Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/05/2007CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 5, 2007 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Jeannine Churchill at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Jeannine Churchill, Tom Melander, Frank Blundetto, Tim Burke, Keith Diekmann, David Schindler and Thomas Helgeson Members Absent: None. Staff Present: Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes, City Attorney Sharon Hills, Assistant City Engineer David Bennett and Department Assistant Barbara Wolff 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Churchill asked if there were any changes to the agenda. There being none, she called for approval of the agenda. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Commissioner Helgeson to approve the agenda. The motion carried 7-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2007 Chair Churchill asked if there were any changes to the minutes, There being none she called for approval of the minutes. MOTION: Commissioner Melander moved, seconded by Commissioner Burke, to recommend approval of the minutes of the meeting of November 14, 2007. The motion carried 6-0; Commissioner Helgeson abstained. 4. 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE/ACTIONS Rusty Fifield of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. stepped forward to give the Planning Commission an update on the 2030- Comprehensive Plan Update. Representatives of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. and City staff met to discuss the three critical land issue areas: • Cedar Avenue Corridor -roadways and transit areas • Downtown area - a broader downtown azea with a significant. amount of mixed uses • Fischer property -large, undeveloped piece of land with potential for key roadway links, jobs, goods and services, and housing. There will be a workshop to involve the public in the first quarter of 2008. A date will be published on the website of when this workshop will occur. S:Aplaoning~PI.ANCOMM~2007 agenda & minutes\I205b7mdoc Chair Churchill added that information for the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update is found on the City's website and, again,. she encouraged residents to fill out input forms. 5. CONSENT ITEM --NONE-- 6. PUBLIC HEARING ---NONE--- LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Ghuran Variance -Consideration of a variance to allow for a front deck higher than 18 inches from grade to encroach into the front yard setback. Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes presented the request for a variance to increase. the height of a front yard deck from the maximum of 18 inches to 5 feet from grade, and a variance to add a railing to a front yard deck. The Ghuran residence, located at 5180 142na Path West, is zoned R-3 which requires a front setback of 30 feet. If a front yard deck were to he constructed on the property, the deck could encroach up to 8 feet into the setback provided the deck was not any higher than 18 inches from grade and did not have a railing. The subject house is now approximately 30 feet from the front property line. The applicant wishes to construct a front deck measuring approximately 8 ft. by 17 ft. off the kitchen, which is placed in the front of the house. The applicant wishes to use the front deck to eat outdoors. The deck measures 5 feet from grade and has 2.5 foot glass panels, and is on brick posts. The building code requires railings on decks that are more than 3 feet from grade. The deck will be 22 feet from the front property line, which complies with the code; however, the height of the deck and the railing on the deck do require variances. The applicant's home is a split-level house with a long front. The house has a flat front without much detail to break up the front plane. The applicant stated he would like to create more relationship with the street and that the front deck will help to achieve that goal, but he is unable to add a front porch or patio that connects with the interior of the house because of the house's basic design. Split-level homes do not readily or easily allow for connected front decks or patios. Consequently, the applicant states he is unable to create more street presence. The state statutes and City Code require that in order to grant a variance, the City must determine the following: 1) Special conditions applying to the structures or land in question are particular to such property, or immediately adjoining property. 2) The special conditions do not generally apply to other land or structures in the district. 3) The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. S:Aplanuing~PLANCOMM~2007 agenda & minutes\120507m.doc 4) The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The applicant's request is unusual and City staff is unable to think of any similar requests to construct a front deck on a split-level home. There are many split-level homes in Apple Valley, and the house is not unique. Also, there is no demonstrable hardship related to the . land or to the structure necessitating the placement of a deck taller than 18 inches from the grade in the front yard. However, the request does seek to make an improvement to the house by creating more street presence, which the City has supported in the past. The City has approved variances for front porches, covered entries, house additions and the like all with the goal of encouraging homeowners to reinvest in their homes, create street presence, add architectural elements, and the like. