[0:18] Chair Brian Scanlon: Good evening. We call this meeting to order for the April 16th, 2025, Apple Valley Planning Commission. The first item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Is there any changes from staff? [0:28] City Staff: Chair Scanlon, there are no changes to the agenda for tonight. [0:34] Chair Brian Scanlon: Any changes from the commission? [0:37] Commissioner Schindler: Move approval. [0:39] Commissioner Mahold: Second. [0:40] Chair Brian Scanlon: Moved by Commissioner Schindler and second by Commissioner Mahold. All in favor indicate by vote yea or nay. [0:54] Commissioners: Yea. [0:55] Chair Brian Scanlon: That carries. The next item is approval of the consent agenda. The items on the consent agenda are routine and will be enacted with a single motion unless a commissioner requests to pull an item. Do I have a motion? [1:13] Commissioner Haas: Motion. [1:15] Commissioner Sendel: Second. [1:17] Chair Brian Scanlon: Moved by Commissioner Haas and second by Commissioner Sendel. Please indicate your approval by a vote of yea or nay. [1:30] Chair Brian Scanlon: Okay. That carries. Okay. Next item on the agenda is public hearings, which we do not have any this evening, which leads to our next area is land use action items number 5A—that is the Apple Valley Village Cassia expansion, transitional Care unit. And Jennifer, with the city, is going to be presenting. [1:59] Jennifer (City Staff): Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. It's nice to be back with you this evening. Before you this evening is a request for a site plan and building permit authorization for a transition care unit expansion project. So I have a short presentation. Here we go. So the request this evening is to construct a new building that will have 60 units or 60 rooms, 64 beds. The facility will be connected to—or is proposed to be connected to—the existing nursing home or skilled nursing Care Center that is just to the north of the subject property. The development will also include some shared parking, a covered or canopied drop-off area, which is also identified on your plan set as a porte-cochère. And some of those improvements actually do encroach over the shared property line with the parcel to the north. As a result of that, we are requesting that there be a private easement be placed upon those improvements because we have those shared improvements. In your packets this evening, it was described as a deed restriction. The city attorney has requested that be adjusted to be a private easement that will have those improvements identified, and part of that would be that that easement would need to be recorded with the county, and that any release of that easement would actually need to be approved by the city. So we'll take a look at that in just a moment as to why those things are important, but essentially, those are the requests. It's always a game to find the cursor on this. Thank you. Here we go. So the location of the subject property is highlighted in yellow here. You can see that it is on the northeast corner, essentially of Garrett Avenue and 147th. It is located within a planned development district. It is PD designation number 290. As described within that zoning district, a mix of uses—limited business uses, certain retail uses and then also some medical types of uses—are permitted within that designation, and then there are associated specific performance standards that are related to each subzone within that PD. If we take a look at the zoning district itself, the PD 290, you can see here that the proposed project, as it's designed, meets or exceeds all of those standards with the exception of those parts of the improvements that encroach or extend beyond the shared property line. You can see that denoted as side lot line, so that is the shared lot line with the northern property. As a result of those encroachments, obviously, that is why we are requesting that there be a private easement agreement that denotes what those improvements are, and the fact that they are permitted because we're essentially looking at a shared medical campus in this particular case. But that obviously, we're acknowledging that they do cross that property line. It also would ensure that the appropriate maintenance is taking care of those improvements that extend across the property line, and there is also a shared covered walkway that would connect the two buildings. So as a result of that, the private easement agreement would be established to identify all of those improvements. So here is the site plan. You can see that it is a two-story, approximately 60,000 to 63,000 square foot facility. As they said, there will be 60 units or 64 beds. It will be a combination of private and split double units. The improvements include the commercial kitchen. There's a dining room, PT room, some office space, and a shared courtyard central to the building, which you can see on the site plan. There are two access drives that are proposed for the connection. You can see them denoted here, the new one being on the south end of the project site. There is what is identified on your plan set as a porte-cochère, which is also a fancy way of saying canopy, which