Transit Station and the old site. • The Apple Valley Transit Station is currently at full capacity, with another 40-50 passenger vehicles parked in the lot to the south of the site. For safety and maintenance purposes, our goal is to provide parking for these passengers on a single site. � MVTA intends to submit a grant application for the additional parking decks during the next round of solicitations. If successful, funds for the decks would be available in 2019, and the construction would take 1 Yz to 2 years. For this reason, MVTA would prefer the overflow parking lot be allowed for a period of 10 years, rather than 5 years. Future Development • The existing 10-acre parcel was acquired by the Dakota County Regional Rail Authority by condemnation for transit purposes. The attached memorandum from Metropolitan Council Attorney Peter Hanf outlines the background and the issues involved in the potential redevelopment of the site. • MVTA does not support the idea of allowing potential development over the Apple Valley Layover site. Under the provisions of the grants received for this p 'ect,theApp|eVa||ey Layover site has a minimum Iife of 20 years. Structures have a useful life of 20-70 years. • If any commercial development is to occur on the site, it would be limited to the 2-acre overflow parking site. As noted in the attached Hanf memorandum, development on this site for any purpose beyond transit would be subject to approval by many different governing bodies. • MVTA 15 not a commercial developer. The MVTA Executive Director has discusses opportunities for development at this location with developers on several occasions, but no proposals have come forward in the last 4 years. Pedestrian Easement • MVTA does not support the idea of an additional pedestrian access to the property to the north. This easement would lead to a loading dock area. Until this area is redeveloped, there does not appear to be a need for additional access. • There are already some vandalism and security issues at the transit station. MVTA attempts to deter these events with Iighting and security cameras. The additional access to an unsecured, poorly lit area may only increase those issues. • Even if MVTA were to dedicate an easement, there are no funds available for the construction of the sidewalk/trail. Further, the loss of 14 parking spaces in a facility that is currently over capacity 5 an issue. • MVTA prefers to pay all required fees at the time of development. 2 lett lett lett MVTA Bus Layover Facility Presentation to the Planning Commission June 18, 2014 Applicant’s Request Zoning amendments to PD-507 to allow for a bus • layover facility; An interim use permit for a 231-space overflow • parking lot; and Site plan review/building permit authorization for a • bus layover facility with an approximately 600 sq. ft. building for bus drivers. NOTE: MVTA has withdrawn request for subdivision. 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) PD-507 –Existing Zone 7a -Permitted Uses Transit stations for exclusive use by public transit providers. • A minimum 300-space structured parking ramp. • Zone 7b –Permitted Uses Multi-story, mixed use, either vertical or horizontal, which • shall consist of apartment multiple residential (min. 24 dua, max. 54 dua), and one or more of the following uses: General retail uses, e.g. drugstores, dry cleaning, banks (ATM & • drive-thru lanes subject to CUP), daycare facilities, etc. Class I, II, or III restaurants (no drive-thru). • Professional offices and general offices. • Public utility buildings and structures. • Parks and playgrounds. • Public libraries. • Municipal government administrative buildings. • Parking ramps and structures in conjunction with a commercial • retail building, residential structure, or residential/commercial mixed use structure. PD-507 –Proposed Zone 7a -Permitted Uses Transit stations for exclusive use by public transit providers. • A minimum 300-space structured parking ramp. • Zone 7b –Permitted Uses (stays the same) Multi-story, mixed use, either vertical or horizontal, which shall • consist of apartment multiple residential (min. 24 dua, max. 54 dua), and one or more of the following uses: General retail uses, e.g. drugstores, dry cleaning, banks (ATM & • drive-thru