HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-08-16 Agenda Packet
M eeting L ocation: M unicipal Center
7100 147th Street West
Apple Valley, M innesota 55124
August 16, 2023
PLA N N IN G C O MMISSIO N T EN TAT IVE A G EN D A
7:00 P M
1.Call to Order
2.Approve Agenda
3.Approve Consent Agenda Items
Consent Agenda Items are considered routine and will be enacted with a
single motion, without discussion, unless a commissioner or citizen requests
to have any item separately considered. It will then be moved to the land
use/action items for consideration.
A.Approve Minutes of August 2, 2023 Regular Meeting
4.Public Hearings
5.Land Use / Action Items
A.Eagle Pointe 2nd Addition - PC23-22-SF
C onsider subdivision by preliminary plat and site plan review/building
permit authorization to subdivide the second phase of the Eagle Pointe
development consisting of 11 villa lots and 19 townhome lots for a total of
30 dwelling units on the 10.3-acre site.
LO C AT IO N: Northwest corner of Garden View Drive and 140th Street
West
PET IT IO N ER: Eagle Pointe, LLC.
B.Frykman Impervious Coverage Variance - PC 23-23-V
C onsider variance to increase the impervious surface coverage on the
subject residential lot from 35% to 42.2% to allow construction of a 12' x
28' (336 sq. ft.) third garage stall.
LO C AT IO N: 13511 Granada Ave
PET IT IO N ER: Teri Frykman
C.12787 Durham Way Impervious Surface Variance
C onsider an 18.91% impervious surface variance within the Shoreland
Overlay zone where the maximum permitted impervious surface is 25%
and 43.91% is proposed.
LO C AT IO N: 12787 Durham Way
PET IT IO N ER: Alexis and Scott Mckague
6.Other Business
A.Review of Upcoming Schedule and Other Updates
Planning Commission - Wednesday, September 6, 2023 - 7:00 p.m.
Planning Commission - Wednesday, September 20, 2023 - 7:00 p.m.
C ity Council - T hursday, August 24, 2023 - 7:00 p.m.
C ity Council - T hursday, September 14, 2023 - 7:00 p.m.
7.Adjourn
Regular meetings are broadcast, live, on C harter C ommunications C able C hannel
180 and on the C ity's website at www.applevalleymn.gov
I T E M: 3.A.
P L A NNI NG C O MMI S S I O N ME E T I NG D AT E:August 16, 2023
S E C T I O N:Consent A genda
Description:
A pprove Minutes of A ugust 2, 2023 Regular Meeting
S taff Contact:
B reanna Vincent, Department Assistant
Department / Division:
Community Development Department
AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D:
Approve minutes of regular meeting of August 2, 2023.
S UM M ARY:
T he minutes of the last regular Planning Commission meeting is attached for your review and
approval.
B AC K G RO UND:
State statute requires the creation and preservation of meeting minutes which document the
official actions and proceedings of public governing bodies.
B UD G E T I M PAC T:
N/A
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Minutes
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 2, 2023
1. CALL TO ORDER
The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chair Kurtz
at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Jodi Kurtz, Paul Scanlan, David Schindler, Becky Sandahl
Member(s) Absent: Keith Diekmann, Jeff Prewitt, Phil Mahowald
City staff members attending: City Planner Kathy Bodmer, Planner Alex Sharpe, Community
Development Director Tim Benetti, Assistant City Engineer Evan
Acosta, City Attorney Sharon Hills, and Department Assistant
Breanna Vincent.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Kurtz asked if there were any changes to the agenda. – None.
MOTION: Commissioner Schindler moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan,
approving the agenda. Roll call vote: Ayes - 4 – Nays – 0.
3. CONSENT ITEMS
A. Approval of Minutes of June 21, 2023
MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler,
approving the minutes of June 21, 2023. Roll call vote: Ayes - 4 – Nays – 0.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Eagle Pointe 2nd Addition
Chair Kurtz opened the public hearing.
Planner Bodmer provided a brief presentation.
Commissioner Scanlan asked if the streets were public or private.
Planner Bodmer stated that the streets are private.
Commissioner Scanlan asked how parking is setup.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2023
Page 2 of 5
Planner Bodmer stated that the street width is 28’ and the City Engineer and City Planner
at the time decided to not allow on-street parking due to the width of the street and the
fact that there is only one access point into the development. The only visitor parking is
driveways and the parking areas. There are 12 total visitor parking spots so there would
need to be one more grouping.
Commissioner Scanlan stated that parking could become an issue if a homeowner is
having a party and can also make emergency services difficult to navigate into the area if
on-street parking were allowed. The extra parking spaces will be important.
Commissioner Scanlan asked what is missing from the combustible materials on units 12-
16.
Planner Bodmer stated that staff would like to see the same treatment on the side and rear
of the units. It helps to break up the façade and add interest.
Chair Kurtz asked if porches were discussed in the initial meetings for phase 1.
Planner Bodmer deferred to the developer to answer this.
Chair Kurtz stated that the height is important and that she is not in favor of adding the 3
units as this was already discussed as part of phase 1 and should have been brought
forward in the initial plans.
Planner Bodmer stated that the number of units would go from 77 to 80 and would bring
the density from 4.0 units per acre to 4.2 units per acre.
Chair Kurtz said that from the perspective of the residents, the initial plans were made to
appease everyone and is unfair to change now.
Commissioner Sandahl agreed with Chair Kurtz that units should not be added.
Commissioner Sandahl also stated that she did not remember being told that there would
be a phase 2 in the initial meetings. She also stated that these townhomes are closer to the
streets than the other units.
Commissioner Scanlan asked what the space was originally designated as.
Planner Bodmer said it was open space.
Commissioner Scanlan pointed out that there are no easy parking spots for some of the
middle units.
Commissioner Schindler asked if the distance from 140th St. W. is still appropriate.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2023
Page 3 of 5
Planner Bodmer stated it meets the setback requirements.
Commissioner Schindler stated that he did not like when things were added after the fact
and wondered why this was not planned for initially.
Planner Bodmer stated that the City worked with the developer on the design of the
ponding because some City water uses those ponding areas. Staff can bring more
information at the next meeting.
The developer, Matt Olson (Brandl Anderson Homes), said that in the initial plans, they
had been told that the development would need oversized ponding due to the excess
amounts of stormwater coming to the site. The City Engineer was able to find an
alternative remedy by using oversized piping that runs under 140th to move the water
offsite which then gave them the opportunity for additional space for more units.
Assistant City Engineer Evan Acosta stated that the City and Brandl Anderson worked
together to invest City funds into mitigating stormwater that was coming in from
surrounding neighborhoods. Shortly after the first site plan meeting, the City had been
investigating options for mitigating the water that would remove some of the burden from
the developer.
Mr. Olson stated that the variance is for the stone material on all four sides of the units.
There is roughly a 10’ drop in elevation from Gardenview Dr. to the foundation of the
units and there will be a retaining wall that backs up to Gardenview to there will be
limited visibility of the façade.
Chair Kurtz asked if there were any questions or comments from the public.
Resident, Carole Elfstrum (8580 136th Ct.), said that she is not in favor of the additional
units. Mrs. Elfstrum understands the opportunity for the developer but from a
neighborhood perspective, it really changes the whole look of the development.
Commissioner Scanlan advised that one possible option would be to add in 2 units
instead of 3 and then to use the additional space to add in parking.
5. LAND USE
A. NE Corner of Gossamer Way and 138th St. W. Setback Variance
Planner Sharpe provided a brief presentation.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2023
Page 4 of 5
Chair Kurtz asked if the lot would be brought down since the lot next door is very low
and would overlook it.
Planner Sharpe stated that there may not be the ability to bring the lot down due to the
depth of the sewer in the roadway. The ability to sink the lot is what the applicant was
hoping to do with the U-shaped retaining wall shown in the plan. This may limit the
amount of yard usable and drainage issues but these concerns are not part of the variance
request as these are Code issues.
Commissioner Scanlan asked if there were pictures of the neighboring site. He also asked
if there was a retaining wall currently on the site.
Planner Sharpe said there is not a retaining wall currently. The lots go up and down in
elevation. A significant amount of the site has already been removed. There are some
challenges on the site, but they are outside the scope of the variance.
Commissioner Scanlan asked if there is a preference from the City on how the home is
built.
Planner Sharpe said that the front would need to be off 138th. Staff believes that if the
variance is granted, the other issues could then be worked on.
Commissioner Sandahl asked what the purpose of the setback is.
Planner Sharpe stated that it is a combination of site lines, but also neighborhood
character and the difficulties of a corner lot. Land is used as a buffer from busy roadways.
The builder, Tony Brown, was present for questions.
MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler, to
recommend approval of a 10’ street side yard setback variance from a 30’ setback
to a 20’ setback. Roll call vote: Ayes – 4 – Nays – 0.
6. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Review of Upcoming Schedule and Other Updates
The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 16, 2023,
7:00 p.m. The next City Council meeting is Thursday, August 10, 2023, 7:00 p.m.
