Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker names identified. Note: While the provided list includes City Council members, Planning Commissions are separate bodies typically made up of different individuals. The "Chairperson" and "Commissioners" are identified by the names used during the meeting’s procedural calls. [0:28] **Chairperson**: 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? [0:28] **Terry (Staff)**: No, not tonight. [0:28] **Chairperson**: Thank you, Terry. Any changes from the commissioner? [0:28] **Commissioner Schindler**: Move approval. [0:28] **Commissioner Scanland**: Second. [0:28] **Chairperson**: Motion or approval made by Commissioner Schindler, seconded by Commissioner Scanland. All in favor say I. (Chorus of I's). I oppose. Nay. Motion carries. [0:58] **Chairperson**: 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? [0:58] **Commissioner Scanland**: So moved. [0:58] **Commissioner Sandal**: Second. [1:30] **Chairperson**: My motion was made by Commissioner Scanland, seconded by Commissioner Sandal. All in favor say I. (Chorus of I's). 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. [1:58] **Chairperson**: 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. [2:45] **Sydney (City Staff)**: 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. [3:19] **Sydney**: 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 [4:04] **Sydney**: 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. [4:24] **Sydney**: 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. [4:52] **Sydney**: 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. [5:08] **Sydney**: 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. [5:30] **Sydney**: 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 [6:18] **Sydney**: 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. [6:46] **Sydney**: 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 [7:35] **Sydney**: 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. [7:59] **Sydney**: 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. [8:25] **Sydney**: 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. [9:05] **Sydney**: 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. [9:05] **Chairperson**: 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. [9:49] **Chairperson**: 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. [10:06] **Chairperson**: 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. [10:49] **Commissioner Scanland**: 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. [10:49] **Chairperson**: Motion made by Commissioner Scanland, seconded by Commissioner Sandal. Any discussion? [11:18] **Chairperson**: If not, all in favor say I. (Chorus of I's). I. Oppose. Nay. Motion carries. Thanks, Sydney. [11:34] **Chairperson**: 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. [12:22] **Sydney**: 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. [13:00] **Sydney**: 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. [13:47] **Sydney**: 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. [14:35] **Sydney**: 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. [14:59] **Sydney**: 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. [15:42] **Sydney**: 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. [16:24] **Sydney**: 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. [17:16] **Sydney**: 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. [17:58] **Sydney**: 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. [18:40] **Chairperson**: Okay. Thank you, Sydney. Commissioners, questions for Sydney. Commissioner Scanland. [18:40] **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. [18:40] **Sydney**: Commissioner Scalin, um are you asking about the change from high density to LB or to commercial? [19:30] **Commissioner Scanland**: 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. [19:53] **Sydney**: 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. [20:45] **Commissioner Scanland**: 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. [20:45] **Sydney**: Commissioner Scalin, the pond to the uh west is a regional area storm water pond, right? Correct. [20:45] **Commissioner Scanland**: 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? [21:31] **Sydney**: 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. [21:31] **Commissioner Scanland**: 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. [21:31] **Sydney**: 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. [22:19] **Commissioner Scanland**: 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. [22:19] **Sydney**: 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. [23:01] **Commissioner Scanland**: Thanks for your clarification. That helps out, I think, a little bit. [23:01] **Chairperson**: 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. [23:22] **Chairperson**: 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. [23:42] **Dr. Angie Law**: 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. [25:10] **Chairperson**: Yeah. Sydney, do you want to address that? [25:10] **Sydney**: 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. [25:10] **Dr. Angie Law**: Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. [26:16] **Chairperson**: 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. [26:54] **Terry (Staff)**: 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. [27:18] **Chairperson**: Thank you, Terry. Motion to adjourn. [27:18] **Commissioner Scanland**: So moved. [27:18] **Commissioner Halas**: Second. [27:18] **Chairperson**: Made by Commissioner Scanland, seconded by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? If not, all in favor say I. (Chorus of I's). I. This meeting has adjourned.