lanes subject to CUP), daycare facilities, etc. Class I, II, or III restaurants (no drive-thru). • Professional offices and general offices. • Public utility buildings and structures. • Parks and playgrounds. • Public libraries. • Municipal government administrative buildings. • Parking ramps and structures in conjunction with a commercial retail • building, residential structure, or residential/commercial mixed use structure. Bus layover facilities for the exclusive use of public transit • providers. Grand River Station La Crosse, WI Interim Use Permit Received June 18, 2014 Existing Sidewalk Proposed Future Restaurant Restaurant Sidewalk Future Existing Loading Dock Restaurant (to remain) Parking Sidewalk Existing Gap Sidewalk City Desired Sidewalk Connection Site Plan Site Plan Grading Plan Utility Plan Landscape Plan Lighting Plan Building Floor Plan Approx. 600 sq. ft. –for bus drivers only Building Elevations Rockfaceblock, cement board siding Public Hearing Public hearing held June 4, 2014. No comments • from the public. Planning Commission concerned about MVTA’s • request 10 year IUP for parking lot. MVTA would like 7 years. Staff supports this • request. MVTA has withdrawn request for subdivision by • preliminary plat. Due to concerns about federal funding deadlines. • Recommended Actions 1.Recommend approval to amend Planned Development 507, zone 7b to allow for bus layover facilities for the exclusive use of public transit providers as part of a mixed-use development. Recommended Actions (cont.) 2.Recommend approval of an Interim Use Permit for a 231-space overflow parking lot to be located on the eastern portion of the subject side, as shown on the plans received in City offices June 18, 2014, subject to all applicable City codes and standards and the following conditions: a.The property owner shall dedicate a sidewalk easement in perpetuity in favor of the City in a configuration determined by the City to connect the subject property to the property to the north. The easement documents shall be prepared by the City Attorney. A 6’-wide sidewalk shall be installed when funding is identified or the subject property is redeveloped for a mixed-use project, whichever is sooner. b.The parking lot shall be constructed to meet City standards including concrete curb and gutter, impervious surface, and striping. c.The interim use permit shall expire on December 31, 2021. Recommended Actions (cont.) 3.Recommend approval of site plan/building permit authorization for a bus layover facility and approximately 600 sq. ft. building as shown on the plans received in City offices on May 7, 2014, subject to compliance with all applicable City codes and standards, and the following conditions: a.The MVTA shall terminate the lease for the Gaslight Drive transit facility and vacate the property upon issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed building. b.The property owner shall repair the block retaining wall located on the north end of the subject lot to comply with City standards. c.The property owner shall address the comments raised by the City Engineer in his memo dated May 28, 2014. d.The property owner shall address the comments raised by the Fire Marshal in his memo dated May 13, 2014. e.The property owner shall address the comments raised by the Natural Resources Coordinator in his memo dated May 23, 2014. f.The property owner shall address the comments raised by the Crime Prevention Specialist in her memo dated May 22, 2014. Questions? City of App ITEM DESCRIPTION: endments to Chapter 154 (Sign Regulations) by the City of Apple Valley (PC14-20-0) — Proposed amendments change method of calculation and allowable signage for Institutional uses, and modifies language in the sign code to clarify meaning. STAFF CONTACT: Margaret Dykes, Planner Action Requested ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 6C June 18, 2014 Land Use/Action DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development • Recommend approval of the draft ordinance amending Chapter 154 of the Code of Ordinances (Signs). Summary As staff was completing recent amendments to the City's Sign Code, the City Attorney advised that amendments should also be done for Institutional Signs. Institutional uses are