The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Jeannine Churchill at 7:00 p.m.

Members Present: John Bergman, Jim Hadley, Jeannine Churchill, Tim Burke (arrived at 7:05), Karen Edgeton (arrived at 7:03) Tom Melander

Members Absent: David Schindler

Staff Present: Consulting Engineer Keith Gordon, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer, City Planner Tom Lovelace

MOTION: Burke moved, seconded by Bergman, to approve the agenda. The motion carried 4-0.

Community Development Secretary Nelda Werkmeister stated that references to "Chair Edgeton" on page 1 (four occurrences) should be replaced with "Vice Chair Churchill". She credited Commissioner Hadley for pointing out the error.

MOTION: Hadley moved, seconded by Burke, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried 5-0.

Chair Edgeton opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. with the standard remarks.

Assistant Planner Kathy Bodmer introduced the item.

Bergman asked for clarification regarding an automatic sprinkler system. Bodmer responded that it is not required, but that it is preferred for long-term maintenance of plantings.

Edgeton queried whether the parking lot would be curbed on the west edge, to which Bodmer replied affirmatively. Edgeton also expressed concern about traffic interference with the proposed entrance location and asked that the city's traffic consultant review the plan.

Rolf Lokensgard, architect for the project, described the building design. He stated that the intent was to mix things up and add interest for an office building, while including residential features to tie in with the neighborhood. They were trying to reduce dead-ends and turns with the design of the parking lot. Lokensgard noted they would rather have one sidewalk. They would like to cross-park with the dental office or Kwik Trip for the seven spaces needed. In talking about the building materials, Lokensgard said the location of block is reminiscent of stone on old barns. There are functional dormers to bring in light and interest. The building itself acts as a retaining wall, being built into the burrow. He said that only the roofs of the building could be seen from the roads, so they added dormers on all four sides to treat them as fronts.

Bodmer noted that a conditional use permit would be needed for the proposed alternative building materials. Edgeton asked to see samples of the proposed materials, as well as information about materials used on the other two buildings in the subdivision, and what percentage of alternative materials is proposed.

Melander said he agreed with the Chair regarding traffic concerns related to the proposed entrance to the parking lot.

Bergman asked what staff's opinion is on the petitioner's idea to locate sidewalk on the perimeter. Bodmer answered that if the sidewalk is removed, connections to the building and pedestrian links would be needed.

Hadley wanted to know what the trellis material was made of; Lokensgard said it would be aluminum or metal clad.

The petitioner Dr. Ron Hunt wondered about the road that connects on the north end of his property, whether it's classified as a private road and why it appears to be totally on his property. There was some discussion about the road and access point requirements of the Planned Development, as well as the history of the platting of the property.

Edgeton asked Dr. Hunt about any sound suppression for barking dogs. Dr. Hunt said he plans to isolate his portion of the building with a brick wall and sand in between. He is still looking at interior materials.

Edgeton opened the floor to comments from the public.

Robert Baker of 8930 Hunters Way stated that he was appalled that he was not allowed to voice his opinion at this public forum until after such a large investment by the petitioner, and that it appeared to him that the Planning Commission had already made up their mind anyway. He noted that the subject area is one of new construction, including homes that are worthwhile. Baker went on to say that traffic has not been extensive by either Kwik Trip or Dr. Simmons office, but it is difficult to get across Highway 11 because of congestion. He expressed vehement opposition to a kennel because dogs go in and out, and manure has to be disposed of.

Edgeton explained that the Planning Commission follows due process required by law. She requested from staff a list of permitted uses in the subject Planned Development (PD), as well as waste disposal information planned for the site.

Bergman pointed out that the building is proposed to be built into a berm. He asked for information comparing the noise created by dogs barking to car traffic.

Melander mentioned a dog training facility he was familiar with, and what a good neighbor the business was.

Churchill said she understood this to be a clinic, not a kennel. She did ask how many animals might be kept overnight. Edgeton queried whether weekend boarding is included in the services offered.

Robert Baker interrupted the meeting and demanded an answer to a question. Edgeton asked him to leave the building, which he did.

Lee Kendall of 8826 Hunters Way expressed his shared concern about the proposed entrance. He didn't think parking would be available at Kwik Trip and said he didn't want parking on Hunters Way. Kendall asked if the dumpster was going to be hidden. He stated that noise is also a concern.

Lokensgard stated the dumpster enclosure would also be burrowed into the hillside.

Ed Schrotenboer of 8974 Hunters Way, said he also has concerns with the turning radius at the entrance, potential odor problems, and traffic.

Dr. Hunt stated he has some of the same concerns as people in the neighborhood, since he will be spending many hours a day at the clinic. He went on to say his business has been located in two different strip malls, and there have been no complaints or problems. He is amenable to moving the entrance northward.

Burke requested a listing of other veterinary clinics in Apple Valley, especially those located near residences.

Hadley asked if two entrances are required.

Mrs. Kendall of 8826 Hunters Way questioned whether there would be outdoor lighting in the parking lot, to which Bodmer replied that there will be.

A. Ehlert of 8922 Hunters Way asked if there was sufficient parking on site.

There being no further public comments, Chair Edgeton closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m.

City Planner Tom Lovelace described the sketch plan request. He noted there would be some berming required on Galaxie Avenue. He related three primary issues: (1) a pedestrian friendly plaza; (2) plaza was to be an attraction from Galaxie Avenue & C.R. #42; (3) view corridor restrictions.

Churchill asked if the City was aware of the site line easement required by Kohls. Lovelace said he became aware of it when the developer began discussing changes to the corner plaza area.

Edgeton expressed deep disappointment that a developer would enter into an agreement with Kohls, knowing that it would not allow development according to the plan agreed to with the City. Churchill shared that sentiment.

Hadley noted that there are fewer parking spaces in this proposal than in the original plan.

Paul Bilotta, representing the petitioner Birchland Development, said that Kohls was critical to gaining other quality tenants, and that without them he didn't think anything would have happened yet. He stated that Barnes & Noble also has requirements, one is that there be four restaurants.

Edgeton said any revision from the original plan will need to have lots of flowers and mature landscaping to try to preserve some plaza/attraction effect.

General discussion ensued regarding restaurant requirements and the constant evolution within the industry. The Planning Commission did not appear opposed to considering revisions to allow uses like a deli or coffee shop. Bilotta asked about their reaction to the integration of some retail in that corner.

Edgeton and Churchill indicated small retail users would be okay. Edgeton said she didn't like the large building. She also expressed concern that potential restaurants would not agree to the building designs currently approved for the development.

Melander queried whether the developer had fiddled with elevations within the view corridor to allow a sunken plaza or some similar enhancement. Bilotta said they could look at that, but that buildings would not be allowed in that view corridor, regardless of the elevation.

MOTION: Melander moved, seconded by Churchill, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.