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
Dakota County, Minnesota
Planning Commission Minutes
August 2, 2023
Page 5 of 5
7. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Kurtz asked for a motion to adjourn.
MOTION: Commissioner Scanlan moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler, to
adjourn the meeting at 7:53 p.m. Roll call vote: Ayes – 4 – Nays – 0.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________________________
Breanna Vincent, Planning Department Assistant
Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commission
on 8/16/2023 . Jodi Kurtz, Chair
I T E M: 5.A.
P L A NNI NG C O MMI S S I O N ME E T I NG D AT E:August 16, 2023
S E C T I O N:L and Use / Action I tems
Description:
E agle Pointe 2nd Addition - P C23-22-S F
S taff Contact:
K athy Bodmer, A I C P, City Planner
Department / Division:
Community Development Department
Applicant:
E agle Pointe, L L C
P roject Number:
P C23-22-S F
Applicant Date: 7/5/2023 60 Days: 9/3/2023 120 Days: 11/2/2023
AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D:
Staff recommends approval of the requested development with the following motions:
1. Recommend approval of the subdivision by preliminary plat of Eagle Pointe A pple Valley
2nd Addition to create a total of 30 villa and townhome units subject to the following
conditions:
1. T he property owner shall execute a development agreement prior to the review
and approval of the final plat of Eagle Pointe Apple Valley 2nd Addition.
2. Park and ponding dedication shall be in accordance with the requirements set forth
in Section 155.29 of the C ity's subdivision control chapter and all other applicable
city ordinances.
3. Dedication on the final plat of a blanket drainage and utility easement over and
across all of the parcels containing the stormwater ponding areas and C ity utilities.
4. Dedication of a 16' trail easement abutting the east side of the pipeline easement
providing private pedestrian trail connecting Hollybrook Way and Hollybrook
Circle.
5. Right-of-way for 140th Street West and Garden View Drive shall be dedicated,
which should include enough right-of-way for a right-tum lane on the north side
140th Street West at the private street intersection.
6. An easement or right-of-way shall be dedicated to allow for installation of eight-
foot bituminous trail along the north side of 140th Street West.
7. Installation of pedestrian improvements in accordance with the C ity's adopted
Trail and Sidewalk Policies, to consist of an eight foot (8') wide bituminous
pathway along the north side of 140th Street West.
8. Dedication of a one foot (l') wide easement which restricts direct private
street/driveway access to Garden View Drive.
9. Dedication of one foot (l') wide easement which restricts direct private
street/driveway access to from 140th Street West, except at a C ity approved
location.
10. Submission of a final grading plan and lot elevations with erosion control
procedures, to be reviewed and approved by the C ity Engineer prior to the start of
any land-disturbing activity.
2. Recommend approval of the site plan/building permit authorization to construct 30 villa
and townhome units at the Eagle Pointe Apple Valley 2nd Addition subject to the following
conditions:
1. Issuance of any building permits shall be subject to the approval and recording of
the Eagle Pointe Apple Valley 2nd Addition final plat, development agreement and
associated documents.
2. Construction shall occur in conformance with the site plan dated August 10, 2023;
subject to final review and approval by the City Engineer.
3. All streets within the developments shall be signed "N O PA RKIN G".
4. Construction shall occur in conformance with the landscape plans dated J uly 8,
2021,(including sodded/seeded public boulevard area up to each street curbline );
subject to submission of a detailed landscape planting price list for verification of
the City's 2.5% landscaping requirement at the time of building permit application.
5. No trees shall be permitted in public easements or right-of-way unless approved
by the City Engineer.
6. No trees shall be permitted below the 100-year high water elevation of the
stormwater ponds.
7. A final grading plan shall be submitted, which shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits.
8. Site grading shall occur in conformance with a Natural Resources Management
Plan (N RMP).
9. Final utility plans shall be submitted, which shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits.
S UM M ARY:
Eagle Pointe, LLC , (Brandl Anderson Homes) requests subdivision by preliminary plat of
Eagle Pointe Apple Valley 2nd Addition, a 10.3-acre parcel generally located on the
northwest corner of Garden View Drive and 140th Street West. T he preliminary plat
approved August 12, 2021, for the 10.3-acre area of Eagle Pointe Apple Valley, contained 27
total units, consisting of 11 villas and 16 townhome units. T he property owner requests
consideration of a new subdivision that would add a 3-unit building on the southeast corner of
the site, increasing the total number of units in phase two from 27 to 30. No other changes to
the approved site design are proposed.
Staff reviewed the development project file from 2021 and noted that the development plans
reviewed by the Planning C ommission at its J une 2, 2021, and J une 16, 2021, meetings,
showed a total of 31 units. A four-unit building was proposed southwest of the cul-de-sac,
which was later removed from the plans when the Planning Commission made its
recommendation at its J uly 21, 2021, meeting. As discussed, the petitioner was anxious to
move forward with the first phase of the project while the specific details of the stormwater
ponding and utility connections were resolved for the second phase.
During the review and design of the preliminary plat of Eagle Pointe subdivision in 2021, the
final configuration of the stormwater ponding areas along with utility locations was still being
completed to serve the 2nd phase. T he developer sought to move forward with the first phase
of the development with the lots that were outside of the ponding areas and unlikely to be
impacted by the pond design and utility locations. Once the design of the storm water
facilities and utilities was finished, the final determination was completed for the needed
ponding capacity, which allowed the petitioner to advance an updated plan adding a 3-unit
building while accommodating the needed stormwater management.
B AC K G RO UND:
Public Hearing:
T he public hearing for Eagle Pointe Apple Valley 2nd Addition was held A ugust 2, 2023.
T he following issues were raised by the public and the Planning C ommission:
1. C oncern that this development proposal is a change from what had been previously
approved. Is the developer trying to trick the C ity and the neighbors by obtaining preliminary
approval, then coming back and requesting more units later? Staff response: As discussed
in the summary section, the developers initially planned to construct a 4-unit building in the
space they are currently showing a 3-unit building. T he design process took time and the
developer was anxious to move forward. T he developer opted to move forward with the first
phase, complete the design of the stormwater ponding and utility connections, and then
evaluate whether some of the units could be added back to the development.
When the C ity reviews requests for a subdivision, it has less discretion if the plat meets the
requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning C ode. T he process of redesignating the
former par 3 golf course and then creating a zoning designation to address the issues
identified by the Planning Commission and C ity C ouncil, was a long, difficult process. T he
Planning C ommission and C ity C ouncil spent considerable time studying the best
comprehensive plan and zoning for the new development. Adding a three-unit building
increases the overall development density from 4.0 units/acre to 4.2 units/acre.
In the case of the proposed subdivision, if the developer can accommodate a 3-unit building
along with the required additional visitor parking without the need of a variance, the City
would have a difficult time denying the request.
2. Visitor parking is a concern. Staff response: T he petitioner addressed this concern by
adding three (3) visitor parking spaces to the phase two area.
3. Although the requested additional 3-unit building maintains a low density, the neighbors
prefer the open space. Staff response: A s discussed above, if the requested subdivision
meets the requirements of the C omprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, the C ity will have less
discretion to deny the request. T he proposed additional three-unit building would increase the
density on the overall development from 4.0 units/acre to 4.2 units/acre. T he density range
for the zoning is 3 to 8 units an acre. As discussed above, the three-unit building would be
located where a four-unit building was initially planned.
B UD G E T I M PAC T:
N/A
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Background Material
Memo
Map
Plan S et
Plan S et
L etter
PROJECT REVIEW
EAGLE POINTE APPLE VALLEY 2ND ADDITION
Existing
Conditions
Property Location: Northwest corner of Garden View Drive and 140th Street West
Legal Description: Outlot A, EAGLE POINTE APPLE VALLEY
Comprehensive
Plan Designation
LDF – Low Density Flex Residential
Zoning
Classification
LDF – Low Density Flex Residential
Existing Platting Lot platted as outlot; second addition subdivision under review.
Current Land Use Disturbed former private golf course
Size: 10.3 acres
Topography: Varied/rolling
Existing Vegetation Disturbed grasses, weeds and volunteer plantings.
Other Significant
Natural Features
None.
Adjacent
Properties/Land
Uses
NORTH Cobblestones 1
Comprehensive Plan LD-Low Density Residential (0-6 units/acre)
Zoning/Land Use R-3-Single family residential, min. lot 11,000 sf
SOUTH Palomino Lakeside Meadows Townhomes, Twin Homes
Comprehensive Plan LD-Low Density Residential (0-6 units/acre)
Zoning/Land Use M-3C (Mult. Fam. 3-6 units/acres) and R-5 Two
family residential
EAST Wildwood 1st Addition
Comprehensive Plan LD-Low Density Residential (0-6 units/acre)
Zoning/Land Use M-3C (Multiple Family, 3-6 units/acre)
WEST Eagle Pointe Apple Valley
Comprehensive Plan LDF-Low Density Flex Residential
Zoning/Land Use LDF-Low Density Flex Residential
Development
Project Review
2040 Comprehensive Plan: The property was redesignated to "LDF" (Low Density Flex) residential on
December 22, 2020, which allows for a range of housing types with a density of between three (3) and
eight (8) units per acre, subject to the following:
Only one-family or two-family buildings may be constructed on parcels abutting existing single-
or two-family dwellings.