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan encourages reinvestment in homes constructed before 1980. The subject house was constructed in 1978. Also, the deck has glass panels that will be much less intrusive than a typical wooden deck, Staff also believes the front deck will not have an adverse impact on neighboring properties. The applicant has. submitted signatures from neighbors stating they do not oppose the requested front deck (although the signature page refers to a "balcony"). Staff believes the requested variances will help the applicant achieve more street presence. The proposed deck has materials that are compatible with the existing homes, and is relatively unobtrusive since it uses glass panels. However, staff is concerned about the precedent that will be set by approving the variance, and is recommending the City exercise caution in reviewing the request. It may be that the Planning Commission and City Council. direct staff to create standards or design guidelines for the remodeling of split-level homes. Commissioner Diekmann asked if there are any stairs leading from the deck to the ground. Dykes replied there would be no stairs. It's more like a balcony, although building code defines it as a deck. A balcony is firmly attached to the primary structure. Any structure with posts extending to the ground is considered a deck. Commissioner Diekmann was concerned whether the windows below the deck are egress or not and whether there would be living space or not underneath the deck. Dykes replied that the plan would be thoroughly reviewed by building inspections Chair Churchill stated creates more of a neighborhood feel. Commissioner Blundetto stated that he would not task staff at this point for setting standazds for front yard decks. Commissioner Burke agrees with Commissioner Blundetto as he does not think there will be a rush of new ideas coming forward. Rai Ghuran, the petitioner, clarified that below the deck is a laundry room so it is not a living space. There are no egress windows as it does not qualify for a bedroom. Chair Churchill requested a motion. Siplanaiug~PLANWMM~20W agenda & minutes\I20507mdoc MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Commissioner Melander to recommend the following: A variance for the construction of a front deck on the single-family residence located at 5180 142°d Path West to increase maximum height of the front deck from 18 inches from grade to 5 feet from grade as shown on the submitted plan received in City offices on November 26,.2007, to improve the front appearance of the house and because it is in keeping with the spirit and intent. of the Comprehensive Plan, subject to all applicable City codes and standards, and the following conditions: a) The deck shall be constructed in a workman-like manner. b) -The deck shall be constructed of materials shown on the submitted plans, which shall be compatible with the primary structure including the use of brick posts colored to match the brick used on the house, and tempered glass panels for railings. The motion carried 7-0. 2. Recommend approval of a variance to install glass panel railings on a front deck to be constructed on asingle-family residence located at 5180 142°d Path West. The motion carried 7-0. B. Wensmann 15th Addition -Consider zoning amendments, subdivision of a 6.2 acre outlot into 2 lots and one;outlot; and site plan/building permit authorization to allow for construction of 31 townhouse dwelling units and a 60 unit senior apartment building. Chair Churchill opened the item by thanking everyone that was involved in the public process. She thanked those that voiced their opinions, and the citizens of Apple Valley for taking the time to get involved. She went on to say this project has strong support and strong opposition. There have been comments at the public hearings about the potential for increased crime. People have offered to bring the Planning Commission statistics and to furnish information. However, no one has supplied this information to the Commission. There were requests to supply information from cities such as New York City and Chicago. Chair Churchill said developments located in those cities are not applicable to this particular proposal as this is such a small area within the City of Apple Valley. City Planner Tom Lovelace stated that the petifioner is requesting zoning amendments, subdivision, and site plan building permit authorization for proposed 31 townhome units and a 60-unit senior apartment building on approximately 6.2 acres located at the southwest corner of 145x' Street West and future Flagstaff Avenue. The zoning ordinance amendments would add senior apartments as a permitted use, reduce the number of required parking spaces in conjunction with a senior apartment, and reduce the street width of the private drive serving the site. