Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] Hey. [Music] Hey. [Music] Hey. [Music]   Good evening. Uh we call this meeting to order  for the September 3rd, 2025 Apple Valley Planning   Commission meeting. The first item on the agenda  is approval of the agenda. Is there any changes   from staff? Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of  the commission. Uh we have no changes for you   tonight. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Move  approval. Second. Uh moved by uh Commissioner   Schindler and seconded by Commissioner  Helos. The next item on the agenda is Oh. I have a a motion for approval. And u I'm sorry I'm out of order here. All  in favor indicate by saying I I opposed.   Nay. That progresses. The next item on the  agenda is approval of the consent agenda.   These items are considered routine and  will be enacted with a single motion   unless a commissioner requests to pull an  item. Do I have a motion for approval? So   moved. Second. Moved by uh Commissioner  Schindler and seconded by Commissioner  

Hollis. All in favor indicate by saying  I. I. I oppose. Nay. That moves forward. There are no public hearings this  evening and um move to item number   five which is a land use action  item for Valley Station Apartments. Thank you chair, members of the commission. Um  tonight we have an application that was before you   at the July 16th meeting. Um the land use request  that they're asking for um is to approve a 144   unit workforce housing apartment development. The  two requests that they're asking for is to approve   amendments to PD number 507 and then approval  of the site plan building permit authorization.   So tonight, this would be a continuation  of that follow-up discussion and review   um of the responses um from the public comments  that we received that night. Um the site is   located at 15584 Gas Light Drive, which is at the  corner of Gas Light 155th and is um directly south   of the Apple Valley Transit Station. The future  guided land use is suburban intensive high density   and the zoning is PD507 sub zone 2 which the  applicant is asking for the amendments to that PD   district. Um there's six amendments that they're  requesting. One is to reduce the setback along   Klector Street from 40 feet to 25. Increase the  maximum units per acre from 16 to 48 and reduce   the minimum square footage of the land required  per unit from 2760 to 916 ft. Allow the coverage   to increase from 20% to 35% of the lot. Increase  the maximum stories from 3 to five stories and   the maximum height from 45 to 60 ft. And then the  last one is to eliminate the minimum one to three  

roof pitch requirements. Um and to allow for a  flat roof. Um as I mentioned, the site is at the   corner of Gas Light and 155th. Um access will be  from the north and the west. Um the building will   be a five-story apartment building for workforce  housing. The building itself will faced east with   a parking lot located in front. Um there'll be  a tot lot and other community amenities included   um in the site. Their landscape plan includes a  heavy mix of trees around the perimeter of the   board of the land of the lot um and then interior  shrubs around the and foundation plantings.   Um they do have a heavy mix of um screening  trees on the south property line to screen it   from the adjacent property and then along the east  property line they will have a six-foot um fence   for screening from the adjacent town homes. Uh the  phototric plan that was submitted includes a nice   um spread of light on the site um with the levels  that are look on the adjacent property owners um   at on the east property line. The highest is.3 um  foot candles. Otherwise the perimeter of the site   um does not exceed those that it's allowed  by the ordinance. Um the light levels that   are located along um Gas Light Drive. I just  wanted to point out that those do not actually   incorporate any of the on street lighting that  would also be available which would add additional   lighting to the site. Um I'll just go through  the architectural plans. Um, some of these you   have seen at the last meeting, but one change that  the developer has made is with the five stories,   there were some concerns about the height  and in the northeast corner of the building,   they have reduced that height from five stories to  four stories to try and um limit the impact to the  

adjacent property owners. Here's another elevation  that shows the reduced um height at this corner of   the building. That reduction also reduces the  densities from 148 down to 144 units. Uh this   is the elevation looking from the southwest. And  here's another um elevation looking directly from   the east. Again, this is the main area facing  east. And then this is the reduced height of   the building. again. Um, this is the overall  of the area showing the proposed structure. And then I just wanted to go over a little  bit more the affordable workforce housing,   the program itself. Um, the program includes  incentives um to developers and investors   that provide them tax credits to help promote um  building affordable rental housing. This program   targets um working families um to provide that  housing and the rents are determined by the area   median income which does change each year. Um  to qualify you do need to meet specific income   requirements and the program does allow tenants  to improve their financial standing potentially   move up to home ownership. And then the table on  the um screen there's just showing the mix of the   units that are proposed with the one, two,  and three bedroom units, anticipated rents,   and then also what the income restrictions  are um depending on the household size. One of the other um items that was had great  discussion at the last meeting was the parking   and the traffic and staff had recommended that  they submit a detailed um parking analysis which   they have done. Um they divided that analysis into  two section the parking review and then also the  

