Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I call the November 19th, 2025 Apple  Valley Planning Commission meeting to order. The   first item of business is the approval of  the agenda. Any changes from staff? No,   not tonight. Thank you, Terry. Any  changes from the commissioner? Move   approval. Second motion or approval  made by Commissioner Schindler,   seconded by Commissioner Scanland. All in  favor say I. I oppose. Nay. Motion carries. The next uh first item of business is the  approval of the agenda. I got that done.   I'm here. Next item of business is the approval  of the consent agenda. The consent agenda items   are considered routine and will be enacted  with a single motion without discussion unless   a commissioner or a citizen request to have  any item separately considered. It will then   be moved to the regular agenda for consideration.  Can I get a motion of approval? So moved. Second.   My motion was made by Commissioner Scanland,  seconded by Commissioner Sandal. All in favor   say I. I. Oppose. Nay. That carries. First item  we have to discuss tonight is we have two public   hearings. The first one is the Christ Church sign  setback variance and that is presented by Sydney. But first, we're going to open the public hearing.  We will now open this public hearing for agenda   item 4A. The affidavit of publication for  the notice of public hearing is available   for inspection in the planning department.  Everyone wishing to speak at this public   hearing should be sure to fill out the attendance  roster. Includes your name and address so that   accurate records can be maintained. We will  begin the procedure with a brief presentation  

by city staff followed by a presentation by the  petitioner of the hearing. Upon the conclusion   of the presentation, city staff will be asked  to comment on the proposal's conformance with   pertinent regulations and policies. After that,  comments will be taken from the general public. Thank you, chair and commissioners.  Tonight, I will be presenting to you   a request from Christ Church for a  sign setback variance. Specifically,   you are asked to consider a variance to reduce  the ground sign setback from 13 ft to 8 ft,   which would be a 5ft variance for the installation  of a new sign in the same location as the existing   ground sign at Christ Church. The site is  located at the southwest corner of Johnny   Cake Road and McAndrew Road um which is  again the existing site of Christ Church. The property is zoned P institutional which   um in the institutional zoning district uh  each property is allowed one ground sign. Um the sign location of the current sign is  located here in red. Um and then in the red line   shows a storm utility pipe. The dashed line shows  a 40 foot wide drainage and utility pipe or sorry   drainage and utility easement. The original sign  was permitted in 1994. Um that sign permit show   we have a site plan that shows that sign located  20 ft from the um property line which is this the   bold black line adjacent to Johnny Cake Ridge  Road. Um again that sign was shown 20 feet away   from the property line. Um it was then installed  um and they applicant has come back to apply for   a new sign permit for a new uh ground sign to  replace this. Um and they realized um with staff   that this uh previous sign was installed in the  wrong location than what was permitted in 1994.  

um and realized that the existing location  would need a variance for um that because it   was installed in the wrong location and did not  meet the required 13t setback. So they would like   to request a variance in order to put the sign in  the same location as the previous sign. They would   like to use the um existing sign foundation sign  base um and just put in a new um sign structure. Uh so on the left hand side we  have a p image of the existing   sign which was again permanent in  1994 and then this is a rendering of   the new proposed sign which would  use the same base same footings. Um again part of their sign plan  package that was submitted showing a   uh the new sign overlaid over the previous or  the existing sign which is currently there. Um   currently the sign is 8t away. The new  sign would be a little bit more narrow   and slightly further. Again, they're  just requesting that 8 foot variance. Another graphic of the new sign.  This new sign meets all other sign   requirements. It's just the setback that  they're looking for for the variance. When considering variances in general, we um  review the zoning chapter for the administration   of variances. Um with sign variances there are  some um extra requirements that we look to. So   um in regard to this request staff considered  seven requirements pertain to variances. I'll   go through them quickly. If there's any  questions on a specific one we can go over   it. Um so first we look at uh if there's special  conditions that exist to the property. Secondly   uh the special circumstances do not result  from the actions of the applicant. Three,   a literal interpretation of the provisions of  the code would deprive the applicant of rights   commonly enjoyed by other properties. Four, um  the variance would not confer on the applicant  