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2007 agenda & minutes\120507m.doc The subdivision request would split the east 6.2 acres of Outlot C, Wensmann 13th Addition into two lots and one outlot. Finally, the requested site plan building permit authorization would allow for construction of 31 townhomes and one 60-unit senior apartment building. The proposed townhomes are consistent with the current zoning. Lovelace presented the proposed amendments to the planned development ordinance: Apartment multiple-dwellings for senior citizens provided they are serviced by public sanitary sewer and water systems. The maximum density shall not exceed 28 units per acre. On-site parking shall be provided at a rate of 1.1 spaces per unit and a minimum of one space per unit shall be enclosed. All private drives that serve at-grade parking garages shall have a minimum paved driving surface of 24 feet and no vehicle parking shall be within the driving surface. Development on this site will require the completion of 145th Street West to the east and the extension of Flagstaff Avenue to 145th Street West.. Since. the proposal was presented at previous Planning Commission meetings, the CDA has made changes to the plan that addressed concerns expressed by the City's Natural Resource Coordinator and Traffic Engineer. In addition, the number of parking spaces has increased from 17 to 30 spaces now available for guests. Lovelace reviewed the comments from the public hearing of October 17, 2007 with staff responses. A comment was received about the public hearing notification process and the lack of information on the citizen notice. Staff response -Public hearing. notices are published in the ThisWeek newspaper, the City's official newspaper. A public hearing notice and citizen nonce is sent out to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. A copy of the public hearing notice and citizen notice was attached with the November 14~' staff report. Although not a requirement and when appropriate, the City will post signs on the property at prominent locations to inform any other concerned residents from outside of the required notification area of the public hearing. The City did not initially put up a public hearing sign because of the location of the property and its proximity to public streets and intersections, but did locate a sign along the south side of 145th Street West and Flora Way on or about November 5, 2007. An e-mail was received with several concerns about the CDA project. Staff response -This was addressed with a memo and additional information from the Dakota County CDA that was attached with the November 14th staff report. Lovelace continued with comments received at the public hearing of November 14, 2007, which was held open from the October 17, 2007 meeting. S:\planning\PLANCOMIM2007 agenda & minutcsU 20507m.doc A comment was received about what the City is doing to bring more single people in their 30's and 40's into the city. Staff response -The City reviews proposals to ensure that development will do the following: • Nurture a healthy and safe living environment for all its residents. • Support businesses and business expansion to provide employment opportunities and services to all residents. • Provide services and programs that connect Apple Valley and reflect community pride such as the preservation of significant natural amenities; greenways and pathways; recreational and leisure time activities; cooperative programs and support with school districts, Minnesota. Zoo, Dakota County, and other regional and state agencies. • Provide a balance of a wide variety of housing types and values within the city for people that currently reside or desire to live in Apple Valley. A comment was received that if the value of their homes diminish in value as the result of this proposal, what recourse will homeowners have. Staff response-Maxfield Research, Inc., a private real estate firm studied home sales in surrounding neighborhoods surrounding affordable rental housing developments built between 1993 and 1997 in 11 Twin Cities suburbs that included Burnsville, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights and Lakeville in Dakota County. Their findings were the following: • Prices of homes located near affordable rental housing grew at least as quickly after the rental housing was built as before. • Prices of homes located near affordable housing were as high as or higher than those located farther from rental housing in 98% ofthe cases. • Home sellers generally received at least as high a percentage of their asking price for their homes after the construction of nearby rental housing as before. • Homes sold as quickly or more quickly after the construction of nearby rental housing as they did before the rental housing was built. Comments were received regarding the lack of a park in the development and the impact this development will have on the existing park system. Staff response -The City strives to provide the highest quality parks and recreation systems to meet the needs of city residents and is also financially practical. This