traffic review. Um the parking they utilize the  Institute of Transportation Engineers parking   generation manual that is a standard document  that's used in determining how much parking is   needed for the different types of land uses out  there. um for this site um the 85th percentile   peak parking demand um range came back at that  this site would need 202 to 235 spaces and   then the average demand range was at 144 to 166  spaces. So with that assessment um the engineer   did determine that the proposed parking that's  being provided on the site was sufficient. Um the   parking or the analysis also included traffic.  They looked at the traffic volumes, the crash   history, and then also the intersection capacity  at 155th and Gas Light. Um, after the review,   they determined that the intersection and the  approaches will continue to operate at a level   of service B or better after the development  is constructed. And then the intersection,   there were some comments that were brought up  regarding if a traffic signal would be required.   and the engineers um analysis indicated that the  existing and the future traffic volumes would not   meet the criteria to require a traffic signal  or an always stop condition at that location. Um I do have all the other public hearing  responses that were um came up during our meeting.   I'll go through these as fast as I can. There's  there's 20 of them. Um, and then after that, the   developer does have a brief um, PowerPoint that he  also wants to present. But as I go through these,   if there's any that you have questions on, just  let me know and I can stop and answer any of your   questions. So, one of the first ones was response  or public hearing comments that we got was how   can you mitigate the change in the character of  the area with the five-story building? And as I  

mentioned before, the developer has um revised his  architectural plans and he reduced that building   height from five stories to four at that northeast  corner. And again, it also reduced the density   down to 46.45 units per acre. Um one of the other  questions was is it possible to recess one of the   stories? Um the developer did say it was possible,  however, he felt it would not provide enough of an   impact and instead opted to reduce the building to  four stories at the one corner. Another question   that came up was who will maintain the sidewalk  and trees along the east property line adjacent   to the Chasewood family town homes. Um that  property is owned by the Dakota County CDA said   they would be responsible for the maintenance  and when I was out at the site um because it   has been vacant the site is pretty overgrown. A  lot of the trees are growing over onto the site   and with this development that will clean up  the site when they would do their landscaping.   Uh number four, what is the typical number of  residents per unit? Um the developer indicated   that on all their other developments, they  typically see 1.2 to 1.3 residents per bedroom,   but that it is common for one bedroom unit to have  two occupants, which would equate to 2.4 to 2.6   residences per unit. Um five, will there be enough  guest parking? Um, again, the parking analysis   indicated that the proposed parking spaces are  sufficient and can accommodate the proposed use.   Um, since then, I I also want to point out that  the developer did make revisions to the site plan   and the interior of the the garages and were they  were able to add additional parking spaces. Um,   so with additional garage spaces, they were able  to increase parking to 248 spaces or 1.72 spaces.   Um but then they also were at able to add two  additional surface parking which brings the final  

parking count to 250 or 1.7 spaces per unit. And  I just wanted to clarify there was some confusion   because of all the site revisions that were  going back and forth. So that these are the final   um parking um calculations. Um, number six, what  are the typical parking ratios per unit in the   Twin Cities for two and three bedroom units? So,  the developer did provide some of their parking   ratios for sites that they already own. And  in the the traffic and parking analysis, they   also provided some additional ones. I did include  this um table in the presentation and included um   three additional sites that are in Apple Valley.  So, you'd have kind of a um comparison Um so of   the three that are in Apple Valley, um Kingston  Green has a parking ratio of 1.42 spaces per unit,   um Remington Cove has a parking ratio of 1.85  spaces per unit. And then Nolla 1 and two,   which was two phases, so the combined um  parking ratio is 1.5 um spaces per unit.   Um, number seven was a question that  came up was would residents park in the   culdeac to the southeast. Um, we can't  predict for sure that they wouldn't,   but just staff does not believe they would just  based on the site improvements that they're going   to make to that site with the landscaping  and the fencing. It would not make it an   easy walk for anyone that would park in that  culde-sac to walk over to um the site. Um,   number eight, someone asked if can firet trucks  maneuver within the site and the developer did   provide the required turning movement exhibits of  a firetruck which those did demonstrate would meet   um the radiuses. Number nine was how many  residents will only use transit and will not have  