any spe special privileges. Five, the use of the  property shall not have an appearance that will   um or shall have an appearance that  will not have an adverse effect on   other neighboring properties. Six, the  um variance is necessary to alleviate   practical difficulties. And then seven,  it is the minimum variance necessary. Staff has um drafted some findings that um are  suggested to the commission to uh recommend   approval of. Um again, I'll go over these quickly.  If there's any questions on a specific finding,   I'd be happy to go over them more in depth. So  a general sum summary of the findings are that   a storm utility pipe is located 25 ft from the  eastern property line and with that there's a   corresponding 40 foot wide drainage and utility  easement along Johnny Cake Ridge Road. Um the   location of the pipe and the easement are  uncommon. Uh most properties don't have   that large of an easement. Um especially  on where someone would like to put a sign   to identify their property. Um and the special  conditions are not because of the applicant. it   was there before the sign was installed. Um the  properties in the institutional zoning district   again are allowed one sign um with a minimum  setback of 13 ft. The applicant proposes to   use the property in a reasonable ma manner.  Ground sites are typically located adjacent   to rightway as a means of identification. A  literal interpretation of these provisions   would require placing the ground sign over 25  ft back because of that storm utility pipe. Um, the proposed sign is replacing existing  sign that has been in place for over 30   years. The sign will have little visual or  physical change to the surrounding area,   so it should have no impacts  on the neighbors. Um, again,   the sign should not be placed on top of the storm  utility pipe. Staff would not recommend that. So,  

the variance is the minimum necessary in  regard to that location of the storm pipe. Uh draft conditions have also been suggested to  the commission. I'll go through those quickly.   One, the signed permit fee should be um needs  to be issued within one year of the approval   of the variance. Otherwise, the variance would  lapse. An electrical permit needs to be applied   for and approved of prior to installation.  An encroachment agreement will be executed,   approved, and recorded um prior to approval of a  sign permit, which would be an agreement to allow   the sign within the city's easement. Four, uh  utilities need to be located prior to installing   a sign. And then five, the installation  of the sign needs to be consistent with   the plans that were within the packet given  to you um and with the issued sign permit. With that, you're asked to hold the  public hearing, receive comments,   and then close the public hearing.  If there are no outstanding comments   or questions and the planning commission  concurs, staff does recommend approval of   the five- foot setback variance based on the  suggested findings one through seven and the   conditions one through five. And with that,  we do have um the applicant here tonight. So,   I'll take any questions and if you have anything  for them, they're here as well. Sure. Thanks,   Sydney. Any discussions? Any questions for  Sydney? No. Okay. Any discussions for the   applicant to come up? Anybody want questions  with him? No. So therefore, we will move along. Yep. So at this point, I will let the   um please come to the podium to speak and  address all comments and questions to the   chair. If there are anybody who would  like to come up to speak on this one. No one missed just walking in. Did you have any questions  for this particular public hearing? Okay. Okay.  

Then let's go ahead and make a motion. Close.  There are no further comments. I will close   this public hearing. It is the policy of the  planning commission not to act on an item on   the same night at the public hearing.  The planning commission will weigh all   comments and information received tonight in its  deliberations at future meetings. This item will   continue to appear on future planning commission  agendas until a recommendation on the petition   can be forward to the city council unless  somebody would like to make a motion tonight.   Madame Chair, I recommend approval of a 5-  foot setback variance for the ground sign at   Christ Church located at 12925 Johnny Cake Ridge  Road based on the findings listed in exhibit A   in the following conditions 1 through 5  as outlined in the staff report. Motion   made by Commissioner Scanland, seconded  by Commissioner Sandal. Any discussion?   If not, all in favor say I. I. Oppose.  Nay. Motion carries. Thanks, Sydney. Moving on is our next public hearing and this  will be the Fraser first edition comprehensive   plan amendments. And first I will open this public  hearing. We will now open the public hearing for   agenda item 4B. The affidavit of publication for  the notice of public hearing is available for   inspection in the planning department. Everyone  wishing to speak at this public hearing should be   sure to fill out the attendance roster. Include  your name and address so that accurate records   can be maintained. We will begin the procedure  with a brief presentation by city staff followed   by a presentation by the petitioner of the  hearing. Upon the conclusion of the presentation,  

city staff will be asked to comment on their  proposals conformance with pertinent regulations   and policies. After that, comments will be  taken from the general public. Sydney, thank   you chair and commissioners again. So the next  item for tonight would be uh a city initiated a   comprehensive plan amendment uh regarding property  in Fraser first edition. Specifically are asked to   consider an amendment to the 2040 comprehensive  plan land use map to designate just over two   acres of property from highdensity residential  to commercial and then designating uh just over   one acre of property from suburban intensive  high density residential again to commercial. The site is located at the northwest corner  of 147th Street West and County Road 42. Um,   this is Fraser First Edition with lot  one to the north. That's the existing   site of Fraser Living Facility, which  is also known as Apple Grove Court. The   uh lot two to the south is a vacant city-owned  property which is currently under purchase   agreement with Northland Real Estate Group.  Um that purchase agreement was approved by   the city council with the intent to develop the  site as a limited business use. For the tonight   there is no development proposal. Um the city  is just doing housekeeping item to redesate land   um in the comprehensive plan from high density  residential suburban intensive high density   residential to commercial to align with the  zoning which I'll go over in the next slides. The existing land use is shown on the  left hand side. So lot one to the north,   the Fraser lot is currently high density  residential. Lot two to the south,   the city owned lot is currently suburban  intensive high density residential. And   then what is being proposed by the city is to  amend these two properties to commercial. Uh  