is where patients would be dropped off in a covered area. I do believe that within the resolution, and then also some of the attachments, there is a note to ensure that all emergency vehicles could access and drive underneath that porte-cochère. As a result, there may be some design elements that need to be adjusted, but that will be up to the applicant to demonstrate compliance with that standard. As I said, there is an enclosed walkway between the transition care unit, which is you can see here with my cursor, that connects to the nursing home space that is just to the north on the north property. A grading plan and utility plan were provided with the plan set. The city's engineer has taken a look at it. Their comments are provided in the attachment to your report this evening. There are, again, some conditions or items noted within that staff report. Within the packet this evening are also the elevations. You can see them here. That canopy elevation or the porte-cochère is provided on the upper right-hand side. You can see based on the provided and submitted drawings, there's a mix of materials, various articulation, you know, fenestration patterns on all four sides of the structure, which obviously makes sense from the standpoint. We will have folks staying here for extended periods of time, and so these will not be permanent residential units, but they will be temporary. So obviously, natural light is important to that recovery process. You can see with this elevation, here's the link or the covered walkway that would extend essentially between the proposed structure and the existing structure on the northern property. Building materials are identified here. You can see it's a combination of metal fascia, architectural brick, and some fiber cement panels. This is consistent with the campus that was already out there in terms of color palette. Obviously, this is slightly more modern in architecture because those existing structures, I believe, were built back in the '80s and '90s, so obviously, we've updated our architecture design. However, the color palette and the design is such that it will be integrated with those existing buildings. The landscape plan is identified here. Obviously, as we've discussed at previous meetings, this use requires 2.5% of the construction value to be placed or accounted for within a landscape plan. We will continue to work with the applicant to ensure that that standard is met. And so in summary, we are recommending approval of the site plan and the building permit authorization for this expansion. The draft resolution is provided in your packet this evening. Again, I would note that while the resolution does state a deed restriction, the recommendation would actually be updated to be an easement agreement or a private easement. So we would just request that that change be made at the time you consider your resolution or your recommendation. So at that, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I am happy to answer any questions you might have. [9:57] Chair Brian Scanlon: Commissioners, I have questions for Jennifer? [10:04] Commissioner Mahold: Just one quick question. You brought up the canopy/porte-cochère—was there some concerns in regards to highlighting that in the plan? Is it that it has already been approved as far as that the height and all that kind of thing, right? [10:24] Jennifer (City Staff): Correct. We need to confirm that it will provide emergency vehicle access underneath that canopy height. I think it was the fire chief that may have noted just to confirm that. So that would be part of the building permit process, essentially to confirm. As far as the design is concerned, there's no concern there. Obviously, it makes a great deal of sense when, you know, patients are being transported from a more hospital setting to transition care that they're in a covered environment. So from that standpoint, I don't think there's any concern with that. It does cross the property line in this case, so as a result of that, it does need to be addressed within that private easement. And other than that, provided all of those things are documented, I think there's no concern from staff's perspective. [11:05] Commissioner Mahold: Very good, thank you. [11:07] Jennifer (City Staff): Mm-hmm. [11:09] Commissioner Haas: Mr. Chair? [11:10] Chair Brian Scanlon: Yes. [11:11] Commissioner Haas: Thank you, Chair Scanlon. The only question—great looking proposal all the way around. The only question I have is related to the access point to the south and west off of Garrett Avenue. Is that predominantly for service access, things of that nature, as opposed to the primary driveway for visitors and staff? [11:42] Jennifer (City Staff): Correct, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. It's my understanding that that is primarily to serve the trash enclosure, service delivery, those types of uses. So it's sort of a secondary access, if you will, with the primary access continuing to be from the north at this point. [11:59] Commissioner Haas: Okay, thank you. That was because I was just concerned—the only concern being the proximity to 147th Street and whether there's enough distance between that—but