a vehicle? Um that question the data is really  hard to quantify but the developer did indicate   that of other other sites 20% of the residents  do not have a car. um of those other sites,   they were not located next to transit stations.  Um so he um also thought that because of that it   was be more likely that at this site there would  be some residents that would not have a vehicle. Um number 10 um was what is the height  of the Legends apartments compared to the   proposed apartment building? Um the valley  station apartments the height is proposed   at 57 feet and the legend's height ranges in  height from 52 to 72 feet which is due to the   um difference in grade and the pitch roof. So and  just to remind you the legends has four stories   and this um site has five stories. Um question  number 11 um request for formal lighting plan. Um   the emphasis along the east property line will the  light affect adjacent housing will light shine in   adjacent homes. So the phototric plan was provided  which showed the estimated light levels at 0.01 to   003 foot candles at the prop the east property  line. Um at those levels that would not create   a disturbance. Um and then um one of the questions  was would whether the light shine to the adjacent   homes um and with the height of the structure.  Um that could be a possibility. Number 12. Um   how does the proposed density compare to  the developments to the east and south? So   the Chasewood rental town homes to the east has a  density of 10.9 units per acre. Um and then to the   south is the it's the it was done in two phases  that apartment building which is called Orchard  

Square and Courtland apartments and that has a net  density of 22.8 units per acre. And then number 13   um how does the green space and playground size  compare to the development to the east? Is there a   way to measure what size playground or dog run is  needed for the size of the proposed development?   Um so I measure the Chasewood um town homes. They  they have a fairly large um outdoor play area and   gathering area which is at 6,480 ft. The Orchard  Square um Courtland, those are senior apartments.   So that does not have a playground, but there  is on the north portion of that lot a walkway   and open area. Um we did check and we could  not find that there were any standards for   playground sizes in the private um apartment  projects. But in your packet um the developer   did include some ratios of some other sites of  both playground space area and also dog run area. On number 14, what is the impact to the utilities  specifically electric water and sewer? Um those   utilities have been sized appropriately and there  would not be any negative impacts. Number 15. Will   the height block views of the adjacent homes?  Will the apartment residents be able to look   into the Cedar Point town home windows? Um, with  that building being five stories and Cedar Point   only being twotory structures, um, even though it  is located over 200 feet away, it may be possible   to look into the window if someone did have window  coverings. Number 16. Um, could a mistake have   been made for this site in the 2040 comprehensive  plan? I did go back and look and since 2030 comp   plan, this site has been um at that time it was  designated mixed use which allows high density   and then in the 2040 it was all it was designated  the um SIHD designation which specifically called  

out in the comp plan that that designation  would be located along areas where the transit   um services are provided. Number 17. Um, will  the greenway area on the Courtland Apartments   be affected? Who owns that and maintains it? No,  that area will not be affected. It's owned by the   Dakota County CDA and it's their responsibility to  maintain that. And then 18. Will there be a buffer   to the south and east? Um, yes. The landscape  providings will be provided and there's also   a fence that would be provided along the east  property line. And then number 19, will there be a   sidewalk connection to the east or south? Um, this  proposal does not include any connections to the   um private developments, but there is sidewalk  connections to the north and to the west to that   would connect to the existing sidewalks. Um and  then also in the original plans there are proposal   to increase um the lighting along that area where  the pedestrian walkways would be on gas light and   155th and then they will also be required to  improve the um crosswalk um going across 155th   to the north. And then the last um comment was  the concerns with crime and safety that were   brought up. Um staff did um seek input from Chief  Francis regarding the calls for service. He did   provide that for a one-year period at the existing  affordable housing developments that are in our   community and those numbers were provided in your  packet. Um in general regarding crime and safety,   um increased density does lead to additional  um demand on that public safety services. Um,   apartments do also generate more calls um, just  because people are sharing walls and they're   living in in close proximity of other residents.  So, um, staff does believe that the higher  

