The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Karen Edgeton at 7:02 p.m.

Members Present: Karen Edgeton, Jeannine Churchill, Jim Hadley, John Bergman, Tim Burke, Tom Melander

Members Absent: Frank Blundetto

Staff Present: Community Development Director Rick Kelley, Consulting Engineer Pat Wrase, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer

MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Bergman, to approve the agenda as proposed. The motion carried 6-0.

MOTION: Churchill moved, seconded by Bergman, to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion carried 5-0 (1 abstention-Melander).

Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. with the standard remarks.

Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer introduced the project. She delineated options to amend the planned development to accommodate the request by allowing Class II restaurants under specific conditions, if the Planning Commission found that to be appropriate. Options include: (1) Dropping the 500-foot distance requirement to the right-of-way line of a minor arterial; (2) Revise the minimum distance (currently 1000 feet) from residential; (3) Adding a condition that any Class II restaurant could not sell items requiring a Type II ventilation hood.

Edgeton asked what had changed on the property since the construction of the restaurant, and when the "Class I casual" restaurant definition came into existence. Bodmer said she wasn't aware of changes on the property, and that the restaurant classifications in the zoning code were amended late in 1998.

Bergman asked if it was possible to obtain tapes or minutes from the Planning Commission meeting when Schlotzsky's was approved.

Burke asked what changes in the restaurant operation were required for Schlotzsky's to fit into the Class I casual classification. Bodmer answered that reusable dinnerware and limited table services were added. Burke wondered if those operational changes could be eliminated if a drive-through was approved since a drive-through is only included in the Class II restaurant definition. Bodmer replied affirmatively.

There was some discussion about the amount and location of signage, and whether Wal-Mart has been cooperative in providing additional signage opportunities.

Kim Garland, co-owner and manager of Schlotzsky's Deli, said it took her four months to get to the correct contact person at Wal-Mart about the signage issue, then he transferred to another region. She said she has since spoken to a Dianna Smith with Wal-Mart, and they have no issues with Schlotzsky's being on the pylon sign. Garland has in fact contacted Bell Signs and just needs to apply for a sign permit. She went on to say Wal-Mart signed the drive-through petition and has also agreed to the off-site sign being requested. Schlotzsky's is willing to pay for striping through the Wal-Mart parking lot, if desired by the city. Garland stated the Cities of Coon Rapids and Woodbury have not had any problems with traffic associated with their Schlotzsky's, which stores are the same footprint as the Apple Valley store. Because there is only one access point, she did not think a drive-through would create a hazard.

Garland also stated she was not involved when the Apple Valley restaurant was approved. If the drive-through is approved, they will not change back to disposable dinnerware. She said she was not aware a drive-through would never be allowed when she did get involved.

Edgeton asked if the request is approved and Schlotzsky's goes away, could a fast food operation be on the site. Bodmer replied that would depend on the conditions established when amending the ordinance.

Bergman requested the city's traffic consultant look at the traffic pattern on 149^th Street, and to offer alternatives to putting a sign there.

Edgeton wanted to know about available sites for a drive-through restaurant at the time Schlotzsky's made application to the City for site plan/building permit authorization.

Burke wondered if striping were a feasible alternative to the off-site sign.

Bodmer stated there is also a need for a stop sign in the Wal-Mart parking lot. She submitted for the record a petition (from the petitioner) with over 1400 signatures supporting the idea of a drive-through for Schlotzsky's.

Bergman asked for the average cars per hour figure at the Coon Rapids and Woodbury stores.

There being no comments from the public, Edgeton closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m.

Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. with the standard remarks.

Bodmer described the request for preliminary plat. She noted there were currently eight lots in the subdivision that are smaller than the lot being proposed.

Edgeton asked if it was possible to locate a building on the lot without removing as many trees. Jo Colleran, Natural Resources Coordinator, said it may be possible to push the house back further, but that would have to be verified with Engineering to check drainage on the site. Trees that are on the edge of the current proposed grading limits then could possibly be saved.

Pat Wrase, assistant to the city's consulting engineer, explained that water would be directed to the south side of the proposed house. He said there is a catch basin in place that just needs to be uncovered. The storm sewer there is oversized, and there are no concerns with its capacity or function.