limited in the amount of signage that is allowed on a particular site, and the allowable signage for these uses is significantly less than commercial uses. The limited amount of signage has proven problematic in the past because Institutional uses are generally on larger lots and may have several buildings on the site. The City Attorney advised that the Code must be content neutral. Signs cannot be regulated based solely on the content of the sign or on the user. It is the sign that must be regulated, not who has the sign or what the sign "advertises". Background The permitted size of a sign is regulated Appendix C of Chapter 154; the existing Code is attached. The Code allows properties zoned for Institutional uses to have one (1) 40 sq. ft. ground sign and one (1) 40 sq. ft. building sign. Institutional uses include churches, libraries, parks, government buildings, courthouses, schools, and similar public or quasi-public uses. It is staff s opinion that one 40 sq. ft. building sign may not be adequate for the size of these buildings, and one 40 sq. ft. ground sign may not be adequate for the use. Institutional buildings serve a variety of uses, and signage is an important means of directing people to the services that are provided in these buildings. Generally, institutional uses are larger buildings on larger lots, and consist of a single user though that user may serve multiple functions, e.g. the Dakota County Western Service Center contains a library, courtrooms, and government offices. Variances have been requested in the past to accommodate larger building signs. The City granted a variance to Apple Valley High School in 2012 to accommodate an 84 sq. ft. building sign. Because Institutional uses are generally adjacent to residential uses, staff believes the method of calculating should be similar to that used for the Limited Business zoning district. Limited Business uses consist of banks, professional offices, and the like are also generally adjacent to residential uses. Signs for Limited Business districts are calculated as follows: 1 Building Sign Ground Sign • One (1) sq. ft. of sign per 100 sq. ft. of total Single occupant building: 40 sq. ft. floor area. Maximum of 200 sq. ft. of sign. Multi-occupant building: 60 sq. ft. • One (1) sign per building regardless of occupancy type (single or multi). Again, because Institutional uses are generally larger, staff believes they should be allowed the same amount of signage as those uses located in Neighborhood Commercial, General Business, Retail Business, Industrial, and Business Park districts. These districts are allowed up to 500 sq. ft. of building sign, but the method of calculating the signage is based currently on the retail floor area. Signs for these districts are calculated as follows: Building Sign • One (1) sq. ft. of sign per 25 sq. ft. of retail floor area for the first 5,000 sq. ft. Thereafter, 1 sq. ft. of sign per 100 sq. ft. of retail floor area. • Maximum of 500 sq. ft. of sign. Minimum of 40 sq. ft. • One (1) sign per building for single occupant. • One (1) sign per business for multi-occupant. Ground or Pylon Sign • Single or Multi-occupant building: maximum of 110 sq. ft. • Multi-occupant over 50,000 sq. ft. may have may have up to 180 sq. ft. • Multi-occupant over 50,000 sq. ft. may have 2 ground or pylon signs. Staff believes that increasing the size of the signs allowed for Institutional districts is needed, but the method of calculating the signs should be based on the total floor area. Also, no Institutional use should be allowed only a total of 500 sq. ft. of building signage per site. This would allow multiple buildings on an Institutional site to have signage, provided the total signage for the site did not exceed 500 sq. ft. The amended Code would allow the following for Institutional uses: Building Sign • One (1) sq. ft. of sign per 100 sq. ft. of the total building footprint area. • Maximum of 500 sq. ft. for all signage on the site. Minimum of 40 sq. ft. • One (1) sign per building. Ground or Pylon Sign • One 60 sq. ft. ground sign. Staff and the City Attorney have drafted amendments to Appendix C that would address the issue of fairness for Institutional uses, and also clean up the language so that the method used for