includes providing neighborhood parks that will have a %2 mile service area and may include playground equipment, skating rink; field and court games, tennis, hockey and a shelter building. The proposed CDA site is located within a % mile of Cedar Isles Park, a neighborhood park with playground equipment, and outdoor basketball and volleyball courts; and Johnny Cake Ridge Park West, a community park that has playground equipment, ball diamonds, playfields, outdoor basketball, tennis, and volleyball courts, hockey and skating rinks, a skateboard park, a teen center/shelter building and water park. The site is also within up to one mile from seven additional neighborhood parks and Johnny Cake Park East. It appears that the general area would provide an ample amount of public recreation amenities and activities for residents within the proposed development. Also, the proposed development will have a playground and gazebo in the townhouse development. Comments were received regarding impacts to the school district. Staff response - In determining population, the City estimates that each townhouse dwelling unit will have 1.96 to 2.107 persons per unit. Therefore, an estimated population for the 31 unit townhouse project would be 61 to 65 persons. School District #196 estimates that a townhouse will have S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2007 agenda & minutes\120507m.doc approximately .265 students per unit. They break that number down further and estimate that there will be .12 elementary, .06 middle school and .08 high school students per unit. Therefore, this proposed development would generate 4 elementary, 2 middle school and 2.5 high school students. These would be estimates that the school district would use for their planning purposes, and these numbers may vary when other factors are taken into consideration. Comments were received regarding if there were any guarantees that Wensmann Homes will build the remaining four buildings to the west of the proposed CDA site. Staff response -The buildings in question are part of the Wensmann 14th Addition, which was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission at their meeting of November 14, 2007. Wensmann Homes has made application for final plat approval and a draft development agreement has been prepared, which is currently being reviewed by Wensmann Homes. Although final plat and development agreement approval is the last step prior to issuance of a building permit for construction, there are no guarantees that this or any approved project will be constructed. Concerns were raised about the look of the building. Staff response -The building elevations for the townhomes indicate the use of lap siding, shakes, and brick as the exterior finish materials. The senior aparhnent building will have an exterior fmish consisting of brick, stone and "Hardi Panel" siding. The planned development zoning ordinance. requires that "non- combustible, non-degradable and maintenance-free materials (such as face brick or natural stone); non-manufactured materials such as cedar or redwood; or manufactured , non- combustible, high quality cementituos fiberboard, sometimes referred to as "Hardi Plank" or "Hardi Panel" shall be deemed an acceptable material". The "PD" ordinance also states that "the use of vinyl, steel, aluminum, or similar materials for the primary exposed fmish shall not be allowed". The submitted plans are consistent with the planned development ordinance requirements and the petitioner has not requested a variance from those requirements. A comment was received regarding whether the proposed senior apartment site is the best location. Staff response -Generally, ideal sites for senior apartments should be located near, generally within a th mile, of health care facilities, grocery and other retail shopping, and community services. The site is located within a t/z mile of the Apple Valley Medical Center, Fischer Marketplace retail center, the Apple Valley Municipal Center, Dakota County Western Services Center, and Galaxie Library. The site is also within approximately 1 mile of Southport, Apple Valley Square, and Times Square shopping centers; Cub and Rainbow grocery stores, and Health Partners Medical Clinic. It should be noted that up to 95% of the elderly continue to drive and are not hesitant to drive five or more miles to purchase goods and services. It would appear that the site would meet the location criteria for a senior apartment site. Comments were received regarding the screening process for tenants. Staff response -The petitioner has provided copies of their lease and application forms and information regarding their screening firm who does credit checks and nationwide criminal history checks for all applicants. The CDA also indicated that they do independent landlord and utility credit reference checks. All adult members of the family are screened for a criminal record, landlord references and credit history. Arrest or conviction for serious crimes against people or property, poor landlord references, and poor rental payment history are a basis for denial. 