Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/2008 CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMIVZISSION MINUTES April 16, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Jeannine Churchill at 7:04 p.m. Members Present: Jeannine Churchill, Keith Diekmann, Frank Blundetto and Thomas Helgeson Members Absent: Tom Melander, Tim Burke, David Schindler Staff Present: Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes, Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer, 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 ofthe agenda. MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Commissioner Blundetto to approve the agenda. The motion carried 4-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 2008 Chair Churchill asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There being none, she called for approval of the minutes. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by CommissionerBlundetto, to recommend approval of the minutes of the Apri12, 2008, meeting. The motion carried 3-0. Commissioner. Helgeson abstained. 4. 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE/ACTIONS Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist gave an update on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. An open house was held at City Hall on Apri19, 2008. The City's consultant, Rusty Fifield of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., did a great job and about 15 people were in attendance. There was a lot of dialogue and participation. The feedback was that the community appreciates the vision statement and there were also inquiries of community gardens, sustainability and affordable housing. The feedback is very much appreciated. 5. CONSENT ITEM --NONE-- 6. PUBLIC HEARING 1 S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\041608m.doc A. MVTA Interim Use Permit -Consideration of approval of an interim use permit (IUP) to allow for an overflow park and ride lot for 24 months. Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes stated that the petitioner Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) is requesting an Interim Use Permit to use the former Watson's site as a stand- alone surface parking lot. The site is just north of the Apple Valley Transit Station. The stand- aloneparking lot is meant to augment the existing park-and-ride lot. Because transit ridership has increased, the MVTA says there are no longer enough parking spaces at the existing park-and-ride lot. Consequently, the MVTA, in conjunction with Dakota County Regional Rail Authority, wants to use a portion of the subject lot as a stand-alone parking lot for the next 18-to-24 months to accommodate transit riders. The existing Watson's building is in the process of being demolished. The site plan shows a parking lot constructed in the location of the existing building. Approximately half of the 10-acre site will be used as a parking lot, and the remaining 5 acres will be fenced off for future development. The buildings in the fenced-off area will also be demolished. The subject lot has been discussed as the future site of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) improvements. The City desires an urban designed multi-story parking structure with interrelated commercial uses; essentially, a "new and improved" Apple Valley Transit Station. If any remaining land is not needed for transit, a housing component could also be added. The City Council reviewed and approved a study on March 27~' that will evaluate Transit Oriented Development on or near the site. Ciry staff believes that the subj ect site is appropriate for transit, but is concerned that if funding still needed is not forthcoming for the BRT improvements, structured parking, and commercial uses, the stand-alone surface parking lot might exist for longer than 24 months. MVTA has applied for federal funding that must be spent by September 30, 2009. If the MVTA receives that funding, and receives all necessary approvals, it intends to build some type of parking structure. However, there are no firm plans for the subject site at this time. Staff is comfortable with the stand-alone parking lot provided there is a commitment from MVTA that structured parking will be constructed on the site, and that commercial uses consistent with the present zoning will also be included. Long term, surface parking without development and the addition of housing would require a zoning change. A stand-alone parking lot is not a permitted primary use in this zoning district. However, the zoning district does allow, as a conditional use, "off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in another zoning district." The City could issue a Conditional Use Permit for the stand-alone parking lot in the future, but due to the uncertainty of possible improvements to the site, City staff believes the Interim Use Permit is the best approach at this time. This gives the City the ability to and MVTA the opportunity to continue discussions about the fmal plans for the site based on their required schedule for funding performance. Staff needs to receive regular reports and discussions with MVTA over the next 24 months to ensure the preferred outcome is achieved. The MVTA will use the existing Watson's parking lot, and demolish the building. There are 147 parking spaces on the site. Staff is comfortable with the continued use of these spaces. The plan proposes to add another 131 spaces, thereby adding 278 parking spaces for transit riders that are not S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\041608m.doc 2 currently available. The existing park-and-ride lot has 337 parking spaces and there are another 132 spaces shared with Carmike Cinema, The total number of parking spaces available for transit riders at the 155`" Street station and the stand-alone lot will be 747 