Maximum building height is two stories or 35'.
Densities may be increased in areas not directly abutting single-family and two-family dwellings,
provided the overall density does not exceed eight (8) units/acre.
To allow for more efficient use of property and to protect natural resources, reduced lot sizes,
flexible building setbacks and reduced roadway width will be considered as part of a "PD"
(Planned Development) zoning designation.
Zoning: The property is zoned "LDF" (Low Density Flex Residential), consistent with the 2040
Comprehensive Guide Plan. The LDF zone allows a variety of residential units including single family, two
family, and detached and attached townhomes with a maximum density of eight (8) units per acre. The
purpose of the zoning district is to provide a transition in housing density and styles between low density
single-family and multiple-family areas by allowing a mix of housing types within the district.
Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat layout is consistent with the previously approved preliminary plat;
the proposed second addition preliminary plat contains a mix of detached villa townhomes and attached
2-story townhomes. No change is proposed to the number of villa units. The number of villa units will
remain at 11. The petitioner requests to increase the number of townhome units by three to allow one
additional 3-unit townhome building, increasing the number of units from 16 previously to 19
proposed. In total the number of units would increase from 27 to 30 for phase two and from 77 total
units to 80 total units for the overall Eagle Pointe Apple Valley subdivision.
The density of the development is proposed to be increased from 4.0 units/acre with 77 total units to
4.2 units/acre with 80 total units. The density range for the LDF zoning district is 3 to 8 units/acre, so the
requested addition is well within the density requirement.
The City Engineer states that Lot 26 needs to provide adequate room for the City to access a storm sewer
pipe. A minimum clearance of 20' will be needed between the two buildings (Lots 26 and 27). The
petitioners show an angled drainage and utility easement which should address the engineer’s comment.
Site Plan: No change is proposed to the approved site plan aside from the additional 3-unit townhome.
The updated site plan will need to address two issues: Additional visitor parking spaces will be needed
to account for the new units. There are currently 12 available, but 15 stalls are now needed. The length
of the visitor parking stalls need to be extended from 18' to 18.5' to meet code requirements.
Utilities: No change is proposed to the approved utility plans. The existing utility layout is sufficient to
serve an additional 3-unit building. See Engineering memo for additional comments.
Grading: Reviewed by the Assistant City Engineer. No significant outstanding issues. See Engineering
memo for additional comments.
Landscaping: The value of the landscape plant material is required to meet or exceed 2.5% of the value
of the construction of the buildings. A nursery bid list will be required prior to construction of the first
building in the development to confirm the requirement is met.
Exterior Elevations: The exterior of the villas and townhomes is proposed to be a mixture of LP Smart
Side siding products: lap siding, vertical board and batten siding, and shakes are all shown on the front
elevations. LP Smart Siding is an engineered wood composite siding made up of treated wood strands
combined with a resin binder for strength and durability. The front elevation is further enhanced with
the addition of a cultured stone knee wall.
Street Classification/Access/Circulation: No change to the street design is requested. The two primary
roadways abutting the development are classified in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as Major Collector
streets. Garden View Drive is a 4-lane Major Collector with 80' wide right-of-way. 140th Street West is
also a 4-lane Major Collector with right-of-way ranging between 80' to over 110' wide. The development
is served by an internal private street accessed off of 140th St. W., managed and maintained by the
homeowners' associations.
Pedestrian Access: No changes to the approved pedestrian circulation plan is proposed. Trail will be
installed along 140th Street West as part of the first phase of the development. Trail currently serves the
west side of Garden View Drive. An internal private path is proposed along the east side of the pipeline
easement that will connect Hollybrook Way on the north with Hollybrook Circle on the south side of the
development.
Parks/Recreation Issues: No new recreational issues identified. The development is approximately 1,000'
from Sunset Park, a neighborhood park. The first phase of the Eagle Pointe Apple Valley development
dedicated cash-in-lieu of land for the park dedication requirement. The new preliminary plat adds three
units which would increase the number of residents who are expected to seek park and recreation
opportunities in the City.
Public Safety: No changes to the site are proposed that would impact public safety.
Signs: No sign approvals are given at this time. No signs may be installed until a sign permit is issued. A
separate sign permit must be obtained prior to the installation of any signs on the site or the building.
Public Hearing Comments: The public hearing for this item was held August 2, 2023. One neighbor spoke
of a preference to not add the three-unit building, that she would prefer that the area remain open space.
1. Concerned that request is a change from what had been previously approved. Storm water
solution made additional developable land available.
2. Visitor parking is a concern.
3. Although the requested additional 3-unit building maintains a low density, the neighbors prefer
the open space.
CITY OF
MEMO
Public Works
TO: Kathy Bodmer, AICP, Planner
FROM: Evan Acosta, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: August 10, 2023
SUBJECT: Eagle Point Second Addition Preliminary Plan Review per plans dated 8/2/2023
General
1. There are no new additional comments since the July 28, 2023 Engineering Memo.
CITY OF
MEMO
Public Works
TO: Kathy Bodmer, AICP, Planner
FROM: Evan Acosta, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: July 28, 2023
SUBJECT: Eagle Point Second Addition Preliminary Plan Review per plans dated
5/19/2023
General
1. All work and infrastructure within public easements or right of way shall be to City
standards.
2. Provide a narrative of how the buildings will be constructed and any impacts. The
narrative shall include the following:
• Shoring (if applicable)
• Protection of public utilities within existing drainage and utility easements shall
be protected at all times.
• Material Storage.
• Haul routes to and from the site.
• Phasing
3. No construction work shall begin prior to a preconstruction meeting conference with a
Public works and a Building Inspections representative.
4. Public Work Department (952-953-2400) shall be notified a minimum of 48 hours for
any required water main shut downs and/or connections.
5. City of Apple Valley Water Department shall operate all valves on public owned mains and
valves connecting private lines to public owned mains.
6. Benchmarks should identify vertical datum. TNH was used, no MnDOT monumentation.
Permits
7. Provide a copy of the executed Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Met Council, Department of Labor and any other required permits prior
to construction.
8. Department of Labor and Industry (DOLI) shall review private utilities.
9. A right of way permit will be required for all work within public easements or right of
way.
10. A Natural Resource Management Permit (NRMP) will be required prior to any land
disturbing activity commences.
Site
11. Width of roadway shall not be less than 28’ measured from face of curb to face of curb in
accordance with City Standard detail plates and Fire Marshall.
12. Include Auto turn drawing for service and emergency vehicles entering and leaving the
site.
13. All retaining walls over 48” from bottom of footing to the top of wall shall be designed and
certified by a structural engineer and submitted to building inspections for final approval.
Retaining walls over 4’ will require a fence above the wall. Provide additional details and/or
specifications for retaining wall block. Retaining walls shall be privately owned and
maintained. Retaining walls are not allowed in drainage and utility easements without an
approved encroachment agreement.
14. Label cul de sac radii on plans.
15. Grading within Northern Natural Gas Easement may require an encroachment agreement.
16. Street grades are shown less than 0.75%.
17. Greenspace should be sloped at 2% minimum
18. Retaining wall along Garden View Drive is close to existing sidewalk (not shown on plans).
Include railing or fencing to protect sidewalk users.
19. A minimum easement width of twice the pipe depth should be provided over utilities. The
storm pipe between lots 26 and 27 will not meet this requirement as shown.
Storm Sewer, Grading. Drainage, and Erosion Control
20. Final Grading Plans shall be reviewed and approved by City Engineer.
• The proposed grading plans are consistent with what was previously reviewed.
21. Final Storm water Management Plan shall be reviewed and approved by City Engineer.
22. Final locations and sizes of Storm Sewer shall be reviewed with the final construction plans and
approved by City Engineer.
• The proposed storm sewer sheets are consistent with what was previously reviewed.
23. Storm sewer calculations for storm water requirements have been previously reviewed for
compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Plan.
24. City Ordinance 152.55(B): Maintenance agreement for the proposed storm water
management areas will be required and must be recorded.
25. Sumps will be required in structures within street prior to discharging into ponds
26. Infiltration should be protected with silt fence during site grading and road construction
Sanitary Sewer and Water main
• No Sewer and Water service plan was submitted with the plans dated 5/19/23.
o Watermain and Sanitary Sewer plans prepared by City’s Engineering Consultant.
o Final service locations and depths must be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer.