calculating the size of a permitted sign is clear. No public hearing is required for this request. Staff considers this a "housekeeping" item. Budget Impact N/A Attachment(s) 1. Draft amendments 2. Excerpt from existing ordinance — Appendix C 3. City Attorney memo 2 CITY OF APPLE VALLEY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA, AMENDING TITLE XV, CHAPTER 154, OF THE CITY CODE ENTITLED "SIGN REGULATIONS" BY AMENDING THE AREA OF SIGN PERMITTED FOR BUIDLING AND GROUND SIGNS WITHIN INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICTS The City Council of Apple Valley ordains: Section 1. Chapter 154 of the Apple Valley City Code is hereby amended by revising Appendix C to read as follows: APPENDIX C: SIGNS REQUIRING PERMITS The following signs may be erected or maintained, as shown for each zoning district or land use, only after obtaining a permit from the city and payment of permit fees, subject to the sign area limits provided below and ; the standards of § 154.03 are met. Zoning District Residential Agriculture and mMultiple Residential Institutional Neighborhood Convenience Center Pylon Sign Ground Sign 1 1 or 1 1 1 Building Sign 1 1/business Maximum Area of Sign (sq. ft.) 40 40 1 10 each Building: See Note 4 Ground: 60 40 each Neighborhood Convenience Center: Gasoline sales Limited business: Single occupant 13 See Note 3 1 Building: See Note 2 A Ground: 40 1 or 1 10/buildingl Building: See Note 1 . WILL . kJ Pylon: 80 80/pylon A 1 See Note 3 1 110/building2 Building: See Note 2 c ! „ Ground: 60 Multi - occupant General business: Single occupant Multi- occupant 1 or 1 1 or 1 1 125 totall Building: See Note 1 Ground: 110 Pylon: 110 (pylon /ground 110) A See Note 1 1/business Ground: 110 Pylon: 110 110 pylon or ground/building Retail business Single occupant 1 Multi - occupant; under 50,000 sq. ft. 1 125 totall Building: See Note 1 Ground: 110 Pylon: 110 (pylon /ground 110) 110/buildingl Building: See Note 1 1/business Ground: 110 Pylon: 110 110 pylon or ground/building Multi- occupant; over 50,000 sq. ft. 2 or 2 1/business /10/buildingl Building: See Note 1 Ground: 180 Pylon: 180 4-80 yl en r g rn� i Y1 � / !^�1� l o LZn d V ii1TCT11 , Shopping center; regional Visitors business Industrial and sand and gravel Same as retail business Same as retail business Same as retail business Planned development The ordinance establishing each planned development district shall be used to determine the most applicable zoning district designated for each lot and signs shall be permitted by the most applicable zoning district as determined by the city's building official. NOTES TO TABLE 1 Area of sign for building sign(s) business may be equal to: Building floor area: 5,000 sq. ft. of sign per 6 - AAA AA A 11 . 6 0: 1 sq. ft. of area of sign per 25 sq. ft. of the sign permit-holder's occupied floor area of the building if occupied area is 5000 sq. ft. or less; plus an additional 1 sq. ft. of area of sign per 100 sq. ft. of the sign permit-holder's occupied floor area of the building over 5000 sq. ft. Maximum allowed: 500 sq. ft. area of sign per building Minimum allowed: 40 sq. ft. of sign Area of sign for building sign(s) in for-limited business district may be equal to: 1 sq. ft. of sign per 100 sq. ft. of total building floor area. Maximum allowed: 200 sq. ft. of area of sign per building Minimum entitlement allowed: 40 sq. ft. of sign 3 - See § 154.04(H) regarding a second permissible ground sign as a substitution for all building signs. 4 - Area of sign for building sign(s) in institutional district may be equal to: 1 sq. ft. of area of sign per 100 sq. ft. of the total building floor area Maximum allowed: An aggregate of 500 sq. ft. for all building signs on lot. Minimum allowed: 40 sq. ft. Section 2. Summary approved. The City Council hereby determines that the text of the summary marked "Official Summary of Ordinance No. ", a copy of which is attached hereto clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. The City Council further determines that publication of the title and such summary will clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. Section 3. Filing. The City Clerk shall file a copy of this ordinance in her office, which copy shall be available for inspection by any persons during regular office hours. Section 4. Publication. The City Clerk shall publish the title of this ordinance and the official summary in the official newspaper of the City with notice that a printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the Office of the City Clerk. Section 5. Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and the publication of its title and the official summary. ATTEST: PASSED by the City Council this day of 2014. Pamela J. Gackstetter, City Clerk Mary Hamann-Roland, Mayor CITY OF APPLE VALLEY ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA, AMENDING TITLE XV, CHAPTER 154, OF THE CITY CODE ENTITLED "SIGN REGULATIONS" BY AMENDING THE AREA OF SIGN PERMITTED FOR BUIDLING AND GROUND SIGNS WITHIN INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICTS The following is the official summary of Ordinance No. approved by the City Council of Apple Valley on , 2014: Chapter 154-Appendix D of the Apple Valley City Code is amended to revise the area of sign (size) permitted for ground and building signs in Institutional districts from 40 square feet to a size equated based on the total building area, not to exceed 200 square feet. A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours in the office of the City Clerk at the Apple Valley Municipal Center, 7100 West 147th Street, Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124. 2002 S-1 Repi. Sign Regulations APPENDIX C: SIGNS REQUIRING PE ITS 99 The following signs may be erected or maintained, as shown for each zoning district or land use, only after obtaining a permit from the city and payment of permit fees, providing the standards of § 154.03 are met. I Residential Agriculture and multiple Institutional Neighborhood Center Gasoline sales 11 *ted business Single occupant Multi-occupant .1.9161.1 1 Or 1 1 or 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1/business 1 1 ,1.1011.1.• 1 40 40 40 each 40 each 40/building' 80/pylon 40/ground .4.10152101, 40/building' 40/ground 40/building' 60/ground General business Single occupant Multi-occupant Retail business Single occupant Multi-occupant; under 50,111 sq. ft. 1 or 1 1 or 1 1 1/business 1 or 1 1 125 total' lon/Iround 110) 40/building' 110 pylon or ground/building 125 total' (pylon/ground 110) 1 or 1 1/business 40/building' 110 pylon or .tround/buildin! . ........... ::::::-..:•::::::':::•.::•:::::..1 • - . .. • : ..- :.:-...:. - .-..• . ' . . ...• Bulld S n. .. Retail business (Cont'd) Multi-occupant; over 50,000 sq. ft. 2 or 2 1/business 40/building 180 pylon or ground/buildin• Shoo lin.. center; re u'onal _ . ... Same as retail business Visitors business Same as retail business Industrial and sand and gravel Same as retail business Pl. lied development The ordinance establishing each planried development district shall be used to determine the most applicable zoning district designated for each lot and signs shall be permitted by the most applicable zoning district as determined by the city's building official. ...... ::::.•.:-..i.:.•:::•-•::::::::::.::::::::::::.:::::,:::::::::::::::::: .... - ::::•:. NOTES TO TABLE . • • . • . -.-1* . ** • $ :.•::.:. ...• ::•:77: " : • 4 ::: : :.......:.•:.:::• : ::...• .:-:::::.•:: • --: :::•::::::::. 1 area : d . . a • ... ::.:.• •.• • • ...::..-: first1 . .•::::::::::::::.-::::::-......::. .. • :•.:.::..::::.-:::::::....::.. 4.7;:i.- • ... n aliQwed 50 .::::::::::::•.:::::.::::::::::.::-:::-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::•••••••••:::•••••• • Mimrnum entt1ement . .. • 1 : ... . •.::::•::::::::::::.:•:::, ....,,...:,.. ,.......::•::•:::•:•: Maximum . ... sign ....... • ....:::::;;:-.-:::::•:::::::::::::....:.