spaces. The public hearing for this item was opened on Apri12, 2008. The hearing was left open so that more input from public agencies could be received. At the public hearing, the property owner of Carmilce Cinema stated they support additional MVTA parking on the subject site. No other comments were received. Dykes asked for questions from the Planning Commission. Hearing no comments from the Planning Commission, Chair Churchill asked for any representatives of the petitioner to comment on this issue. Petitioner Michael Abegg, Planner with Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) and Terry Olson of TKDA, project manager have no further comments, although would certainly take any questions from the Planning Commission. No questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Diekmann asked Dykes after the 24 month period, what happens to this site if MVTA isn't able to obtain funding. Oykes replied that Staff would review it at that point and work with MVTA to try and move this along. Staff assumes that there will at least be BRT improvements on this site. Chair Churchill hearing no further comments, closed the public hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Helgeson moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann to approve an Interim Use Permit for a Minnesota Valley Transit Authority stand-alone surface park-and-ride lot to be located at Lot 1, Block 1, Menard Addition, for an initial of 12 months, and with satisfactory progress, a period of 24 months from date of approval or Apri130, 2010, whichever is sooner, subject to all applicable City Codes and standards and the following conditions: 1. The property owner shall construct a new Apple Valley Transit Station on the subject site that has structured parking, commercial use components and housing components designed with an urban/mixed use character. 2. MVTA shall conform to its attached schedule titled "Station Triggering Events" as closely as possible. 3. The "Station Triggering Events" schedule shall be used as the basis for monthly reports from the applicant and quarterly meetings with City staff to monitor progress. 4. The existing 147 parking spaces on the site may be used for transit parking. 5. The proposed 131 parking spaces may be used for transit parking provided the MVTA conforms to the "Station Triggering Events" and complies with Conditions 1-3. S:\planning\PLANWMM\2008 agenda&minutes\041608m.doc 3 6. By April 30, 2010, MVTA shall construct stormwater infiltration areas on the subject site to accommodate the first '/z inch of any rainfall event. 7. The IUP shall be reviewed in the event the MVTA does not receive all necessary funding to construct the desired structure parking, commercial uses, and housing on the subject site. The motion carried 4-0. B. Legacy North Apartments and Commercial Development -Consider amendments to "PD-739" (Planned Development), and site plan building permit authorizations for six buildings (three apartment, one commercial, one commercial retail, and one retaiUapartment) on property. Associate City Planner Kathy Bodmer stated that the petitioner, Legacy Holdings/Hartford Group is considering the following: 1. Amend Planned Development #739 as follows: • Amend approved uses on the subject properties. • Amend the approved master development plan layout. • Revise the boundaries of the Planned Development subzones to conform to the platted lots. 2. Preliminary plat to consolidate Lots 1 & 2, Block 10, and reconfigure drainage and utility easements on Lot 1, Block 9, and Lots 1 & 2; Block 10. 3. Site plan review/buildingpermlt authorization to construct the following: • Three apartment buildings with a total of 151 units, • One 24,000 sq. ft. 2-story commerciaUretailbullding; • One 5-story mixed use building with 12,400 sq. ft. of commerciallretail space and 53 apartment units. The subject parcels are Lot 1, Block 7; Lot 1, Block 8; Lot 1, Block 9; and Lots 1 and 2, Block 10. The parcels are generally located on the northeast corner of Galaxie Avenue and 153rd Street. Overview: The Legacy North Apartments and Commercial development project includes the following specific elements: • Lot 1, Block 7: A 2-story building with 24,000 sq. ft. of retail and commercial/office space. No underground parking is proposed to be provided for this building. The floor plans indicate that a 3,300 sq. ft. restaurant is proposed to be located on the south end of the building abutting Fortino Street. • Lot 1, Block 8: A 5-story mixed-use retail and apartment building along with astand-alone restaurant pad. The two buildings will share an underground parking garage and essentially function as one building. The restaurant pad will be approximately 6,700 sq. ft. The 5-story building will have 5,700 sq. ft. of commercial on the first floor, and 53 apartment units on the balance of the first floor and on stories 2 through 5. The retail area of the 5-story building will be primarily oriented to Galaxie Avenue. A total of 57 underground garage spaces are provided for this site. S:\planningV'LANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\041608m.doc 4 • Lot 1, Block 9 and Lots 1 & 2, Block 10: Three apartment buildings with a total of 151 units. The building on Lot 1, Block 9 is 3 stories tall and contains 49 units. The building on Lot 1, Block 10 is 3 stories tall and contains 28 units. The building on Lot 2, Block 10 is four stories tall and contains 74 units. The two buildings on Lots 1 and 2, Block 10, share underground and surface parking and will function as one site. Parking Issues: The parking provided for the overall development falls short ofthe required ntunber of parking spaces. First, no visitor parking was calculated for the apartment units. Second, specific seating information was not provided for what is presumed to be a 3,300 