Landscape and Natural Resources
• The City encourages native plantings. Several of the proposed perennials and grasses
contain cultivars (cultivated varieties of native plants that do not have the same benefits
to pollinators and birds), indicated by the name x ‘variety’. Native plants would not
contain the variety name in quotes. \
• The applicant must submit a Natural Resources Management Plan (NRMP) for individual
lot construction.
• Wetland permitting and stormwater management was reviewed as part of initial grading
plan for this project. Buffers are required around ponding areas as described in the
existing development agreement.
• No trees will be permitted in public easements or ROW.
SITE
App
le Valley
Burnsville
1
4
0
T
H S
T
W
GA
RDEN VIEW DR
135TH ST W
H
O
L
Y
O
KELN
R
E
FLECTIONRD
HOLYOKEPATH
R I M R O CK DR
1 3 4 T H S T W
1 3 7 T H ST W
138TH S T W
H
U
R
O
N
C
T
HOLYO
K
E
C
T
136T H C T
H
E
Y
W
O
O
D
C
T
138THST R E ET CT
135TH STW
This imagery is copyrighted and
licensed by Nearmap US Inc,
which retains ownership of the
imagery. It is being provided by
EAGLE POINTE
APPLE VALLEY
2ND ADDITION
µ
LOCATION MAP
^
LakeAlimagnet
SITE
C
P
P
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
MD
LD
LD
MD
LD
MD
LD
LDLD
LD
MD
LD
LD
MD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LD
LDF
LDF
140TH ST W
M C A N D R E W S R D
GARDEN VIEW DR
PALOMINO DR
137TH ST
W
1 3 4 T H S T W
HAVELOCKTRL
135TH ST W
13 3 R D S T W
H
E
R
ALD
WAY
H
O
L
Y
O
KE
LN
HAYES RD
R
EFLECTIONRD
COUNTY ROAD 11
H A R W E L L PATH
H U N T E R S W A Y
HOLYOKE PATH
RIMROCK DR
H
E
N
N
A
A
V
E
138TH ST W
1 4 1 S T C T W
1 3 7 T H C T
H A RMONY
WAY
H U N T IN G T O N D R
H
U
R
O
N C
T
HERSHEYCT
139TH C T
HOLLINS
CT
HERI
T
A
G
E
W
A
Y
1 4 1 S T S T W
HOLYOKE
C
T
HANNIBAL CIR
H U N T I N GTON TE R
136T H C T
HAVELOCK CT
HANOVE R W A Y
1 3 2 N D C T
140T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
B
L
V
D
H
E
Y
W
O
O
D
C
T
HEMLOCK CT
HUGHESCT
138THST R E ET CT
HUM M I N G B I R D D R
GUTHRI
E
A
V
E
HANOVERCT
H
UNTING T O N CIR
HERALD CT
HEYWOO
D
P
A
T
H
140TH STREET CT
1 3 7 T H C T
H U NTE R S W AY
134 THSTW
1 35 TH STW
LD
µ
EAGLE POINTE
APPLE VALLEY
2ND ADDITION
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN MAP
^
SITE
LakeAlimagnet
LDF
P
P
R-2
R-5
R-2
R-3
R-2
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-5
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-5
R-2
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-2
R-3
R-2
R-3
R-3
LDF
M-3C
M-3C
M-4C
M-4C
M-3C
M-3C
1
4
0
T
H S
T
W
1 3 4 T H S T W
GARDEN VIEW DR
135TH ST W
1 3 7 T H S T W
H
O
L
Y
OKE L N
H
E
R
A
L
D
W
AY
H
U
R
O
N
C
T
136 T H C T
H
E
Y
W
O
O
D
C
T
H U G H E
S
C
T
138THSTREET CT
135TH S T W
µ
EAGLE POINTE
APPLE VALLEY
2ND ADDITION
ZONING MAP
^
AERIAL PHOTO
SITE
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Eagle Pointe, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, owner of the
following described property:
Outlot A, EAGLE POINTE APPLE VALLEY, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota.
Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as EAGLE POINTE APPLE VALLEY 2ND ADDITION and does hereby
dedicate to the public for public use the drainage and utility easements as created on this plat.
In witness whereof said Eagle Pointe, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be
signed by its proper officer this day of , 20 .
Eagle Pointe, LLC
By: its
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
This instrument was acknowledged before me on day of , 20 ,
by , the of Eagle Pointe, LLC,
a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the limited liability company.
Signature Printed Name
County,
My commission expires
I Marcus F. Hampton do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a
duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary
survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this
plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all
public ways are shown and labeled on this plat.
Dated this day of , 20
______________________________________________________________
Marcus F. Hampton, Licensed Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 47481
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 20 ,
by Marcus F. Hampton.
Signature Printed Name
County,
My commission expires January 31,
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF APPLE VALLEY, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA
This plat of EAGLE POINTE APPLE VALLEY 2ND ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of
Apple Valley, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this day of , 20 , and
said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2.
By:
Mayor Clerk
DAKOTA COUNTY SURVEYOR, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA
I hereby certify that in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 11, this plat has been reviewed
and approved this day of , 20 .
By:
Todd B. Tollefson, Dakota County Surveyor
DAKOTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION AND RECORDS,
COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 9, taxes payable in the year 20 on the land hereinbefore
described have been paid. Also pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.12, there are no delinquent taxes and
transfer entered this day of , 20 .
By:
Amy A. Koethe, Director,
Department Of Property Taxation and Records
REGISTRAR OF TITLES, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, STATE OF MINNESOTA
I hereby certify that this plat of EAGLE POINTE APPLE VALLEY 2ND ADDITION was filed in the office of the Registrar of
Titles for public record on this day of , 20 , at o'clock . M. and was
duly filed in Book of Plats, Page , as Document Number .
By:
Amy A. Koethe, Registrar of Titles
BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE EAST LINE OF OUTLOT A,
EAGLE POINTE APPLE VALLEY WHICH IS ASSUMED TO
HAVE A BEARING OF N 00°39'05" E.
VICINITY MAP
NOTE: NO MONUMENT SYMBOL SHOWN AT ANY STATUTE
REQUIRED LOCATION INDICATES A PLAT MONUMENT THAT WILL
BE SET WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE RECORDING DATE OF THIS
PLAT. SAID MONUMENTS SHALL BE 1/2 INCH x 14 INCH
IRON PIPES MARKED BY R.L.S. NO. 47481.
DENOTES FOUND 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON
MONUMENT WITH CAP MARKED R.L.S. NO. 47481
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE EAST LINE OF OUTLOT A,
EAGLE POINTE APPLE VALLEY WHICH IS ASSUMED TO
HAVE A BEARING OF N 00°39'05" E.
NOTE: NO MONUMENT SYMBOL SHOWN AT ANY STATUTE
REQUIRED LOCATION INDICATES A PLAT MONUMENT THAT WILL
BE SET WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE RECORDING DATE OF THIS
PLAT. SAID MONUMENTS SHALL BE 1/2 INCH x 14 INCH
IRON PIPES MARKED BY R.L.S. NO. 47481.
DENOTES FOUND 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON
MONUMENT WITH CAP MARKED R.L.S. NO. 47481
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
∅
∅
∅
∅
G
RWO
1
3
4
5
6
7
2
8
10
11
9
12
13
A
B
June 2023
Landscape Packages
C
D
A B C
D A B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A B C D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
1
3
4
5
6
7
2
8
10
11
9
12
13
A
B
June 2023
Landscape Packages
C
D
A B C
D A B
C
D
A
B
C
D
A B C D
A
B
C
D
A
B
C
EAGLE POINTE COLLECTIONLandscape Package B
Floorplans, elevations, hardscape, landscape and lot size are artist’s concepts and are subject to
change without notice. Please consult your New Home Consultant for details. Lic. #BC604388.
RESIDENT CORRESPONDENCE
-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Dostal <___________>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 9:07 AM
To: Kathy Bodmer <___________>
Subject: Thank you
Kathy,
Thank you for your prompt response! We appreciate seeing the plans for this. We did not speak
at the hearing on Wednesday, but we are in favor of not adding another townhome unit. It
would be wonderful for the neighbors to have a little more green space. We also have traffic
concerns. Although adding 3 units probably wouldn’t change the traffic much, it is becoming
more and more difficult to exit our neighborhood on 140th due to traffic. Really wish there
would have been an additional entrance/exit to this development on Gardenview.
Nancy Dostal
Sent from my iPhone
I T E M: 5.B.
P L A NNI NG C O MMI S S I O N ME E T I NG D AT E:August 16, 2023
S E C T I O N:L and Use / Action I tems
Description:
Frykman I mpervious Coverage Variance - P C23-23-V
S taff Contact:
K athy Bodmer, A I C P, City Planner
Department / Division:
Community Development Department
Applicant:
Teri F rykman
P roject Number:
P C23-23-V
Applicant Date: 6/26/2023 60 Days: 9/24/2023 120 Days: 11/23/2023
AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D:
Staff reviews variance applications based strictly on State Statutes and City C ode which
require the applicant to establish there is a “practical difficulty” present in order for a
variance to be granted, and that logical alternatives are not available. Staff is therefore
unable to recommend approval of the variance as requested because staff does not find a
practical difficulty exists preventing compliance with the code. A lthough the petitioner
prefers to not incur the cost, the reasonable alternative would be to remove some of the
existing impervious surface on the lot to accommodate the requested third garage stall.