these two properties were originally guided for  commercial. Both properties were um updated in   the 2030 comp plan update to high density. And  then this vacant city property to the south was   then further updated to suburban intensive  high density in the 2040 comp plan update. Both properties are currently zoned limited  business. It is a state statute requirement   as well as a best practice to have zoning match  land use. So currently the existing land use   oops need to go back sorry the existing land use  of high density residential and suburban intensive   residential does not match the commercial zoning  of limited business. So there's no change in uses.   What's currently allowed in the limited business  zoning district um which is general office medical   daycare bank that is currently allowed and that  is not changing. what's changing is the overall   land guidance designation to come into conformance  with that zoning. The uh Fraser property to the   north uh that was approved under the limited  business uh zoning district as well. So that   use and the conditional use permit that they  were granted in 1999 is allowed under the LB   district and it's not going to be impacted by this  amendment. Um staff did reach out to Fraser. There   were no comments received, so I would assume  they don't have any issues with the amendment. The 2040 comprehensive plan lays out a couple  of guidelines and general practices related to   the commercial um land designation as well as  the limited business zoning designation. So,   I'll go over those quickly. The city uses the  zoning ordinance to regulate the intensity and   characteristics of development. Lower intensity  business districts do include the limited business   and neighborhood commercial zoning districts.  Higher intensity districts would be um a district   like retail business which is over-the-counter  sales. The limited business designation is  

reserved for general offices and businesses  that exclude retail businesses. Business   operations usually usually occur within enclosed  building and are generally limited to weekdays.   LB uses are located adjacent to the retail  core of downtown and may act as a transition to   residential neighborhoods. Significant traffic  attracted by the site development shall be   generally limited to the morning and evening peak  hours with modest levels of off peak activity and   we weekend traffic impacts would be minimal. Um we  had our engineering department model some traffic   impacts. So Apple Grove Court is the Fraser  property. um there would be no impact changes   to that because again the use isn't changing.  Um what is modeled and shown as a difference   um there's going to be a difference in  traffic no matter what when the vacant lot   um develops which it is intended to develop in  the future. Um, currently under the guiding of a   multi-family property, it would have a total daily  trip of 378 uses modeled. Um, with guiding towards   a more office use um something like medical  or dental office, it would have daily trips as   uh 511. So that would be an modeled increase  of 133 for traffic for utilities. Um,   I'm not going to be able to explain this table  very well to you. So, if you have any questions,   I would switch over to engineering. But I can  say that from the comprehensive plan guiding of   highdensity residential down to office, there's a  85% reduction in the um, use of our utilities. Um,   and engineering had no uh, concerns with those  with either the traffic or the utility impact.   And again, this isn't a change. This is what has  already been modeled with the LB zoning district. Um, so with that, you are asked to hold the  public hearing, receive comments, and then close  

the public hearing for tonight. We're just asking  to receive questions from you and the public. Um,   we are not recommending an action tonight. Um,  if you so choose to go forward with that. Um,   and then I also just want to note that I did  provide three public comments to you all that were   received yesterday through email. Um, so if you  had time to read those. Um, and then with that,   I will give it back to you. Okay. Thank you,  Sydney. Commissioners, questions for Sydney. Commissioner Scanland. Thank you, Sydney. Um,  couple of questions just for some clarification.   um the way it's currently um zoned, I could foresee that there would be additional  trips or traffic involved over and above what a   business would be based on the number of residents  that would be there. Commissioner Scalin, um are   you asking about the change from high density to  LB or to commercial? Well, if it were to stay like   it currently is, it wouldn't change. I would  suspect that we might see additional traffic   involved with that with multiple tenants in a  residential type setting versus what's being   proposed to go to a commercial like for an  example like a dentist office or office which   you're you know you may be dealing with one or  two tenants at the possibly the most with being   able to have adequate parking and then the size of  the building based on the restraints of the lot.   Um, Commissioner Scalin, based on what traffic is  modeled, uh, a office use actually has more daily   trips than what a residential use use has. But  like I would I would just want to re reiterate  