density of housing would result in increased  demand on public services. Um, nothing that,   um, Chief Francis said was out of the ordinary and  it would be expected. So, so with that, those are   the responses to all the public hearing comments  that we received. If you have any questions on   those or on any other portions of the proposal, I  can answer those for you or um the applicant, he   has a short presentation that he would also like,  but he can answer any questions you have also. Thank you, chair. Um, with respect to item number  16 on your presentation, um, I was curious the,   uh, there it's it's carried out a little bit  more in more detail in the actual memorandum. Um,   but I I note there that it just says that the  SIHD designation did not increase the existing   densities of the sites and that the city has  already approved the densities. So that that   statement was actually right in the comp plan.  So, but and so the densities that were set forth   there, is that the densities of the 16 units per  acre? The the densities um previously went up   to 24 um I believe and I was not here for the  2040 comp plan. I don't know it as well being   new. Um but the the the densities um of the  SIHD designation um they overlap a little bit   but they were that area was already designated as  high density. Um, in the comp plan, they actually  

called out that that section, they noted in there  that although that that was a new designation   with the 2040 comp plan, um, it's stated right in  the comp plan that it didn't approve or it didn't   increase any of the approved densities that the  2040 or 2030 comp plan had already provided for   um, higher densities on that on those sites.  when you when you use the phrase high density,   what like is is does that cover a particular  range of units per acre? It does. And off the   top of my head, I apologize, I don't recall what  um the 2030 um comp plan was, but the the 2040   um allows up to with this designation,  the SIHD allows up to 48 units per acre.   Okay. So, so when it comes to that designation up  to 48 units per acre, but again, these particular   parcels uh weren't increased in density. Correct.  Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? I had a question.   if do you have the um rendering that shows  floor plan level one I think it's called what is meant by in the middle of the plan  trash pad so that would be when they pull out   the dumpster for garbage pickup it would  not be stored there but that's just the   um location for when it's um the day that they  their service provider hauls their trash. Okay.   So, where is that stored then? Is that that it  has to be stored um interior of the site. So,  

that is common when it's interior the garbage um  vehicle doesn't have access to it. So, they will   have a pad where they pull it out just on the  on the the garbage day so that they can easily   access that. Okay. Thank you. And then the other  thing I was going to ask you with the change in   or the increase in parking spaces, do those with  all the parking spaces, we're still maintaining   the Apple Valley standard in terms of dimensions  that the spaces are required to maintain or did   something change there? The surface parking on  the exterior parking lot, those meet all the   requirements. The interior garage spaces, um,  there are some that are proposed to be compact   size. Okay. All right. Um, okay. Those are the  questions I had for right now. So, thank you. Couple Go ahead, Mr. Chair. Couple more questions  with respect to exhibit B. Um, the there's a   reference to the Chasewood Town Homes with 27  units. This is not a fair question, I'm sure. So,   um I apologize in advance for it. Um but do  you know what that what the density per acre   is of the Chasewood town homes? Um I do have it  that Oh, the density of Chasewood was 10.9 units   per acre. Okay. And then similar question for the  quarry with the 45 units. What would the density   be there? I I apolog I do not know the density of  that one. I had just looked up the one into this.   It's kind of a I didn't I should have thought of  this when I was looking through it earlier and and   um so I apologize for springing that question on  you. Um and then with with the similar apology   um there's also reference to the Glen Brook  town homes and the 39 units. Any idea what  

the density there is? Commissioner Mahold,  I apologize. I do not know the density. No,   it's not a fair question to spring it on you at  this point, but I'm just I'm just curious because   that that I guess I for me the the biggest hangup  that I have with this proposal is the density.   Um and um you know especially when you look  at the the units to the to the east and to the   south and the and the you know the drastic  drastic increase in the density per acre   um for this particular proposal. So I'm to  me it all relates to the issues and concerns   um that accompany high density developments  and these don't appear to be anywhere close   to the density of the proposal. Um so I  guess that's just my observation. So thank   you and again I apologize for the fairly  fairly specific questions. Uh, thank you. Any other questions? I think  we're good for right now. Oh, if um we can just switch over the  um PowerPoint to um the developers.   He just wants to go over um some of the  changes that have been made since before you. Good evening, commissioners. I'm Blaine  Barker with Real Estate Equities. I also   have representatives of cost architects and L  engineering here this evening. Um thanks again   for wel welcoming us back um and allowing us  to um present some of the changes we made.   So um just briefly I want to kind of um touch  base on who we are again. Um we are a multif  