T he Planning Commission may choose to make one of the following motions:
To Deny:
Recommend denial of the variance to increase the impervious surface coverage on the
subject lot from 35% to 42.2% to construct a 336 sq. ft. third garage stall because the
petitioner has failed to provide a practical difficulty that makes the granting of the variance
necessary.
or
To Approve:
Recommend approval of the variance based upon the findings listed below and subject to the
following conditions: (T he Planning Commission should state its findings on how the request
meets the practical difficulty for the record to advance to the City Council). C onditions will
be available the night of the meeting if the Planning C ommission wishes to recommend
approval.
S UM M ARY:
Teri Frykman, 13511 Granada Ave, requests consideration of a variance that would allow her
to construct a 12' x 28' (336 sq. ft.) third-stall garage addition. T he proposed garage stall
meets the setback requirements of the zoning district. However, a variance is required to
increase the allowed impervious surface coverage on the property from 35% to 42.2%. T he
roof of the garage addition and proposed driveway addition will increase the impervious
surface area on the property. T he petitioner submitted a building permit application and
learned that the impervious coverage on the lot exceeded the code requirements. T he
building permit was placed on hold to allow the petitioner to apply for a variance.
B AC K G RO UND:
Petitioner Letter: T he petitioner letter explains the rationale for the requested variance. T he
homeowner acknowledges that the impervious coverage exceeds the allowable area, but
suggests that the pool water area of the pool should not be counted as an impervious surface
and instead viewed as a credit. T he letter explains that Rosemount does not calculate the
area of the pool water in its impervious surface calculation. T he City of Apple Valley, as
well as most surrounding communities, calculate pool water as an impervious surface area.
City C ode Requirements - Impervious Coverage: T he information provided with the variance
application brought to attention the fact that the existing impervious coverage on the subject
lot is currently 38%. Sect. 155.350 states that single family lots of 10,000 sq. ft. or more are
limited to 35% impervious surface coverage. An impervious surface is a constructed surface
that prevents stormwater from soaking directly into the ground. Examples of impervious
surfaces include rooflines, driveways, patios, and swimming pools. In the case of swimming
pools, the impervious surface includes all paved decking and the water retained in the pool,
as both prevent rainwater from draining directly into the ground.
Sect. 155.350 contains a provision that allows a homeowner to request to increase the
impervious surface area coverage by a maximum of five percent (5%) provided four
conditions are met: (1) the owner must show good cause for the need to exceed the
impervious coverage; (2) an application is completed, fees and performance security escrows
are submitted, (3) a C ity-approved stormwater mitigation structure is installed, and (4) a
maintenance agreement is executed ensuring the ongoing maintenance of the stormwater
management facility.
T he Size of the Pool Decking Changed: While reviewing the variance request, staff found
that the homeowner obtained a building permit in 2022 to install a swimming pool. A
calculation was submitted with the building permit application that showed that the existing
impervious coverage, plus the proposed additional pool and decking, would bring the
impervious coverage of the lot from 17.9% to 30.4%, well within the maximum 35% allowed.
When the decking plans for the pool permit are compared with the plans requesting the
variance, it appears that the size of the decking was increased significantly from what was
approved. T he building permit showed that the pool, pool decking, and equipment slab would
have a total surface area of 1,882 sq. ft. T he calculation provided by the variance application
showed the pool and decking with a coverage of 2,701 sq. ft.; an increase of 817 sq. ft. over
the approved pool plan. T he impervious surface coverage increased from 30.4% to 38.1%.
Variance Requirements: In order to grant a variance, the petitioner must demonstrate that
they meet the code requirement for obtaining a variance. T he C ity Code and State Law
require that the petitioner must provide information that confirms that there is a practical
difficulty on the property which prevents them from meeting the zoning code requirements. A
series of definitions and standards are reviewed:
Definition of “Practical difficulties”:
1. T he applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the
zoning provisions of the code;
2. T he plight of the applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the applicant;
3. T he variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical dif ficulties.
In order to grant a variance, the C ity considers the following factors to determine whether the
applicant established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provision(s)
of this C hapter:
1. Special conditions apply to the structure or land in question that are particular to the
property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district or vicinity
in which the land is located;
2. T he granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this chapter;
3. T he special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
owner/applicant;
4. T he granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the
a pplic ant, but is necessary to alleviate practical difficulties in complying with the
zoning provisions of this Code; and
5. T he variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the
practical difficulty.
T he Pool Permit from the Petitioner's Perspective: T he petitioner acknowledged that the size
of the pool decking grew from the original plans, but that the project manager was the pool
company. T he resident did not direct the concrete work; it was managed by the pool
company. Ultimately, the homeowner is responsible for any improvements on the property
and ensuring that the code requirements are met. T he homeowner will be required to address
the impervious surface overage in accordance with the C ity Code requirements.
Conclusion: T he expansion of the pool decking is a condition created by the property owner.
T he narrower decking that had been approved in 2022 would have allowed for the requested
garage addition.
Alternatives were discussed with the property owner which would require removing some of
the recently installed pool decking to provide adequate room for the third garage stall and
driveway expansion. T he petitioner said their preference was to keep the pool and decking as
is and to forgo the third garage stall if the variance is not approved. T he petitioner was
advised that staff did not find a practical difficulty with the request based on the following
findings:
1. T he pool decking was not installed according to the approved plans submitted to the
City for the pool permit.
2. T he petitioner is not denied reasonable use of her property if she is not able to construct
a third garage stall.
3. T he need for the variance is the result of circumstances created by the homeowner.
4. A reasonable alternative is available which would allow the construction of the third
garage stall in compliance with the code.
B UD G E T I M PAC T:
N/A
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Memo
Applicant L etter
Map
Background Material
Background Material
`CITY OF
MEMO
Public Works
TO: Kathy Bodmer, AICP, City Planner
FROM: Evan Acosta, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: August 10, 2023
SUBJECT: 13511 Granada Ave Impervious Surface Variance Request
Kathy,
The following are Engineering’s comments regarding the 13511 Granada Ave Impervious Surface Variance
Request dated July 26, 2023.
General
1. No impervious surface mitigation was shown on the plans. Stormwater plans must be
approved by the City Engineer or their designee prior to building permit issuance.
City of
MEMO
Public Works Department
TO: Kathy Bodmer, Planner
FROM: Jessica Schaum, Natural Resources Coordinator
DATE: August 9, 2023
SUBJECT: 13511 Granada Avenue - Impervious Surface Variance Review
The applicants Eric and Teri Frykman have requested a variance to exceed the impervious
surface coverage of 35% for their residential property.
The lot size is 15,120 sq ft in size. The applicant has requested a variance to increase their
impervious surface from 38% to 42%. Current City Code limits impervious surface to 35% for this
lot size. The applicant is currently over the allowable impervious surface, and the applicant is
requesting to exceed the impervious surface limits by an additional 4%, or 7% total.
Impervious surface code, 155.350, allows for property owners to exceed the impervious surface
percentage by 5% if the following conditions are met:
• An onsite stormwater mitigation feature is installed
• A stormwater maintenance agreement is recorded on the property
• Applicant has shown good supporting cause for the additional impervious.
The City of Apple Valley has defined pools as impervious surfaces, City Ordinance 155.003:
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. A constructed surface, generally made of brick, stone, concrete,
asphalt, gravel or similar impermeable material, that prevents water from naturally
infiltrating directly into the soil or that water cannot easily penetrate for direct natural
infiltration into the soil. Impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to: build ing roofs,
walkways, patios, driveways, parking lots, concrete or asphalt paving, sport courts, tennis
courts and swimming pools. Decks shall not be considered an impervious surface if :
(1) The surface under the deck is pervious; or
(2) The surface water runoff from the deck surface is not controlled by a drainage
system, such as gutters, diversion plates.
Given the definition there is no available “credit” for water storage in Apple Valley. No additional
details were provided to review a proposed mitigation facility for the overages.
Minimizing impervious surfaces to remain at the allowable threshold per lot size, with a 5%
increase when properly mitigated coincides with all of the existing requirements, plans, and
programs the City has in place to protect and enhance water quality.
June 18, 2023
City of Apple Valley
Planning and Development Department
7100 147th Street W
Apple Valley, MN 55124
RE: Variance Request
13511 Granada Ave
Dear City Staff/Variance Board:
Outline of Request
Homeowners, Eric and Teri Frykman, request a variance to the impervious surface limitation on the lot
listed above. Request proposes to grant the increased percentage as presented in the building plan.
The lot is 15,120 square feet in size. The current allowed impervious surface coverage is 35% which
equates to 5,292 sf of coverage per the city ordinance. A recent survey of the property shows a total of
5,761 currently set as impervious surface. This equates to a total of 38% impervious surface coverage.