Edgeton wanted to know how many lots in the area approach 15,000 square feet.

The petitioner Pete Smith gave a history of his and his wife's decision to subdivide their property. He requested approval of their application based on the following: (1) the request is legal; (2) it represents full compliance with city statutes; (3) the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation; (4) the city engineer said drainage is adequate to handle the proposed lot; (5) no variances are being requested; (6) the proposal is fully comparable with the neighborhood (the proposed lot is larger than approximately 30% of the lots in the neighborhood); (7) the request is practical. Smith closed by saying he is entitled to the best and highest use of his land.

Brynn Burrows of 13687 Dunbar Way stated her opposition to the subdivision because of basically four issues outlined in a handout distributed to the Planning Commissioners. She spoke of drainage concerns and information she had received from City Engineer Keith Gordon.

Pat Wrase, assistant engineer, said there must be a misunderstanding

Dean Fredrickson of 13688 Dunbar Way asked where the drainage occurs in relation to the map.

Wrase traced the drainage paths in the area of the site. He described water flowing north and east.

Edgeton asked if there was water above the ponding easements during the July flooding. Wrase said that there was around Farquar Lake, but he was not aware of any in the area of the Oaks of Apple Valley III.

Fredrickson stated he has a very low area on his lot to the south, and that the last time there was heavy rain, the water tended to go south.

Don Gullett of 13679 Dunbar Way said he wanted further clarification on where the water drains. He didn't see how water could drain uphill from 902.2 elevation to 908.2 feet.

Dave Fielding of 13699 Dunbar Way said he moved eight times before settling on Dunbar Way. He stated there are covenants dated March of 1986 that say "no lot shall be used for any other than one detached single-family dwelling" and that the proposed subdivision is contrary to the Oaks and its covenants. He went on to say that if the lot had been developable, it would have been developed at the time of the Oaks development. He asked what makes us think we can change mother nature's plan now. Fielding also expressed concern about safety. he said there had been some close calls because of construction projects this summer, and that those projects were not of the magnitude as is proposed.

Bergman asked about the length of time needed to prepare the lot. Wrase replied it would take no more than a week to grade.

Georgia Nardi of 13684 Dunbar Way said she was only opposed because it would put the neighbors closer to her lot, and it took two years to find a lot which provides them maximum privacy.

Shari Gullett of 13679 Dunbar Way expressed concern that the open space she and her seven children enjoy would be eliminated, and that the destruction of the beautiful trees would take away a lot. She questioned whether her taxes would be lowered if her property depreciates. Finally Gullett said safety was a concern with relation to the depth of the pond, and that mosquitoes were a problem.

John Doherty of 13691 Dunbar Way said there is a grove of 20-30 birch trees that are not 10 inches in diameter, but are beautiful and significant to him. He also stated the houses in his area are on higher pieces of land, and that the lot in question was not developed fifteen years ago because the land is suited for one home only.

At Bergman's request, Colleran explained the City Code's definition of significant trees and noted that the birch trees being referred to are actually quaking aspen.

Steve Filipas of 4761 137^th Circle said saved trees can still be impacted by compaction and other construction activities. He stated Terry Mauer's development plan (for the Oaks II) was approved by the City years ago.

Mark Gunther(sp) of 13612 Duluth Drive expressed his concern about property value in the area. He noted if building on the lot could be done in conformance with regulations without harming the property values, he was not opposed.

Steve Burrows of 13687 Dunbar Way referred to photographs he distributed. He said he was concerned about the loss of trees. He asked Commissioners to look at the way the water flows in the pictures. He asked who bears liability if drainage plans don't work. He also questioned why the Planning Commission would allow subdivision of a subdivision, and with some creativity there could probably be several subdivisions. He closed by saying he bought in the neighborhood because of what he saw.

Bergman asked Mr. Pulecci(sp) where he lives. Pulecci pointed on the area map, then stated denying the request was a matter of reasonableness. He closed by saying he bought because of what he saw.

Michelle Kotter(sp) of 13728 Duluth Drive said she is not opposed to the subdivision request. She stated it is not safe for her six-year-old to step into the street now, so more trucks would not make a difference.

There being no further comments, Edgeton closed the public hearing at 8:50 p.m.

Melander moved, seconded by Burke, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m.