family developer owner and management company  based in St. Paul. We currently own and manage   um about 38 properties which uh the overwhelming  majority are here in the Twin Cities including   four in Dakota County. And um we manage everything  we own. We own everything we manage and we own all   of our properties long term. Um here are examples  of four um developments we've done in the suburban   Twin Cities. These are also the four properties  we provided the comparisons for the Dog Run and   um playground uh um comparisons. Um so  Aster House and Egan was 204 units. Again,   very similar the workforce housing with a lot  of the the family units for two and threebedroom   units. landing at Amber Fields. Um 160 units  in Rosemont. Arbor Court is 114 in St. Louis   Park. And then Springhouse is 168 in [ __ ]  Rapids. And these are all very similar to the   development we are proposing here. Um workforce  housing targeting that 60% AMI um that that Terry   touched on earlier um with a focus on the  larger um bedroom sizes. These are the same   four properties. Uh the previous slide was the  exteriors. Here are the interiors. So the top   row are the unit kitchens. Um and then the bottom  are examples of the club rooms and lobby areas.   Um I had mentioned at the at the prior meeting  that although it's workforce housing, although   there are rent and income restrictions, we really  build it to a market rate standard. So you can   see the granite countertops, the LVP flooring, the  stainless steel appliances. Um laundry is included   uh in in the unit. Um so we really build them to a  market rate standard. And this provides an example  

of what the finished product um would be for this  property uh if if it's able to move forward. Here   are just some more examples. Um I've listed uh  community amenities that we are proposing. Um,   so we typically include a fitness center, a club  room, um, that connects to an outdoor patio with a   grilling area. Um, we have an outdoor playground.  Um, since the last, uh, meeting, we've been able   to, um, include an indoor play area um, in our  common area um, to allow for yearround uh, wreck   space for for children and to increase the amount  of play space on site. And then we will also have   a dog run. And then I uh went over uh the unit  features as well, which you can see again um here.   Um here's the the current rendering uh reflecting  the um step down in the northeast corner. This is   looking from uh the intersection of Gas Light and  155th. Um so we're at 144 units. Um ranging from   one to three bedrooms. Uh large focus on on the  two and threebedroom units. Um currently proposing   250 parking stalls. Um which includes the covered  stalls as well as uh stalls in the surface lot.   And that's a a 1.74 unit ratio. So I I wanted to  go over some of the changes since July that we've   made. So when we presented um to you all um a few  months back, we were proposing 148 units which was   the maximum density allowed. Um by stepping down  that building um we have reduced it by uh reduce   the units by four. Um that also partially reduced  the height of the building. We were able to  

um add 11 parking stalls um some in the  garage, some in the surface lot. And so   that made a a pretty significant change to our  parking ratio. Combination of reducing units   and increasing stalls. Um we've increased that  ratio from 1.61 to 1.74 stalls per unit. And then   um we've kept the outdoor play space uh the same  size. We've provided some comparisons. Um when   you look at this property compared to the four  um other examples, this is actually the second   largest outdoor play space of the five. And then  we were also able to add that uh indoor playroom   for some additional recreational space. And then I  have three kind of side by side um photos kind of   showing the the impact of reducing the height of  the building in the northeast corner. Um so this   is that similar angle uh I provided earlier. Um  the slide on the left is what we presented in July   um with the full five stories and the slide  on the right is the uh revised proposal. Um this is another look um from 155th  where you can see the step down. And then lastly, this is looking more  from the town home side kind of from the   southeast corner there. Um just another  angle of of the reduced height. Um we   specifically targeted the northeast corner um  for the reduction in building height because   uh that is the portion of the building that  is closest to um the neighbors to the east. So thanks again for uh welcoming us back. Um and  I'm happy to answer any questions that you all   have. Thank you for being back and um listening  to some of the comments that came back and the  

adjustments that you did make. So, thank you for  doing that. Any of the commissioners have specific   questions they'd like to ask? Go ahead. Um thanks  for coming back and and making the changes and and   updating the the questions that we had previously.  Um I do remember something about the parking from   the previous and tell me if I'm wrong that your  allowing the parking spaces to the tenants without   additional charges. Is that correct? That's uh  Commissioner Hass, thank you for um mentioning   that. Uh that's correct. So the four examples I  provided um of the developments we have in [ __ ]   Rapids, Egan, Rosemont, and St. Louis Park.  We actually charge for the um garage parking   at all four of those properties. And those have a  parking ratio um ranging from I believe it's 1.69   69 to a little over two stalls per unit. But um  this pro the the Valley Station apartments that   we're proposing is unique and this would be the  only one of the five that um that garage parking   would not be a separate charge. You don't foresee  in the future that any changes in that policy that   looking to encourage as much inhouse underground  parking and not spreading out in the neighborhood   someplace. Uh that's correct. Um once we make  that decision um due to the implications on the   financing of the of the federal tax credits that  Terry mentioned, we actually cannot change that   once we make that decision. Very good. Thanks.  Sure. Sure. Um thank you. with respect to the   elevations and particularly the side by sides um  that you you you showed. I'm just curious. It like   it looks in in both in all of those renderings and  like the next two renderings there's a significant  