9:\planning\PLANCOMM\2007 agenda & minutes\120507m.doc Comments were raised regarding the crime associated with CDA developments. Staff response - The Dakota County CDA currently has six housing complexes in the city. According to Pam Walter, Crime Prevention Specialist for the City, the CDA participates in the Crime Free Multi- Housingprogram, which consists of manager training, security survey of the property, setting up a resident apartment Watch Group. The property managers also regularly attend the monthly Multi-Housing Coalition meeting and take advantage of other training available through their participation in the Crime Multi-Housing program. The CDA tracks all calls for service to their properties every 6 months and take any necessary action as warranted. Leases are terminated for serious or repeated violations of any lease clause including drugs or abuse of alcohol. All CDA properties rave an-site caretakers; and property managers visit the properties or. a regular basis. For comparative purposes, staff asked the Police Deparirnent to provide information regarding police activity in the CDA's 27-unit Chasewood and 39-unit Glenbrook Place townhouse developments and fora 32-unit and 36-unit townhouse development in the city. For the years 2005-06 the 32-unit townhouse development had a total of 4 police calls (.125 calls per unit) and the 36-unit development had 44 calls (1.2 calls per unit). The Chasewood development had 49 calls (1.8 calls per unit) and Glenbrook Place had 56 calls (1.4 calls per unit). As a further comparison, we looked at the police calls for the same two years fora 248-unit single family development, and found that in 2005-06 the police responded to 754 calls (3.04 calls per dwelling). Lovelace stated these numbers were a broad look at the criminal activity within a variety of locations and the data does not delve into the specific police reports generated that would list what the officer observed upon arrival at the call and the response and action taken by the officer responding. This would require a more in depth study by a trained crime analyst, which the City does not currently employ. Lovelace stated that Apple Valley Sergeant John Bermel was available to provide insight from the "on the beat" perspective and answer any specific quesfions the Commission may have. Sergeant John Bermel stepped forward to address the Commission's questions. Chair Churchill asked Bermel if he perceived the CDA developments to have any specific problems or a pattern of crime that he does not see elsewhere within the City. Bermel replied that the calls are standard and are not any different from those received from other multi-family housing developments. The number of calls and the type of calls is consistent. Chair Churchill asked if in his knowledge and experience, putting the CDA on this location gives him any cause for concern. Bermel said no. He said one of his duties at the Police Department is to supervise a Neighborhood Collaboration Officer Project and he works very closely with owners and managers of multiple housing and apartment buildmgs in town. The Police Department has a good relationship with the CDA, and they run their properties very well. The CDA attends the S:Aplauning~PLANCOMM~2007 agenda & minutes\120507m.doo Police Department's meetings and training, and there is a good working relationship between the City and CDA. Commissioner Blundetto asked if Bermel could comment about alcohol abuse, drug abuse and crime in general.. Berrnel stated that there are no more or less drugs and alcohol in multiple housing than in single- familyhousing. However, because people share common walls in multiple housing or apartment developments, the City commonly receives police calls for domestics, public nuisance, noise reports, assisting other jurisdiction reports, thefts and burglaries in multi-housing units. In terms of alcohol or drags, those are no more or no less prevalent inmulti-housing than in single-family housing. Commissioner Helgeson asked if Bermel had any statistics showing an increase in nuisance crimes in areas surrounding a CDA property, including those committed by kids. Bermel stated that this is referred to as juvenile crimes and this type of crime happens in areas where juveniles live, whether that is single-family housing or multiple housing developments. He said he does not see any prevalence in juvenile crime related to the CDA properties. The main factor in juvenile crimes is kids, not the housing type. Commissioner Melander asked if there are more problems in rental areas than in owner- occupied areas. Bermel replied that in his research, the rental properties account for about 5% of the Police Department's calls. Rental properties tend to be more densely populated but proportionately, there are no more or no less problems in rental areas than in owner occupied areas. Commissioner Blundetto asked if the Planning Commission should be alarmed or worried by CDA coming in and creating a problem in the city. Bermel said no, the Planning Commission should not be alarmed or worried. The CDA manages their properties very well. Chair Churchill thanked Sergeant Berrnel for taking the time to come tonight. Lovelace added that