that com um, high density isn't currently allowed  to go there because it's not zoned for that. It   would need to rezone from LB to High Density. And  um because of the existing site conditions uh the   city's vision as well as the zoning requirements,  it's unlikely that a high density residential use   could really fit there. So it's a better practice  to keep it as commercial. Okay. Thank you. That   that helps and clarifies that. Um, there was  one comment that the ponding to the west,   I think that is, if I got my directions correct,  that's for water runoff or or the purpose of   that. Commissioner Scalin, the pond to the  uh west is a regional area storm water pond,   right? Correct. Okay. And I'm assuming that's  been there for a period of time. with the change   in the zoning and so forth, is there going to  have to be any modifications or anything done   to that? Have you gotten that far down the road?  So, um because this is just a comprehensive plan   amendment and there's no development uh brought  forward, that hasn't necessarily been considered,   but uh storm water is always considered with  um new development as it comes forward. So,   whenever this vacant lot 2 does develop, um  that would have to go through the formal full   um city review process, which would include going  to a public meeting in front of the planning   commission again and then going to city council  for formal consideration. Okay. I'm just trying to   bring a couple points up that some of the letters  that we had received had talked about and maybe   um lessening some of the concerns there  and the actual the purpose of that   um pond. And there's nothing with lot one that's  changing that's going to be retained in its   current configuration. And yes, that's correct.  There's no proposed changes to lot one. Again,   we reached out to Fraser. No comments. And  the uh change would still fit with what's  

currently there because it is allowed under  the LBUS. Correct. Correct. And just to re   uh reiterate that the lot two there is no retail  going to be looked at for that. That is that the   way it's going to be zoned is it's not for retail.  We're looking at more for an office type. Correct.   The city council setting. Yep. Correct. The city  council approved the purchase agreement under the   with the understanding that it would be developed  as a limited business use which is office. Again,   that's our lease intense business use in the city.  um if a developer um wanted to come forward and   propose a retail use, they would have to go  through the rezoning process to rezone it to   something like the RB zoning district, which  would include a public hearing process where   the public could come again and voice concerns  with that if that were to come forward with that   rezoning. Thanks for your clarification.  That helps out, I think, a little bit. So truthfully, I mean, this would be the  best option for like the residents that   are north of this area. I mean, is to have  not high density, but to have a LB of a   dentist office or something like that, I would  think. Anybody else questions? No one. Okay.   At this point then I will ask if there's anybody  in the audience that would like to come up,   please come to the podium to speak and  address all comments and questions to the   chairs. And please present your name  and address when you come up anyone. Don't be shy. Usually takes that first one to come up. U  my name is Dr. Angie Law, Shepy. I live on   260 Streets Avenue, so just down 42. I take uh  this corner a lot um on my way to Starbucks,   on the way to work or on the way home  from Starbucks after work. I have two  

little kids. Um so we are really excited  about the parks project and everything like   that. Um I think my question is I I'm still  trying to understand zoning and properties,   right? That's not my expertise at all. It's not  what my doctorate is in. Um I and I understand   that there's not a development proposition.  Um, so I thank you all for clarifying that. Um,   I'm wondering if like what does it look like or  what what would it mean if we left it as is and we   just had um maybe some some more nature preserver  expanded the pond. I don't know what that would   look like. My understanding is this happened a  long time ago where it was it was zoned to be   um more of that commercial. And I do like to  hear that it's it's an LB, the limited business   rather than commercial. We don't need any more um  chicken places. Um so I'm just kind of wondering   um thoughts or or maybe just some education  for me about about what that would look like or   what that would mean if that makes sense. Thank  you. Yeah. Cindy, do you want to address that? Um so this site uh was um in our comprehensive  plan it was targeted as a within the phase   development map as a developing by 2030.  So it was never intended to sit vacant.   The property was originally subdivided by  Fraser and then we sold I could probably   provide a better history at the next meeting,  but I believe we sold the north half to Fraser   and then it was intended that they would buy it  in the future to expand um when the city went out   for the RFP process for this property um or when a  developer came forward interested in the property,   we did reach out to Fraser and they did  not have interest in buying that land. Um,   so their plans changed. Um, but again,  it's always been limited business and,   uh, it's always intended to be that lower  intensity use, which Fraser would be. Fraser is,  

if they expanded, that would also be a lower  intensity use. Um, so uh, there's never been an   intent to leave it vacant uh, permanently. Okay,  that's helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Going once. Going twice. Okay, I will close  this hearing. There are no further comments.   I will close this public hearing. It is the  policy of the planning commission not to act   on an item on the same night as its public  hearing. The planning commission will weigh   all comments and information received  tonight in its deliberations at future   meetings. This item will continue to appear  on future planning commission agendas until   a recommendation on the petition can be  forwarded to the city council. Thank you. uh land use and action items. There is none  tonight. So that will bring us to Terry for other   business. So the upcoming meetings, there's  planning commission meetings scheduled for   December 3rd and the 17th. And then the council  meetings are scheduled for November 25th and   December 11th. And there are no other updates  tonight. Thank you, Terry. Motion to adjourn.   Made by Commissioner Scanland, seconded by  Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? If not,   all in favor say I. I. This meeting has adjourned.