The proposed building plan would increase the impervious surface to 6,385 square feet which is 42%
coverage.
We are requesting credit for the 800 square feet of surface that equates to the water area of the
installed pool. This credit would bring the total impervious surface to 5,585 square feet including the
proposed additional impervious surface of the building plan in review. The updated total would be 37%
of impervious surface coverage.
The credit will match that which is seen in the neighboring Rosemount city ordinance where the water
square footage of a pool is not to be considered an impervious surface. This is regarding the ability of the
water area to collect any rainwater, or that which is collected within the cover. The water collected in the
cover is then removed and drained to a dedicated lawn space away from the streets and sewar systems.
This avoids increased impact to the storm sewar systems while also putting the rainwater back into the
watershed.
In conclusion, homeowners are requesting a variance to the impervious surface limit, by granting an 800
square foot credit for the water surface of the pool. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Eric and Teri Frykman
Homeowners
Homeowners: Eric and Teri Frykman
Address: 13511 Granada Ave
Apple Valley, MN 55124
Phone: Eric Frykman (320) 493-5835
Teri Frykman (507) 450-0559
Developer: Sussel Garages – John Wiik
Address: 654 Transfer Road STE 16B
Saint Paul, MN 55114
Phone: (651) 645-0331
SITE
CEDAR AVE
133RD ST W
G
U
I
L
D
A
V
E
C
E
D
A
R
A
VE
SB
R
A
M
P
1 3 4 T H S T W
M C A N D R E W S R D
G
RA
N
A
D
A
A
V
E
HIGHWAY 77 SERVICE RD
HAR W E L L P A T H
GU I L D C T
PENNOCK AVE
GOSSAMER WA
Y
GE
N
E
V
A
W
A
Y
GIBRAL T A R T E R
H
A
N
NOVER
A
V
E
MCANDREWS RD RAMP
G
L
E
N
H
A
V
E
N
A
V
E
GLENHAVEN
C
T
1 3 2 N D S T W
H
A
L
L
MARKCT
GUN
F
LIN
T PATH
CEDAR AVE
FRYKMAN COVERAGE
VARIANCE
µ
LOCATION MAP
^
SITE
R-3
R-1
R-3R-3
R-3
R-5
R-1
R-1
R-3 R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3
R-3 R-CL
R-CL
M-4A
M-3B
R-CL
CEDAR AVE
133RD ST W
G
U
I
L
D
A
V
E
13 4 T H S T W
M C A N D R E W S R D
C
E
D
A
R
A
VE
S
B
R
A
M
P
HARWEL L P A T H
PENNOCK AVE
GR
A
N
A
D
A
A
V
E
GOSSAMERW
A
Y
GUIL D C T
H
A
N
N
O
VERA
V
E
1 3 2 N D ST W
G
E
N
E
V
A
W
AY
GIBRAL T A R T E R
MCANDREWS
RD
RAMP
GURNE Y C T
H
A
L
LMARKCT
CEDAR AVE
µ
FRYKMAN COVERAGE
VARIANCE
ZONING MAP
^
Si
t
e
Ma
p
13
5
1
1
G
r
a
n
a
d
a
A
v
e
SI
T
E
Pool Permit Issued May 3, 2022
Pool Permit Issued May 3, 2022
Lot Area 15,246
House 1,909
Driveway 798
Total 2,707
17.8%
House 1,909
Driveway 798
Pool 800
Pool Patio 1,052
Pool Equipment Slab 32
Total 4,591 0.11
30.1%
Existing
Proposed
Impervious Surface Calculations
13511 Granada Ave
PD
05/03/22
AV103169
Pool Permit Issued May 3, 2022
Frykman Coverage Variance
13511 Granada Ave
Lot Area (Sq. Ft.):15,120
Max imper 35% (Sq. Ft.)5,292
Max imperv 40% (Sq. Ft.)6,048
Pool Permit Issued May 3, 2022 3rd Garage Stall Request July 2023
Existing Coverage:Existing Coverage:
House:1,909 House foundation:1,592
Driveway:798 Garage existing 698
Total:2,707 Driveway existing 690
Total Cover 17.90%Pool and deck 2,701
Sidewalk 80
Total 5,761
Total existing cover 38.10%
Proposed Coverage Pool Permit Proposed coverage 3rd stall
House:1,909 Existing Coverage 5,761
Driveway 798 Garage Proposed 336
Pool 800 Driveway Proposed 288
Pool Patio 1,052 Total 6,385
Pool Equipment Slab 32 Proposed total cover 42.23%
Total 4,591
Total Cover 30.36%
I T E M: 5.C.
P L A NNI NG C O MMI S S I O N ME E T I NG D AT E:August 16, 2023
S E C T I O N:L and Use / Action I tems
Description:
12787 Durham Way I mpervious Surface Variance
S taff Contact:
A lex Sharpe, A I C P, Planning and Economic Dev. S pec.
Department / Division:
Community Development Department
Applicant:
A lexis and Scott Mckague
P roject Number:
P C23-24-V
Applicant Date: 8/4/2023 60 Days: 10/3/2023 120 Days: 12/2/2023
AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D:
If the Planning C ommission concurs, staff recommends the following action:
Recommend denial of a 18.91% impervious surface coverage variance at 12787 Durham
Way which is within the Shoreland Overlay zone based on draft findings included in the staff
report.
S UM M ARY:
Alexis and Scott Mckague have applied for an impervious surface coverage variance for
their home at 12787 D urham Way. T he property is within the Shoreland Overlay zone as it is
within 1,000' of the high water line of Lake Farquar. T he applicants are seeking an
impervious surface variance of 18.91% to construct a new pool and patio in their rear yard.
T he subject property is 11,200 sq. ft. and on a hillside overlooking Huntington Park. T he
Shoreland Overlay zone allows residents to cover up to 25% of their lot area with impervious
surfaces. T he site has existing conditions that are non-compliant with 31.28% impervious
surface coverage. T he applicant is proposing to cover 43.91% of the property with
impervious surfaces and then treat stormwater via a stormwater mitigation system. T he goal
of this mitigation is to reduce the impervious surface down to 20.79%, an improvement from
existing conditions by reducing water flowing off of the property.
T he City amended the Shoreland Overlay district and impervious coverages throughout
residential zones in 2018 to ensure standardization between zones. T he underlying zoning of
this property is "R-3" (Single Family). T he amendments set impervious surface coverage for
the "R-3" zone depending on lot size with properties below 10,000 sq. ft. are permitted to
cover up to 40% of the property and those above 10,000 sq. ft. to cover 35%. T he code also
included a provision that allowed property owners to increase their impervious surface
coverage by 5% without a variance if a stormwater mitigation system was installed, approved
by the C ity Engineer and a maintenance agreement was recorded to ensure the system
functioned into the future. T he Shoreland Overlay zone supersedes the underlying zoning and
has a maximum allowance of 25% for all properties regardless of size and does not include
the 5% increase provision. To staff's knowledge, no property has been granted a variance to
the impervious coverage within the Shoreland Overlay zone. T he Shoreland Overlay zone
requires that the D N R be contacted when the C ity receives variance applications for their
review. T he D N R has responded that they recommend denial of the variance unless
conditions of approval could assure that the system would function as intended now, and into
the future.
Staff is recommending denial of the variance based upon similar concerns as the D N R. T he
applicant has worked with C ity Engineering staff to provide calculations similar to
stormwater mitigation systems staff has approved on other properties. T hese calculations
have been evaluated by engineering staff and are found to be correct and demonstrate the size
of the stormwater mitigation system required. A 6' x 6' x 3' french drain style system is
proposed. T his area would be filled with 2" pea gravel and drain tile around the patio and
pool to direct water into the system. Under perfect conditions on flat ground the proposed
mitigation may function as proposed, resulting in an improvement over existing conditions.
T he subject property has steep slopes down to Huntington Park which will require several
retaining walls for the project. T he applicant is proposing to level much of the rear yard to
install the pool and stormwater system. Staff's concern is that the system as proposed will
allow the water to enter the ground up to 3' deep but then will flow down the hill as there is
approximately a 20'-25' elevation change from the subject property to Huntington Park. T his
would effectively negate the system and result in additional stormwater issues in the park,
which are already problematic. Additionally, there are several catch basins in the park with
storm pipe leading directly to Lake Farquar, an impaired lake that the C ity has spent
considerable resources attempting to improve water quality. T he ability for stormwater
generated on this site to reach these catch basins is limited but the down stream flow of water
does exit into Lake Farquar.
Without a stormwater mitigation system designed by an engineer for the subject property,
staff is unable to confidently state that the proposal would improve existing conditions and
may result in detrimental impacts to water quality and public lands. T he background section
of this report provides additional details and draft findings of fact that practical difficulties
have not been demonstrated.