sq. ft. restaurant pad on Lot 1, Block 7 and a 6,700 sq. ft. restaurant pad on Lot 1, Block 8. It appears that the additional parking spaces on Lot 1, Block 7, will help to meet the needs of parking on Lot 1, Block 8, depending upon the size of any restaurants. The petitioner will need to provide a shared parking model that confirms that the shared parking on Blocks 7 and 8 is adequate for all of the proposed uses, including restaurants. Any approval of the commercial parcels will likely include a limitation on the size and/or types of restaurants that may be located on these two parcels. On the apartment sites, it appears that visitor parking requirements can be met with on-street parking on Lot 1, Block 9. However, even with on-street parking, the shortfall of parking spaces on Block 10 will be 30 spaces. Setbacks: The apartment buildings are shown located as little as 5' from 153`d Street with decks located as little as 3' from the property line. The minimtun required setback is 15'. The 15° minimum setback was established for Zone 1 because residential units will be located on the ground floor of the buildings. Impacts to the units such as loss of privacy, noise and other issues will need to be addressed. The petitioner indicated that they are revising their plans to ensure that the decks will not encroach into the 5' drainage and utility easement. Exterior Elevations: Staff is concerned about the elevations of the apartment buildings along 153`d Street. The difference in elevation suggests that there would be a significant rock-faced block wall adjacent to 153rd Street. The petitioner is reviewing the grade information and will provide revised elevations. Staff is also concerned that the exterior design of the apartment buildings lacks some of the architectural interest that was provided in the recently approved Regent Senior building to the south. Staff will investigate whether the impact to the tenants may beoff--set by the fact that the first floor is over 6' above the street elevation. There are outstanding issues related to mechanical equipment and screening that will need to be reviewed in more detail with the petitioner to ensure the requirements of the code are met. Vacation of Fortino Street: The petitioner is requesting the vacation of the one block portion of Fortino Street between Lot 1, Block 7, and Lot 1, Block 8 to create a pedestrian connection and outdoor dining area. The City Council opened and closed the public hearing for considering the vacation at their April 10, 2008, meeting. No action was taken pending the final review and approval of the development of Lot 1, Block 7, and Lot 1, Block 8. Bodmer concluded her presentation and asked for questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Dielanann asked what was used for the residential parking ratio. S:\planning\PLANC6MM\2008 agenda&minu[es\041608m.doc 5 Bodmer replied that the residential parking ratio is one gazage space for each unit and the City requires one on-street parking space for each additional bedroom and a half space per unit for visitor parking. Commissioner Diekmann asked how Staff is calculating the parking since we don't know what is going into the commercial space. Bodmer stated that the developer would need to show the staff a plan and commit to us how much restaurant space they want to have on the site and the City would hold them at that number. Staff would limit the square footage. Commissioner Diekmann asked what commercial uses are acceptable on this site in this zoning. Specifically, are Class I Restaurants acceptable with residential above? Bodmer stated, technically, yes. Commissioner Diekmann stated that this would be a safety issue. He asked if Fire had any eoncems with the large parking garage underneath the apartment building with only one entrance/exit. Bodmer stated that Fire did not identify that as an issue; it is not uncommon, although they would like more entrances and exits. Chair Churchill asked if the petitioner would like to add anything else. Petitioner Frank Janes with Hartford Group stepped forward to address the Commission. After the last Planning Commission meeting, Hartford did meet the following day with Staff to discuss the concerns. We are well on our way to resolving the issues and have resolved many of the issues. We only have one or two remaining issues that we are still working on. Janes addressed some specific issues on Blocks 7 & 8. The site is currently over-parked on Lot 7 and under-parked on Lot 8. Hartford will be requesting cross-parking between the two sites. We believe that between the two sites, there is adequate parking. We are working. on a calculation for restaurant space to put into the development agreement so that space will be limited. As a result of meeting with a couple Council members and the Mayor, the next set of plans will show a change in the elevation on Block 7 to enhance the look. The intersection of Galaxie Avenue and 153`d Street, will have a 5-story building with first floor retail. We believe the azchitectural detail, decks, building materials and colors will create a focal point. A plaza space between Blocks 7 & 8 - area of Fortino Street that we will be requesting to be vacated - will be an open space with plantings and can create an outdoor eating area for restaurant space on the end caps. Janes continued to show many color renderings of what the project would look like and also color elevations. Janes also presented material boards for each of the commercial and residential buildings. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\041608mdoc Chair Churchill stated that the plans are a significant change from what was presented originally. What are the reasons for the change in direction? . Janes stated that over the past several months they've met with Staff and other City representatives about making some overall changes to the master plan that was originally approved three or four years ago. What was discussed is taking the concentration of residential along Galaxie Avenue, given market conditions and the evolution of the site, and moving it to along 153`d Street which will also give it closer proximity to Kelly Park. Commissioner Diekmann asked what the features on the site will be. Janes replied that they're considering a sculpture, fountain or a raised bed with ornamental fencing at the comer of Galaxie Avenue and 153`d Street. They will come up with some alternatives and discuss them with City Staff. The plaza area probably won't have any permanent features, although it does break up the frontage of buildings on Galaxie and allows pedestrians to enter the development from the street. Patio areas will be provided on the residential areas of Blocks 9 & 10. Also, an area will be provided off of 153' between Blocks 9 & 10 for pedestrians to enter the development. Commissioner Diekmann commented that he likes moving the residential off of Galaxie Avenue. His concem is that this project has been a fairly fluid design for the last two years and it has been market driven. How close is Hartford to moving into the ground with this project? Or is it going to continue to be fluid for another year or so until the market changes? Janes stated that it is their intent to move forward with this project. The development business is always a fluid business and that is the nature of the business. By putting this plan forward, it is our intent to get this approved and developed in this way. There is a lot of time and expense on the part of the City and Hartford. Commissioner Diekmann asked what the timeline is. Does Hartford expect to get into the ground this year? Janes said he would like to get the approvals in place and start construction this year. Our intent is to get it approved by the City, obtain financing and start construction on a tight timeline. Chair Churchill commented on the traffic in that area. She asked if Janes could speak to that. Janes stated originally the blocks along GSlaxie were approved for approximately 60 units of residential each. Now there is a little less than that on Block 8 and no residential units on Block 7. Block 1, which is not part of this development, is still a little uncertain. Overall, by our calculations, we're adding an additiona180-90 residential units under this current vision for the whole area, over and above what was originally approved. We've not exceeded the original residential units for the whole concept of the Central Village. This plan shows an increase in residential units and a decrease in commercial spaces. Chair Churchill asked for comments from the public. No one stepped forward to speak to this issue. Chair Churchill asked Bodmer if there are any plans or thoughts of traffic control on Foliage. hl the past, we've heard a lot about the traffic and accidents there. s:\planning\PLANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\041608m.doc '7 Bodmer stated that there has been several significant traffic accidents at the corner of Foliage and 153`d Street. Public Works added an additional stop sign in the median to help increase visibility. After speaking with the Police Department, this has helped. What was happening, if someone was in the north lane of the two lanes, and someone was at the comer, they would not see the stop sign and end up running through it. No other controls for Foliage Avenue aze proposed at all. One of the ' things our Traffic Engineer proposed is that no parking signs be posted along Block 10 on Foliage because of lack of visibility. Staff would need to talk further with Public Works about that. Chair Churchill asked if there were any thoughts of putting traffic lights at that intersection in the future if traffic becomes heavier. Bodmer replied that if there was a high traffic level, that would be considered. Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist commented that 153`d continues east and connects with 155`" Street at Pilot Knob Road. It is envisioned that this corridorwill be a central connection through the downtown east to west by 2030. Chair Churchill hearing no further comments closed the public hearing. 7. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Apple Valley Aquatic Center Expansion -Site Plan Review and Building Permit Authorization for an expansion of the existing Aquatic Center to include a lazy river, tube and bowl slide, mechanical building and auxiliary bathhouse. Associate City Planner Mazgazet Dykes stated that the petitioner, the City of Apple Valley is requesting site plan review and building permit authorization for an expansion ofthe existing Apple Valley Aquatic Center located at 14255 Johnny Calve Ridge Road. The expansion will add a lazy river, a tube and bowl slide, an additional 840 sq. ft. bathhouse and an additional 1,030 sq. ft. mechanical building. The proposed Aquatic Center expansion is part of the Park bond referendum that was approved by Apple Valley residents in 2007, and is part of the City's Capital Improvements Program. The CIP is a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Minnesota Statutes require the Planning Commission to review the authorization of any capital improvements to determine if the improvements are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending the Commission adopt the attached draft resolution finding the proposed Aquatic Center expansion is consistent with the Plan. The site plan shows the expansion of the existing Apple Valley Aquatic Center to include a lazy river, a tube and bowl slide, an additiona1840 sq. ft. bathhouse and an additional 1,030 sq. ft. mechanical building. The proposed expansion was part of the original plans approved by the City in 1998. The proposed