-::::::::::::::::::::::::••••••••::::::::::::::::-:::... • . I .) ment 40 sq ft of sign : sevond pernhissble 41 as 4 substitutio'I tor all buticting • 100 Apple Valley - Land Usage '81 Code, § 6-105) (Ord. 495, passed 9-20-90; Am. Ord. 504, passed 2-28-91; Am. Ord. 536, passed 2-27-92; Am. Ord. 555, passed 5-13-93) Penalty, see § 10.99 2002 S-1 Repl. D Dougherty, Motenda, olrest, Hilts & Bauer P.A. OUGHERTY MOLENDA Attorneys I Advisors MEMORANDUM To: Apple Valley Planning Commission From: Sharon K. Hills, City Attorney's Office Date: June 10, 2014 Re: Ordinance Amendment — Signs within Institutional Districts Under the City's sign regulations, building and ground signs within the Institutional (P) district are more restricted in size than building and ground signs in commercial districts. In the institutional district, both the building sign and ground sign are limited to 40 square feet each. However, in commercial district (retail and industrial), building signs may be up to 200-500 square feet depending on the district and the building size (floor area) and ground signs may be up to 110-180 square feet depending on district (location). City sign regulations must be content neutral; a sign cannot be regulated based on its content or its user. It is the sign itself that is to be regulated, not who has the sign or what the sign "advertises." Accordingly, it is our recommendation that the City sign regulations be amended to provide building and ground signs for institutional uses be similarly regulated as those for industrial or commercial uses. Also, we recommended that the language be revised to provide clarity in the method and formula for calculating the permitted sign size/area. 7300 West 147th Street Suite 600 Apple Valley, MN 55124 (952) 432-3136 Phone (952) 432-3780 Fax www.dmshb.corn Sign Code Amendments – Institutional Uses Presentation to the Planning Commission June 18, 2014 Background Prompted by recent review of sign code for • another project. City Attorney noted code is not evenly applied. • Code must be neutral –regulate signs, not the • use. Institutional uses allowed less signage than • commercial uses. Institutional uses generally larger and need more • signage. Institutional Uses: Public and quasi-public uses. • Churches, schools, government buildings, libraries, • courthouses, parks, similar. Current Code Zoning DistrictAllowableBuilding SignAllowable Ground Sign InstitutionalOne (1) 40 sq. ft. One (1) 40 sq. ft. Single occupant building: • Limited BusinessOne (1) sign per building – One (1) 40 sq. ft. 1 sq. ft. of sign per 100 sq.ft. of Multi-occupant building: • total floor area. One (1) 60 sq. ft. Max. 200 sq. ft.  One (1) sq. ft. of sign per 25 Single or Multi-occupant Neighborhood sq. ft. of retail floor area for building: maximum of Commercial, the first 5,000 sq. ft. 110 sq. ft. General Business,  Thereafter, 1 sq. ft. of sign Multi-occupant over Retail Business, per 100 sq. ft. of retail floor 50,000 sq. ft. may have Industrial, area. may have up to 180 sq. Business Park  Maximum of 500 sq. ft. of ft.  sign. Minimum of 40 sq. ft.Multi-occupant over  One (1) sign per building for 50,000 sq. ft. may have 2 single occupantbuilding.ground or pylon signs.  One sign per business for multi occupantbuilding. Institutional Use –Church 40 sq. ft. building sign Institutional Use –Church 40 sq. ft. ground sign Why change the Code? pic Example –River Valley Church River Valley Church –Institutional Use in Industrial Zone • Allowed 460 sq. ft. of signage • Have 192 sq. ft. building sign, 95 sq. ft. ground sign • Same use (church), different zone – allowed more signage. Code Amendment Zoning DistrictAllowableBuilding SignAllowable Ground Sign InstitutionalOne (1) sq. ft. of sign per One (1) 60sq. ft. •• 100 sq. ft. of the total building floor area. Max:500 sq. ft. for all • building signs on lot.  One (1) sq. ft. of area of Single or Multi-occupant • Neighborhood sign per 25 sq. ft. of the sign building: maximum of Commercial, permit-holder’s occupied 110 sq. ft. General Business,  floor area of the building if Multi-occupant over Retail Business, occupied area is 5,000 sq. ft. 50,000 sq. ft. may have Industrial, Business or less; plus an additional 1 may have up to 180 sq. Park sq. ft. of area of sign per 100 ft.  sq. ft. of the sign permit-Multi-occupant over holder’s occupied floor area 50,000 sq. ft. may have 2 of the building over 5,000 sq.ground or pylon signs. ft. Max:500 sq. ft. areaof • sign per building. Code Amendment Amendment treats Institutional uses in similar • fashion to commercial uses. Amendment also cleans up Code, makes it easier • to understand. No other changes to Code. • No building signs adjacent to residential. • Recommended Action Recommend approval of the draft ordinance • amending Chapter 154 of the Code of Ordinances (Signs). No public hearing required Questions?