it sounds like it's a limited use, and obviously folks have looked at that and that isn't of concern. I think Garrett is a fairly low traffic road, but that was the only concern I had about that. [12:16] Chair Brian Scanlon: I have one question with the area, the trash enclosure, that little bump out area—is that for like deliveries that would be just north of the enclosure? It kind of bumps over a little bit, and then there's it looks like a sidewalk coming from the building. [12:44] Jennifer (City Staff): Let me see if I can find a little bit better site plan that's a little darker to make sure we're talking about the same space. Yep. And then straight up, right? No, in that area there. So this for you? Or this? That there. I'm assuming that's where if folks need to walk out of the building to bring things to the trash enclosure, that would be one purpose of it. [13:16] Chair Brian Scanlon: Okay, to access that area. All right. Okay. Well, if there's no further questions, would the applicant like to come up? [13:34] Andrew Santani (Cassia): Chair and commission. My name's Andrew Santani. I'm VP of Building Design and Development for Cassia. I'm representing the Apple Valley Village Community and Bob Gall, whose name is on the application. First of all, I want to thank you and your staff for the recommendation letter that went into the moratorium application in December. We received word two weeks ago that that application was approved. So we're really excited to be able to work through the remaining details with the city so that we can start our team on construction documents and moving forward. Also, I really appreciate your presentation. She got every detail right. I also wanted to let you know we as an organization and as a design team have read through all the stipulations in the application, we see them, we understand them, and we agree with them. We'll work on putting all of those parts and pieces into the application later on at the end of this year, come January of 2026. So I'm really excited about that. Our goal is to have the project completed for permit in January. So about this time next year, we can be ready to get under construction so we can have the building open in fall of 2027. So really excited to get that underway to continue to serve the Apple Valley Village community and also the Apple Valley community at large. I think—I don't know if you saw the recommendation letter—but just recognizing the 2040 comprehensive plan, we know there's growth in this area, and we want to be able to support and serve that need the best we can. Thank you very much for reviewing the application and any other comments or questions would be more than happy to answer. [15:29] Chair Brian Scanlon: Commissioners, any questions, comments? I'll just mention thank you for coming forward to do this expansion. This area of care is something that's I think that there's a real need for that, and it's a great addition for Apple Valley to have that for local residents that are in a situation where they need time to recover, that they can do that within the community versus going out. The whole idea of continuing of care like that you're doing here is a great asset to Apple Valley. And so I was excited to see this come forward, because I think it's been quite a while—you had a proposal quite some time ago that you had brought forward, and I don't remember the time frame of that, but that didn't go forward at the time, but it's great to see you come back with it. So thank you. [16:25] Andrew Santani: Yeah, yeah, we're really excited. I wasn't part of that one, but I'm really excited. I know our team back at the home office is excited to get this underway. Dave Shaw, the site administrator, is really excited to get this going too. So glad we can be continued support to the community here. [16:41] Chair Brian Scanlon: Okay. And just to reiterate, you have no concerns with the some of the open items that we discussed this evening and kind of outlined in the approval here? [16:53] Andrew Santani: No, you know, at this point, with the better part of the balance of the year left in front of us, I think this is all pretty usual and customary. You know, all the details and requests are pretty common for this stage. So I'm very confident that we shouldn't have an issue. [17:15] Chair Brian Scanlon: All right. Well, very good. Thank you. [17:18] Andrew Santani: Yeah, thank you. [17:21] Chair Brian Scanlon: So what is the pleasure of the commission to move forward with this tonight? I'll entertain a motion. [17:28] Commissioner Mahold: I would make a motion to recommend approval of the site plan and building permit authorization of the Apple Valley Village expansion for the development of a transition care unit facility on lot two block one the Apple Valley commercial fourth edition with the conditions that have been noted as set forth in the draft resolution. [17:57] Chair Brian Scanlon: Great. That should be—all point, yeah. All in favor... [18:03] Commissioner Schindler: Second. [18:08] Chair Brian Scanlon: Motioned by Commissioner Mahold and seconded by Commissioner Schindler. All in favor indicate by "Aye." [18:22] Commissioners: Aye. [18:23] Chair Brian Scanlon: That passes unanimously, so that'll go on to the next move forward. Thank you. [18:44] Chair Brian Scanlon: All right, the next item is item 5B Kelly Park Improvements, and Sydney is presenting tonight. [18:54] Sydney (City Staff): Thank you, Chair. Tonight I will be presenting to you the request for a couple of variances as well as site plan building permit authorization for Kelly Park and the related improvements. Specifically tonight, you're asked to consider the following: variances to reduce building setbacks for the proposed bandshell structure; variance to reduce building setback for the restroom pavilion structure; a variance to reduce a parking setback along public streets; and then lastly, site plan building permit authorization for the construction of a bandshell structure, a restroom pavilion structure, and then other improvements at Kelly Park. The site is located within the Central Village area. It's surrounded by 152nd to the north, Foliage to the east, 140th to the south, and then Galante to the west. Currently, the park is still zoned PD 739. A request to rezone the property to the Institutional zoning district was brought before the planning commission in March of 2024. The reason for that rezoning request is because within the PD 739, the subzone that the park is within allows a couple of various housing uses and commercial uses, and additionally the park is guided for park land and institutional uses, so that isn't consistent with what the zoning says. So it does need to be rezoned to park to be consistent with the comp plan. And then, secondly, most, if not all city parks are zoned for the Institutional district, so that would be consistent with other parks in the city. The next step for the rezoning would be to go to City Council, and if this were to be recommended for approval tonight, it would be brought to City Council as a package with the rezoning. For the site plan, this is showing the shell structure in the southwest corner of the site with the proposed event lawn that is meant to act more as an amphitheater, and then the proposed restroom. This is in the same general location of the existing restroom. We have a new proposed splash pad area, and then this would be the location of the new playground area. Over here to the east of the site would be the expanded parking lot. There is an existing parking lot that uses these existing access spaces; it's generally limited to just this area right here in the center as it stands today. The parking lot would be expanded from 38 spaces to about 105 spaces for a total of 100 spaces for the entire site. Here's a colored site plan that just gives a better representation of the improvements of the park, as well as showing the new and relocated areas of sidewalks and trails going throughout the park. And then you can also see the park area and the playground equipment better in this colored site plan. In terms of looking at the variances that are requested for the bandshell structure, the restroom, and the parking, we need to look at the definition of practical difficulties—so that would be: the property would be used in a reasonable manner; the plight of the applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property; the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality; and economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. The factors in reviewing and determining whether practical difficulties exist would be: that special conditions apply to the structure or land in question and are particular to the property; the granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of the zoning code; the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the owner or the applicant; the granting of the variance will not merely serve as just a convenience to the applicant; and then, lastly, the variance requested would be the minimum variance necessary. So I do have suggested findings for each variance—for the bandshell structure, for the restroom, and then for the parking facility as well. The first three are pretty general and apply to each setback variance, so I'll go through them here. Kelly Park is located within the Central Village area, which is a pedestrian-oriented, integrated mixed-use development. This includes setbacks that are reduced from our standard zoning code setbacks. Central Village is located within the zoning district PD 739, which sets out those minimum area requirements and then they reduce setbacks. Kelly Park was previously zoned PD 739, and the property would have been subject to those reduced setbacks. The property is supposed to be rezoned to Institutional, which would remain consistent with the zoning of other publicly owned city parks. The Institutional zoning district requires increased setbacks in comparison to the PD. Kelly Park is surrounded by public streets on all four sides of the property. The setbacks along streets in the Institutional zoning district are increased in comparison to an internal property line on a site. It is not necessarily typical for a property to be completely surrounded by public streets and therefore have those increased setbacks on each side of the property. Specifically for the bandshell structure, the