B AC K G RO UND:
T he staff reviews variance applications based strictly upon the requirements of the State
statutes and the City Code which require the applicant to establish that there are practical
difficulties present in order for a variance to be granted, and that logical alternatives are not
available.
Definition of “Practical difficulties”:
T he applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the
zoning provisions of the code;
T he plight of the applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the applicant; and
T he variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Factors to Determine Practical Difficulty:
In order to grant a variance, the C ity considers the following factors to determine whether the
applicant established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provision(s) of
this C hapter:
1. Special conditions apply to the structure or land in question that are particular to the
property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district or vicinity
in which the land is located;
2. T he granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this chapter;
3. T he special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
owner/applicant;
4. T he granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate practical difficulties in complying with the zoning provisions of
this C ode; and
5. T he variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the practical
difficulty.
Attached to the Natural Resourses memo is a helpful guide the D N R has created for
impervious surface variances within shoreland and floodplane zones. T he intent of the guide
is to assist regulators with considerations when evaluating a variance. However, staff would
advise that C ommissioners also consider the nexus between any proposed conditions and that
these conditions are "roughly proportional" to the variance. If the condition does not mitigate
negative impacts or is too onerous it opens the application up to legal challenge. As this
property is not directly adjacent to the lake and much of the property's existing conditions are
disturbed these factors should be taken into account when reviewing the proposal.
As stated, the property is located within the Shoreland Overlay zone. Zoning provisions are
adopted to establish an intent or purpose, which guides all the regulations that follow. T he
purpose statement of the overlay zone is shared below.
"(2) Purpose statement. Minnesota law has delegated responsibility to the city to regulate
the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of protected, public waters within
the city f or the preservation of water quality, natural characteristics, environmental values
and the general health, saf ety and welf are of all protected waters. The protected public
waters in the city have been given a shoreland management classif ication by the Minnesota
Commissioner of N atural Resources as recreational development lakes, consisting of
Alimagnet Lake, Moeller (Long) Lake and Farquar Lake, and natural environment lake
consisting of K eller Lake."
T he C ity Engineer's memo attached to this report further emphasizes that the stormwater
mitigation system proposed does not include enough information for staff to determine
whether it will function on the subject property.
Findings:
T he property is at the very edge of the 1,000' buffer of the Shoreland Overlay zone and
neighboring properties are not within the zone. Overland flow of stormwater from the subject
property across Huntington Park, the rural roadway design of Diamond Path, and two single-
family properties is unlikely except during the most intense rain events or potentially spring
thaw. However, catch basins within the park would allow for a downstream path from the
subject property to the lake, which would result in reduced water quality. Additionally, if the
proposed mitigation system does not function as intended due to slopes, soil types or other
unknown factors Huntington Park would also be negatively impacted. T he park already has
stormwater issues where the ground is saturated and difficult to maintain after rain events.
T he proposal is contrary to the intent of the chapter due to the potential negative impacts to
water quality in the lake, impacts to public lands, and the proposed design being unable to
demonstrate an improvement to existing conditions.
Existing conditions not caused by the applicants result in the property exceeding the
maximum impervious surface permitted. T he proposed pool and patio area introduce
additional non-conformance and are directly caused by the applicant's actions. T he proposed
stormwater treatment could result in improved conditions, but at this time that cannot be
demonstrated.
T he applicant has not demonstrated that the case presents practical difficulties to the use of
their property.
T he variance as proposed includes a significant patio area in excess of the pool deck,
resulting in a proposal that is not the minimum variance necessary.
B UD G E T I M PAC T:
N/A
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Area Map
Applicant L etter
Exhibit
Elevations
Memo
Memo
DIAMOND PATH
PILOT KNOB RD D U R H A M W A Y
SITE
12787 Durham WayLocation MapZoned "R-3"Within Shoreland Overlay Zone
¯
^
0 200 400 Feet
12787 Durham Way Rain Garden Plan
Notes:
• Distance from fence line/retaining wall to start of rain garden: 0 FT
• Distance from end of rain garden to end of lot: 23 FT
• Blue line represents perforated drain pipe, surrounded by rock, to provide drainage solution across backyard, to the
rain garden.
<- 35 FT -> <-13FT->
FT ->
Pool: 16x32 FT
<- 13
.
6
F
T
->
<- 17
.
4
F
T
->
House
Deck/Patio
<- 27 FT ->
<- 47 FT ->
12787 Durham Way Rain Garden Plan
• Pool will be level with the ground, so any water that falls upon the pool or the pool deck will not be redirected toward
any neighbor’s yard. The yard/ground around the pool and the pool deck (northeast, southeast, and southwest) will
also be leveled out. This is an improvement from the current state where the ground slopes towards the neighbor on
the southeast side of the house.
• On the northwest side of the house, the ground will remain in current state, which is sloped towards the pool area.
• Rock garden is made up of 2-inch rock, pea rock, sand, and black dirt.
Calculations
Current State (square footage):
Lot 11200
House 1528
Garage 484
Drive 600
Deck/Patio 892
Total 3504
Impervious: 31.28% (3504/11200)
Current State with Pool (square footage):
Lot 11200
Current State 3504
Pool 512
Pool Equipment 21
Concrete apron 881
Total 4918
Impervious: 43.91% (4918/11200)
Goal Impervious: 25% (2800/11200) – no more build than 2800 square feet
Delta of Current State with Pool to Goal Impervious: 2118 square feet
• To drain 2118 square feet, we require rain garden to support 88.25 cubic feet of water (2118 x .5/12 = 88.25)
• Size of rain garden to support 88.25 cubic feet of water is 6 ft wide x 6 feet long x 3 feet deep, as this will holder 109
cubic feet of water (6 x 6 x 3 = 108)
• Given rock garden will hold more cubic feet than needed to support 2118 square feet (108 cubic feet of water, this
rock garden will bring impervious to 20.79%
Current State with Pool and Rain Garden (square footage):
Lot 11200
Current State with Pool 4918
Rain Garden -2590 (2590 x .5/12 = 108)
Total 2328
Impervious: 20.79% (2328/11200)
City of
MEMO
Public Works Department
TO: Alex Sharpe, City Planner
FROM: Jessica Schaum, Natural Resources Coordinator
DATE: August 9, 2023
SUBJECT: 12787 Durham Way - Shoreland Overlay District Variance Review
Overview
The applicant at 12787 Durham Way has requested a variance to the impervious surface
coverage within a Shoreland Overlay District. The shoreland overlay district covers an area
1,000 linear feet from the resources of concern, Farquar Lake. Farquar Lake is impaired for
nutrients. The impervious surface is limited to 25% in shoreland areas. The applicant is
requesting to exceed the impervious surface limits by 18.91% (2,118 sq. ft).
Shoreland regulations were established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) to help protect the water quality and the health of fish and animal habitat associated
with water bodies, and to regulate the way we alter the landscape to ensure these areas are
protected. The DNR, through MN State Rule, 6120.2500-3900, requires minimum land use
standards for communities to adopt and enforce through local ordinances. The City has had a
Shoreland ordinance in place since at least 1988.
In this regard, the Natural Resources Division reviewed the application with two aspects in mind
– water quality and land alteration.
Water Quality
The lot size is 11,200 sq. ft. and is located on a steep slope. The resident has requested a
variance from the Shoreland code to increase their impervious surface from 31.28% (3,504 sq.
ft) to 43.91% (4,918 sq. ft). Current code limits impervious surface to 25% (2,800 sq. ft.) in
shoreland areas. The applicant is requesting to exceed the impervious surface limits by 18.91%
(2,118 sq. ft).
In areas outside the Shoreland Overlay district , the impervious surface would be limited to
35%. Impervious surface code, 155.350, allows for homeowners to exceed the impervious
surface percentage by 5% if the following conditions are met :
• An onsite stormwater mitigation feature is installed
• A stormwater maintenance agreement is recorded on the property
• Applicant has shown good supporting cause for the additional impervious.
The Shoreland Overlay District ordinance does not allow for the 5% mitigation and requires
variances to be submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for review.
The applicant has proposed a “rock garden” fed by draintile in the pool deck to help manage
stormwater runoff generated from the site. To mitigate for the 2,118 sq. ft. overage, the
applicant would need to provide 88.25 cubic feet of treatment. Based on the calculation:
• Requested Coverage (sq ft) x 0.50 in ÷ 12(in/ft) = cubic feet of treatment.
The proposed rock garden would provide 108 cubic feet of treatment, which would exceed the
treatment amount for the overage. While the stormwater sizing is sufficient for this project, it’s
uncertain whether the treatment area would be effective in containing runoff generated from
the site with the details provided. The rock garden is sited on/adjacent to a steep slope, with a
large retaining wall built around the perimeter. The shoreland code considers a steep slope as
“Lands having average slopes greater than 12%, as measured over horizontal distances of 50
feet or more”. Based on GIS analysis, the approximate slope in the proposed pool area is
approximately 18%.