regarding the parking issue and the amount of parking available, he spoke with the Code Enforcement Officers and asked about the number of calls related to the Glenbrook and Chasewood developments. One Code Enforcement Officer was not even aware of the Glenbrook development. He was aware of the Chasewood development, although there have not been any calls related to either of these developments. as far as they recall. Chair Churchill asked Lovelace to explain the difference between a Police call and a Code Enforcement call. Lovelace stated that the Code Enforcement Officers respond to nuisance, housing maintenance calls or parking issues that are not under the responsibility of the Police Department. Code Enforcement Officers are able to go onto private property. Lovelace completed the remainder of the comments and staff responses S:ApJanningAPLANCONIIv1~2007 agenda & minutes\120507m.doc Comments were raised about the potenfial for the increase in traffic in the Cedar Isles Estates neighborhood, in particular, teens driving through the neighborhood to get to Eastview High School. Staff response - It is expected that the proposed townhouse development will generate approximately 182 vehicle trips per day and the senior apartments approximately 198 trips per day. A vehicle trip is defined as a motor vehicle moving from an origin point to a destination point. Therefore, a trip to the grocery or school and back home would equal two vehicle trips. As with any project being developed, adjacent to an existing development, there is always the chance for cut-through trips through the existing neighborhood. This development is located adjacent to a local street with direct connections to Foliage and future Flagstaff Avenues, two collector streets and Galaxie Avenue, a minor arterial road. We would expect that the majority of the traffic generated from this development would gain quick access to these streets when moving in and out of the development. Flagstaff Avenue will be constructed in the future from 145th Street West to 140th Street West, which would provide a more direct access to and from this proposed development to Eastview High School. A comment was raised that this is not in a transit. oriented development. Staff response -The CDA tries to locate developments inclose proximity to transit stations or along bus routes when land opportunities are available, although many of their developments are not located adjacent to transit stations or routes. The CDA goes further to explain that the family townhouse developments serve working. families and are sometimes referred to as workforce housing and the vast majority of the households residing in these developments own theft own vehicle. Chair Churchill commented that the senior building is designated in the City Ordinance to be a senior building so that the parking is reduced because of this designation. If the apartment were to be changed into another use at later date, the number of parking spaces would need to be increased. Lovelace said that was correct. A future developer would need to meet the 2.5 spaces per unit, which would be rather difficult as because of the site design and the amount of landscaping required, etc. This may ensure the site remains a senior housing project. Chair Churchill asked Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist to outline what happens next. Nordquist stated that Planning staff would pursue a study session with the City Council because the project is complex and many citizens are interested in the outcome. No study sessions are scheduled for the month of December, so it would go on the Council's agenda on January 10, 2008, if it moves forwazd. Lovelace gave an update on the 60-day requirement, stating that state statute requires a review within 60 days so that a recommendation can be received and action taken by the City Council. A city is are able to ask for an additiona160 days if more information comes forward that must be taken under review. That scenario applies to the subject proposal, and the City has extended the review time for an additiona160 days, which would end around the end of January. Commissioner Schindler stated that he is opposed to this project because the owners of Midtown Village bought into an idea, a concept, and a neighborhood. The number of residents that would S:Aplanning~PLANCOMM~2007 agenda & minutes~120507m.doc 10 be part of the associafion will be cut by approximately a third, which loses a third of the amount of money going into supporting the amenities, thus raising the cost of association dues for current owners. He stated that Chair Churchill mentioned at the last meeting that she was concerned about single family owners renting. out their homes. The City Council is also looking at getting a handle on people renting out their homes because they are concerned as well_ He stated that owners have more vested interests in the neighborhood than those that rent. He was also concerned that aone-stall garage and cone-stall driveway will not be enough parking. This is one of the biggest issues within the City and doesn't even see this as a possibility in this development. Commissioner