properties and buildings that are zoned PD 739 and that are directly adjacent to Kelly Park include buildings that are much larger in scale than the proposed bandshell structure, and they are as close as 10 feet to the streets. Lastly, the location of the bandshell is best suited for the existing grades of the site. It helps to maximize the lawn area for events that are held at the park and is oriented best for sun as related to those events. The location of the bandshell and relationship to the street parking area assists with staging and loading for the events that will be held at the park. For the restroom, again, those first three are pretty general to Kelly Park. For number four, buildings that are directly adjacent to that 152nd Street are as close as 10 feet to the street. And then for number five, the restroom pavilion structure will replace an existing restroom. The new restroom is near the same location and the restroom would utilize the existing utilities that the previous restroom utilizes. Lastly, the location of the restroom pavilion structure is optimal in relationship to other activities and amenities at Kelly Park. This structure also blocks active play areas from traffic along 152nd St. West. For the parking setback variance, again, related to the general findings for Central Village and Kelly Park, parking facilities that are nearby to this existing Kelly Park and the existing parking facility are as close as five feet to the public streets. The existing parking facility at Kelly Park does not adequately serve the demands, specifically during the events held at the park throughout the year. And lastly, the expanded parking facility will increase parking stalls and utilize the existing accesses off of 152nd St. West and 140th Street. This would be less disturbance than completely removing the existing parking, adding new access spaces, and relocating the parking area in order to meet the setbacks. In terms of grading, here I just wanted to show the bandshell. I did reference the grades in the suggested findings. So generally, the site is at a higher elevation on the north half and then slopes down, which kind of gives that amphitheater feel for the bandshell. In terms of utilities, one thing to note here is that the park, as it stands today, doesn't necessarily have adequate stormwater mitigation. So with these proposed improvements would be five new stormwater basins and the utilities needed for that. And then both the grading and utility have been reviewed by the engineering department and their comments and conditions are included in the memo that was attached to the staff report. For landscaping, the proposed improvements would cause the removal of about 80 trees from the site, but with that, the proposed landscape plan shows the addition of 90 trees, as well as other various plantings. Here are a couple of renderings that were provided. This would be the bandshell structure. Currently, there's a little stage area in the more of the northeast area of the park; now this would be the new structure in the southwest area of the park. There's a rendering of it at night for events that would be held at the park. And then this would be the restroom pavilion structure. For elevations, the primary building material of both the bandshell and the restroom buildings is a rock-face CMU, and then secondary materials would include concrete metal panels and then some wood planks and prefinished aluminum along the roof and the trim of the building. The restroom facility here, you can see the rock-face CMU along all four sides of the building. And with that, if the planning commission has no outstanding questions or concerns, staff would recommend the following actions. I do just want to note that if you do see fit to make a motion tonight, please refer to the motions as on the slides. We did add a couple of provisions to the motions, basically referring back to the findings that staff has suggested. Then also each motion would need to be subject to City Council approval of the rezoning of Kelly Park from the PD to the Institutional zoning district. And with that, I can stand for any questions. Thank you. [29:36] Chair Brian Scanlon: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Does the applicant or parks group want to add anything? [30:00] Eric Carlson (Parks and Recreation Director): Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Thanks, Sydney, for the report. A couple of things to add that weren't necessarily highlighted in the report: we are planning to put solar panels on both facilities, and we are also planning to reuse the water from the splash pad for irrigation purposes, so trying to do what we can for the environment. Sydney pointed out that we're also adding some storm water treatment on-site, because that's something that the site lacks at this point, so we're really excited about the improvements. We hope to get started in July and hope to be ready for concert season in the spring of '26 if all goes well. And I can stand and answer any questions you may have. [30:40] Commissioner: Does the park department book the entertainment? [30:44] Eric Carlson: Well, the city works with the Apple Valley Arts Foundation, who