lazy river, slide, and new buildings are to be constructed south of the existing pool. The . buildings and structures meet all required setbacks. The site is adjacent to Johnny Cake Ridge Road, which is a community collector. No additional curb cuts or access points will be added. There are 405 existing parking spaces on the site; no new parking is proposed or required. Pazking and traffic circulation were addressed at the time of approval in 1998. If additional parking is necessary, there is S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\041608m.doc g a 215-space parking lot that serves the Teen Center adjacent to the site. The site is accessed by existing bituminous trail on Johnny Cake Ridge Road. No additional pedestrian connections are necessary. The site is flat and minimal grading is necessary for the expansion. The City Engineer has no issues with the proposed plan. The site abuts a fairly steep slope to the south that helps to buffer the property from the Hanson Concrete facility. The Natural Resources Coordinator has reviewed the plan and has some outstanding issues that can be addressed by Parks Maintenance staff. Please see the attached comments. The proposed mechanical building is primarily composed of metal lap siding and roclcface concrete block. The building is similar to existing buildings an the site. The proposed bathhouse is also primarily composed of metal lap siding and rockface concrete block. Again, the building is similar to those existing on the site. Staff has no concerns about the proposed elevations. Randy Johnson, Parks Director for the City of Apple Valley, stepped forward to take questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Helgeson asked if this would affect operations of the. pool this summer. Johnson replied that they plan on getting into the ground at the end of the swimming season so it will not impact the current swimming season coming up. Commissioner Helgeson, although not related to this project, asked about Redwood Pool and if ° there are any construction projects proposed for that location. Johnson replied that the bond referendum did pass a small amount of money to do some repair work at Redwood Pool. The goal is to extend the life of that pool another 5 years. It's close to the end of its useful life. The City's Park and Recreation Advisory Committee, with input from the City Council, stated that the City would try to make the pool last another 3-6 years. The work will be done in 2009. Commissioner Helgeson stated then that at the end of Redwood pools life span, the Aquatic Center will be the only pool available in the City. Johnson stated that an option is to rebuild Redwood completely. The City could make it more of a modern pool It was built around 1970 and it doesn't appeal to the children of today. Although about 1,000 children go through swimming lessons there each year and is also used by the neighborhood for open swimming. Hearing no further questions, Chair Churchill asked for a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Dielcmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Helgeson to adopt the draft resolution finding the expansion of the Aquatic Center complies with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The motion carried 4-0. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Helgeson to approve the site plan/building permit authorization for the expansion ofthe Apple Valley Aquatic Center shown 5:\planning\PLANCOMM\2008 agenda &minutes\041608m.doc 9 on the plans received in City offices on April 7, 2008, subject to all applicable City codes and standards. The motion carried 4-0. B. Apple Valley Senior Center -Site Plan Review and Building Permit Authorization for an approximately 21,000 sq. ft. Senior Center. Associate City Planner Margaret Dykes stated that the City of Apple Valley is requesting site plan review and building permit authorization for an approximately 21,000 sq. ft. senior center. The proposed Senior Center expansion is part of the Park bond referendum that was approved by Apple Valley residents in 2007, and is part of the City's Capital Improvements Program (C]P). The CIP is a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Minnesota Statutes require the Planning Commission to review the authorization of any capital improvements to determine if the improvements are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends the Commission adopt the attached draft resolution finding the proposed Senior Center expansion is consistent with the Plan. The site plan shows the demolition of the existing 7,700 sq. ft. senior center and the construction of a new 2-story building in its place. The new building will have approximately 20,665 sq. ft. of firrished space in addition to an approximately 5,200 sq. ft. green roof. The roof is accessible to the public. The building will have one large multi-purpose room, a computer classroom, a library, lounges, card rooms, and craft and hobby rooms. The proposed building meets all required setbacks, building height, and. coverage. There is an existing 283-space parking lot that serves the senior center, Hayes Arena, the community center, and the sports fields at the complex. All of the parks facilities at this location share parking and this arrangement will continue. No new parking is proposed for the site. The Parks Director says the hours of operation for the new senior center will be modified to help control traffic flow on the property. Additionally, he says the fields and activities at the community center and Hayes Arena will also be programmed to minimize pazking conflicts. Careful monitoring of the senior center and the entire complex will be necessary to ensure there are not significant traffic conflicts. It may also be necessary in the future to convert some portion of one of the sports fields into a parking area. This may be necessary as the youth athletics population plateaus and the senior population continues to grow. There are a number of pedestrian trails that run through the complex. 