Schindler asked Kari Gill, representative of the Dakota County Development Agency (CDA), if the types of people living in these townhomes are college and high school graduates or families. Gill responded that it is mostly families, whether atwo-parent family or asingle-parent family. Commissioner Schindler asked if they accept families with children of driving age. Gill responded that yes they do, although most of the families have children that are around the pre-school to elementary age. Gi11 elaborated that the CDA does not allow people to park on a regular basis in the visitor parking spots. Most people have one car, some have two, which would need to be parked in front of their garage. The on-site caretaker monitors the number of cars to ensure there are parking conflicts, and renters must have written percussion to own more than three vehicles. At other developments that the CDA owns, the visitor parking has been sufficient Commissioner Melander said he is also not in favor of this project for some of the same issues that Commissioner Schindler mentioned. This property was previously zoned for industrial uses. The City rezoned the property to accommodate Wensmann's plans to build high-end townhomes and now it is changing to rental housing. Commissioner Melander said he did not think the Commission would have supported the rezoning if rental had been part of the original proposal. Commissioner Blundetto said he looked at the land use issue, but understands both sides of the issue. He will be voting in favor and he's glad to seethe CDA involved in this project. Commissioner Diekmann supported the proposal. He believes the CDA does a nice job and this is a good use of the land. Comrissioner Burke said he read all of the materials and emails, and listened to the arguments. He said he would set the emotions aside and look at the land use side of it, and he will be voting in favor of the project. Chair Churchill clarified a comment made by Commissioner Schindler quoting her regarding rentals in the single-family areas. What she was referring to was people converting single family homes into apartment buildings. These are illegal. Also, paving over more area in front of the homes to accommodate more vehicles is what concerns her. Simply renting a single family home does not concern her. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2007 agenda & minutes\120507m-doc 11 Commissioner Helgeson said he understood both sides of this issue. He said the City needs this kind of housing and there are successful examples of this in Apple Valley. Though there are no assurances that Wensmann 14th Addition will be built, it is the buffer that makes this proposal okay for him. Because of the buffer, he will be voting in favor of this proposal. Chair Churchill stated the Cominission looks at transitions between neighborhoods and into industrial or commercial land uses. There are wonderful parks in the area. There were concerns from Cedar Isle residents that children from the CDA development would be coming over and using the parkin Cedar Isles. The parks in Apple Valley are public parks and everyone has the right to use these parks. They are all public unless they are contained within a private development. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Burke to recommend the following: 1. Approve the following amendments to Planned Development No. 746: a) Apartment multiple-dwellings for senior citizens provided they are serviced by public sanitary sewer and water systems. The maximum density shall not exceed 28 units per acre. b) On-site parking shall be provided at a rate of 1.1 spaces per unit and a minimum of one space per unit shall be enclosed. c) All private drives that serve at grade parking garages shall have a minimum paved driving surface of 24 feet and no vehicle parking shall be within the driving surface. The motion carved 5-2, with Commissioners Schindler and Melander voting against the proposal, 2. Approval of the Wensmann 15th Addition preliminary plat. The motion carried 5-2, with Commissioners Schindler and Melander voting against the proposal. 3. Approval of the site. plan and building permit authorization to allow for construction of a 60 unit senior apartment building on Lot 1, Block 1, Wensmann 15`" Addition. The motion carried 5-2, with Commissioners Schindler and Melander voting against the proposal. 4. Approval of the site plan building permit authorization to allow for construction of 31 townhouse dwelling units on Lot 1, Block 2, Wensmann 15th Addition. The motion carried 5-2, with Commissioners Schindler and Melander voting against the prcpcsal. Gill stepped forward to thank the Commission for their time and consideration. 8. OTHER BUSINESS S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2007 agenda & minutes\120507m.doc 12 ---NONE--- 9. ADJOiJRNMENT Chair Churchill asked if there was any other business. There being no other business, Chair Churchill asked for a motion of adjournment. MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Commissioner Schindler, to adjourn the meeting at 8:33 p.m. The motion carried 7-0. S:\planning\PLANCOMIvP2007 agenda & minutes\120507mdoc 13