books all of the entertainment and schedules it. And so we have a very good relationship with the Apple Valley Arts Foundation that takes care of that piece. One other thing to note—I want to point out—there's going to be a roughly 25 by 15 video board on the right-hand side of the stage there, and we plan to start a "Movies in the Park" type program as well as having live concerts. And that video board could be used for other things that we may not have even imagined at this point. But there'll be speakers in the park so that we're not blasting sound from just the stage around the exterior of the seating area. So when we have a movie in the park event, the volume can be kept at a more reasonable level. It should be a much-improved experience from what people are experiencing now at music in the park on Fridays in this new venue, and again, we're excited to get it constructed. [31:52] Chair Brian Scanlon: Okay, thank you. We're excited to see it go forward and how well Kelly Park gets used at this point, and what the future is going to bring even more so. I think so, yeah. So appreciate all the work that you're doing, not just with this, with all the park systems, and the work that's coming forward. So appreciate you and your staff. Thank you. [32:16] Eric Carlson: Thank you. [32:18] Commissioner Pruitt: Yeah, Chair, I was just going to say thank you as well. It looks really nice, and thanks for all your work on this. Excited to be there and experience it. [32:27] Eric Carlson: Awesome. Thank you. [32:34] Chair Brian Scanlon: All right, at this stage, I guess it's what is the pleasure of the commission to move forward with this this evening. Each one of these would be done with individual votes. So we'll have to do four readings if we move forward. Could I get a motion, please? [32:51] Commissioner Mahold: Sure, I can. I would make a motion to recommend approval of variances to reduce building setbacks along streets for the bandshell structure from 35 feet to 20 feet along Galante Lane and from 35 feet to 23 feet along 140th Street based on findings one through five as discussed, subject to city council approval of rezoning Kelly Park from PD 739 to Institutional. [33:23] Commissioner Sandel: Second. [33:28] Chair Brian Scanlon: That was moved by Commissioner Mahold and second by Commissioner Sandel. All in favor indicate by saying "Aye." [33:41] Commissioners: Aye. [33:42] Chair Brian Scanlon: That carries to move forward. [33:47] Commissioner Haas: I would make a motion to recommend approval of variance to reduce building setbacks along the streets for the restroom and pavilion structure from 35 to 20 feet along 152nd Street West based on the findings one through six, subject to city council approval of rezoning Kelly Park from PD 739 to Institutional. [34:10] Commissioner Schindler: Second. [34:15] Chair Brian Scanlon: That was moved by Commissioner Haas and seconded by Commissioner Schindler. Please indicate your vote by approval of "Aye" or disapproval by "Nay." [34:28] Commissioners: Aye. [34:30] Chair Brian Scanlon: That also carries. Can I have a motion on number three, please? [34:34] Commissioner Pruitt: I'll make a motion to recommend approval of variances to reduce parking setbacks along public streets from 20 feet to 13 feet along Foliage Avenue, from 20 feet to 10 feet along 152nd St. W., and from 20 feet to 10 feet along 140th Street based on findings one through six, subject to City Council approval of rezoning Kelly Park from PD 739 to Institutional. [35:05] Commissioner Schindler: Second. [35:09] Chair Brian Scanlon: That was moved by Commissioner Pruitt and seconded by Commissioner Schindler. Please indicate your approval by "Aye." [35:19] Commissioners: Aye. [35:21] Chair Brian Scanlon: That also carries. And could I get a motion on number four, please? [35:25] Commissioner Haas: I recommend approval of site plan and building permit authorization for construction of a bandshell structure, restroom, and pavilion structure, and other improvements at Kelly Park, subject to City Council approving a rezoning of Kelly Park from PD 739 to Institutional. [35:40] Commissioner Schindler: Second. [35:42] Chair Brian Scanlon: That was moved by Commissioner Haas and seconded by Commissioner Schindler. Indicate approval by "Aye." [35:54] Commissioners: Aye. [35:56] Chair Brian Scanlon: That also carries. They will move on to City Council next. All right. Move on to our next order of business, and that is other business. [36:15] Sydney (City Staff): Chair Scanlon, for upcoming events, we have the Planning Commission on May 7th, as well as the subsequent Planning Commission meeting on May 21st. We do have a public hearing set for the May 7th meeting. For City Council, there will be a meeting on April 24th and then on May 8th as well. [36:34] Chair Brian Scanlon: Okay, thank you. And with that, I will entertain an adjournment. [36:39] Commissioner Schindler: Move we adjourn. [36:41] Commissioner Haas: Second. [36:44] Chair Brian Scanlon: Moved by Commissioner Schindler and second by Commissioner Haas. Indicate your approval by indicating "Aye." [36:51] Commissioners: Aye. [36:57] Chair Brian Scanlon: That concludes tonight's meeting. Thank you.