With the proposed design, there is concern that water would not effectively infiltrate into the
ground and would either seep out at the toe of the retaining wall or between the retaining wall
blocks. Additional details may need to be provided to document that the rock garden design is
feasible and would function in this location. Typically, stormwater management features are
built on flat areas to allow for water to pool or in the case of French drains, in areas where the
entire feature is below ground.
A more detailed survey of the site may help determine the siting of the project on the
landscape and help analyze any impacts to the steep slope. Steep slopes can present issues
with erosion when not properly vegetated and protected. Erosion can deposit sediment offsite,
impacting local water resources.
Cumulative impacts of impervious areas from residential areas can have an impact on the
volume and rate of water entering into the City’s storm-system and local water bodies.
Increases in impervious surface can impact localized flooding and contribute to downstream
issues. Stormwater runoff is a primary factor for water degradation in urban lakes.
Summary
Overall, the project does propose a plan for mitigating stormwater runoff generated from the
site. However, additional details are needed to help analyze whether the mitigation is feasible
and would function in this location. A more detailed site survey which shows existing conditions
vs. proposed conditions, and the materials, would also help determine the impact to the slopes
and any vegetation as part of the project.
Page 1 of 2 Variance Guidance Series – ISC, Updated 10/10/2012
Shoreland & Floodplain
Variance Guidance Series
This is one of a series of examples developed as guidance for considering variance requests along
lakes and rivers. Consult your local shoreland and floodplain ordinances.
Why are impervious surface coverage limits important?
In the protection of water quality, the management of rainwater on individual lots is one of our most
important tasks. Rainwater that does not infiltrate into the ground or evaporate runs downhill to lakes,
wetlands, or rivers. As impervious surface coverage increases, the
rate and amount of runoff and pollutants entering public waters
increases. When runoff from impervious surface coverage is not
addressed, pollution increases and the diversity of aquatic life is
reduced. Local governments have limited discretion to deviate
from - or grant a variance to - impervious surface limits. They may
do so only if all of the variance criteria established in state statutes
and their local ordinances are met. In evaluating such requests,
local governments must examine the facts, determine whether all
statutory and local criteria are satisfied, and develop findings to
support the decision. If granted, local governments may impose
conditions to protect resources. An example impervious surface
variance request, with considerations, is provided below.
Example Impervious Surface Variance Request
A property owner wishes to build a large lakehome on a conforming lot.
The lake lot includes a private driveway with a spur to the neighbor’s lot,
which was placed to avoid an adjacent wetland. The building plans for
the new construction plus the existing private road spur to the
neighbor’s property would exceed the impervious surface limit provision
in the local ordinance.
Considerations for Findings
A good record and findings help keep communities out of lawsuits and help them prevail if they find
themselves in one. In evaluating the facts and developing findings for this variance request, all of the
following statutory criteria must be satisfied, in addition to any local criteria:
Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance?
Considering a variance request is a balancing test that requires weighing the need of an individual
property owner against the purposes of the shoreland regulations for protecting the public interest.
These purposes are derived from Minnesota Shoreland Rules, which established impervious surface
caps to prevent excessive runoff from constructed surfaces. Such excessive runoff causes erosion,
transport of pollutants to public waters thereby degrading water quality. Considerations: Will
deviating from the required limit on this property undermine the purposes and intent of the
ordinance? Why or why not? Is it possible to mitigate the consequences of additional impervious
surface on-site such that additional runoff will not be produced? Would this mitigation be in harmony
with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? Why or why not?
Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
The local comprehensive plan establishes a framework for achieving a community’s vision for the
future. Most plans contain goals and policies for protecting natural resources and shorelands, as well
as maps that identify areas of high risk or with high ecological value where development should be
avoided. The variance request must be considered with these goals and policies in mind. Maps should
be consulted to determine if the property is within any areas identified for protection. Considerations:
Which goals and policies apply? Is allowing additional impervious surface and runoff consistent with
these goals and policies? Why or why not?
Impervious Surfaces
Page 2 of 2 Variance Guidance Series – ISC, Updated 10/10/2012
Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner?
Unique circumstances relate to physical characteristics of the land - such as lot dimensions, steep
slopes, poor soils, wetlands, and trees. These do not include physical limitations or personal
circumstances created by the property owner that prevent compliance with the impervious surface
provision, such as size of home or design preferences. Consider what distinguishes this property from
other shoreland properties to justify why the applicant should be able to deviate from the provision
when others must comply. Considerations: What physical characteristics are unique to this property
that prevent compliance with the requirement? Were any difficulties in meeting the impervious
surface limit created by some action of the applicant? Has the applicant demonstrated no other
feasible alternatives exist that would not require a variance, such as increasing the setback to reduce
driveway length or reducing the lakehome’s footprint?
Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
Consider the size of the proposed structure, the extent of encroachment, and how it relates to the
shoreline and hydrology of the riparian area. A large addition located close to the shoreline can
detract from the natural appearance and character of the lake and its riparian areas and degrade water
quality by altering topography, drainage, and vegetation in the riparian area, negatively affecting
recreational, natural, and economic values. Considerations: Does the variance provide minimal relief
or a substantial deviation from the required setback? Does it affect the natural appearance of the
shore from the lake? Does it affect the hydrology of the riparian area?
Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
Examine the reasons that the variance is requested and evaluate them in light of the purposes of the
local shoreland ordinance and the public water resource at stake. Since the impervious surface cap is
generally intended to reduce runoff to public waters, it may not be appropriate to allow large areas of
constructed surfaces so close to the water. Considerations: Has the applicant demonstrated that the
proposed construction is reasonable in this location given the sensitive nature of the area and the
purposes of the regulations? Why or why not?
Note: The last three criteria address practical difficulties. Economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties
Range of Outcomes
Based on the findings, several outcomes can occur:
If the applicant fails to prove that all criteria above are met, then the variance must be denied. For example,
the local government could find that the building plans itself created the circumstances necessary for a
variance rather than the any unique physical characteristics of the property.
If the applicant demonstrates that all criteria are met, then the variance may be granted. For example, the
local government could find that the construction footprint is reasonable, the circumstances are unique given
the adjacent wetland, and the minor deviation in the impervious surface coverage does not alter the
hydrology of the area (as determined through runoff calculations).
If the variance is granted and the impervious surface in any way alters the hydrology of the area, then
conditions may be imposed, such as to increase the structure setback from the lake by 15 feet to reduce the
extent of the driveway and minimize the amount of impervious surface coverage over the limit.
Conditions on Variances
If findings support granting the variance, consideration must be given to the impacts on the public water
and the riparian area and appropriate conditions to mitigate them. Conditions must be directly related and
roughly proportional to the impacts created by the variance. Several examples are provided below:
Modify construction designs (to minimize impact);
Use permeable pavement systems for walkways, driveways, or parking areas (to reduce effective
impervious surface area and infiltrate runoff);
Direct rain gutter discharges away from the public waters and into infiltration basins (to reduce
connected impervious coverage to allow additional areas for infiltration);
Preserve and restore shoreline vegetation in a natural state (to intercept and filter runoff coming
from structures and driveways); and/or
Increase setbacks from the ordinary high water level (to provide infiltration near public waters).
More information at: www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/shoreland/variances.html
`CITY OF
MEMO
Public Works
TO: Alex Sharpe, AICP, Planner
FROM: Evan Acosta, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: August 10, 2023
SUBJECT: 12787 Durham Way Impervious Surface Variance Request
Alex,
The following are Engineering’s comments regarding the 12787 Durham Way Impervious Surface Variance
Request dated 8/4/2023.
General
1. The following information was provided to Engineering for review:
a. Rock Garden (also called rain garden, French drain) sizing, location, and cross
section.
b. Subsurface drainage location, sizing, trench fill material.
2. Prior to any building permit issuance, Engineering would need more detailed
construction documents detailing the function of the stormwater feature and
addressing the following concerns:
a. More detailed cross section of proposed stormwater feature with dimensions
b. Proposed stormwater feature does not factor the steep slope on which the
feature sits, and its impact on flow rates or effectiveness.
c. Cross section of subsurface drainage
d. Connections of subsurface drainage to stormwater feature
I T E M: 6.A.
P L A NNI NG C O MMI S S I O N ME E T I NG D AT E:August 16, 2023
S E C T I O N:Other Business
Description:
Review of Upcoming S chedule and Other Updates
S taff Contact:
B reanna Vincent, Department Assistant
Department / Division:
Community Development Department
AC T I O N RE Q UE S T E D:
N/A
S UM M ARY:
Next P lanning Commission Meetings:
Wednesday, September 6, 2023 - 7:00 p.m.
Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 9, 2023.
Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 23, 2023.
Wednesday, September 20, 2023 - 7:00 p.m.
Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 23, 2023.
Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 6, 2023.
Next City Council Meetings:
T hursday, August 24 , 2023 - 7:00 p.m.
T hursday, September 14, 2023 - 7:00 p.m.
B AC K G RO UND:
N/A
B UD G E T I M PAC T:
N/A