'The proposed senior center will require the relocation of one trail that connects with Westview Elementary to the west. The existing bituminous trail will be moved further south, but the connection to Westview Elementary will continue to exist. The site is flat and no significant grading is necessary. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has no outstanding issues. The Natural Resources Coordinator has reviewed the plan and has some issues that must be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit. The Fire Marshal states a walkway must be constructed on the west side of the building. The building consists of decorative concrete block with both a rockface and brick finish. The building has a significant number of windows on all sides, which breaks up the massing of the building. The S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\041608m.doc tQ hipped roof will give the building a more residential feel. A clerestory entrance creates a focal point for the building. Staff does not have any concerns with the proposed elevations or building materials. Randy Johnson, Parks Director for the City of Apple Valley, stepped forward to take questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Helgeson asked about the occupancy of the large multi-purpose room and if Johnson foresees this being rented out for weddings or other events. Johnson replied the occupancy load is about 250 people. The large multi-purpose room can be separated into thirds and most of the time when the senior center is active, it will be split into thirds. The intent is to control this by programming abilities and not rent it out in the evenings. Activities will be carefully monitored and controlled with the park so there is enough parking. Commissioner Helegeson asked if there will. be any controls in place to make this space available to only seniors or will it be open to all Apple Valley residents. Johnson stated that the first priority is to meet the needs of seniors. That is the way it was proposed as part of the bond referendum and with the help of the Senior Advisory Committee. Normal senior operating hours are typically 9 a.m. to 4-5 p.m. on weekdays. In the evenings, the center currently accommodates rental groups of Scouts, 4-H Groups and local volunteer groups. We will continue to do that with the new building. The numbers will be controlled so that the building is not overloaded in the evening, limiting it to 20-60 people depending on other activities taking place that evening. We perceive a growth in our senior population and probably a decline in our youth sport population and may in the future transition a sports field into additional parking. Commissioner Helgeson stated that this was a fantastic plan. Johnson stated that it has been nice to hear the support from our community and the bond referendum was passed with a 60/40 majority, which nowadays is unheard of. It speaks well of the citizens of Apple Valley for investing and supporting our community. Chair Churchill stated that we've been speaking about improving our senior facilities for a few years and it is nice to see it come to fiuition. Johnson stated that the Park and Recreation Department is excited about it and our senior group is ready to get going. Also, it will take about a year to construct the new building. In the meantime, the senior program will be accommodated at the Apple Valley Community Center. We hope to move into the new facility in late spring/early summer of 2009. Hearing no further comments, Chair Churchill asked for a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Blundetto moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann to adopt the draft resolution finding the construction of the Senior Center complies with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The motion tamed 4-0. S:\planning\F'[ANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\041G08m.doc 11 MOTION: Commissioner Blundetto moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann to approve the site plan/building permit authorization. for an approximately 21,000 sq. ft. Senior Center as shown on the plans received in City offices on Apri17, 2008, subject to all applicable City Codes and standards and the following conditions: • The landscape plan shall be modified to address the concerns raised by the Natural Resources Coordinator in his memo dated April 10, 2008; and • A walkway shall be constructed on the west side of the building to comply with the concerns raised by the Fire Marshal in his memo dated April 9, 2008. The motion carried 4-0. 8. OTHER BUSINESS --NONE-- A. Review of upcoming Schedule and other Updates Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist stated that the City will be hosting an open house on May 1st from 7-9 p.m. on a discussion of active living. This will coincide with the Comp Plan work and there will be discussion about some of the active living items related to land use such as biking and pedestrian trails. The meeting will take place at the Municipal Center in the Council Chambers. Also, Rusty Fifield of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., consultant for the Comp Plan, has asked for participation in a special meeting on Wednesday, May 14th at 7 p.m. It will probably be a long meeting with a draft of the Comp Plan for the Planning Commission to discuss in greater detail. 9. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Churchill asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Helgeson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. The motion carried 4-0. S:\planning\PLANCOMM\2008 agenda & minutes\041608m.doc 12