green space shown in those. Is that I'm trying  to in trying to reconcile the ne the next two   um side by sides with the the overhead um that  that shows all I mean the the parking and things   like that. Is is that accurate in terms of the  green space associated with this development? I don't know if that question makes any sense.  Commissioner Mahabald, it it does. Um I may ask   either not to me or Alex. Um I think you're  referring to the the green space that would   be to the east of the building. to the east  of the building in this rendering. And then   in the next one, I think it's kind of looking  from the east and it looks like there's a large   grassy area. And I'm just trying to see where  that might be when I look at the the aerial,   you know, down view where it looks to me like most  of the area to the east um as it relates to your   property is all parking and then you get get into  the town home development immediately to the east.   So I like I just don't think I guess is this an  accurate rendering of the of the view from from   the east or has you know additional green space  been added to it? Yeah, thank you commissioner.   Um I don't think it's fully accurate. It's also  not incorporating um the sixoot fence. That'd be   another screening between the two properties.  Um so I apologize, but the the green space   um does not appear to be fully accurate. Um the  main um point of the side by side rendering was   to kind of emphasize the height. So I apologize  for the oversight on uh that's on that green area.   Then the only other area like with respect to the  play space I like the addition of the indoor play  

area as well. Um, but both the are the indoor and  outdoor play areas kind of designated for children   under the age of eight under the age of like what  what what is the age range that would typically   um like participate in or use that space?  Yeah, thanks again, Commissioner. Um,   playground equipment is typically um there's two  age buckets that equipment typically serves. It   either serves uh ages 2 to 5 or 5 to 12. Um, in  that space, we could fit either of um those uh   in the outdoor space. Um, and we are welcome to  feedback on what you would prefer to see there.   Um, we do anticipate the indoor area to be for  younger kids. And then with respect to I know   you have other developments in the in the metro  area or elsewhere. So when it comes to children   who are again if you're targeted to the two two  to five let's just say from 10 to 18 would it   would it be likely then that the children who are  residents of this will be walking over to the much   larger outdoor uh playground and park area in the  adjacent development. Is that kind of where the   teenagers would go or what what happens with with  that age group of children? Yep. Thanks again,   Commissioner. Um, I can't speak to what teenagers  may do. Um, I would not anticipate that teenagers   would utilize the play equipment that we are  anticipating to provide. Okay. Thank you. Anybody  

else? Couple of things. Um I did note the the  rendering too from the east side. So I would ask   that if this proceeds tonight to the next step  that you would update those to better reflect   the reality of the um existing property and the  fence so that when that's looked at that it can be   um um looked at from a vantage point of um  what can be expected with the final product.   that would be appreciated. Um, moving forward  with this and um, how do you with our concerns   with parking and so forth, how is snowmo removal  handled in terms of snow storage? I mean, does   it have to be removed each snowfall or are you  planning on that you have to sacrifice x number   of parking spaces for snow storage? Yep. Thank  you, Commissioner Scandlin. Um, understood on   correcting the rendering to make it more accurate.  Again, I apologize for that oversight. Um,   regarding snow removal, it is never our intent  to lose parking spaces during the winter. Um,   the parking ratio we're providing, we expect  that to be the parking ratio year round. Um,   typically we would, um, provide kind of a snow  storage exhibit and work with staff on that. Um,   and if staff determines and and I don't want  to speak for what city staff's own process, but   with other cities in the past, we've provided uh  exhibits for storage. And if it's determined that   uh the locations on site are inadequate, then we  would have to haul off um snow. You don't have a   lot of options on site. It doesn't appear there's  not a lot of green space or space on site to   um move snow to. And that's kind of leading to my  question and what that means with parking as you  

go forward with things. Um the other question I  had is not just for myself but anybody that would   be listening um to have a better understanding of  your definition or how you would define workforce   housing and how you your management style  to these properties. Is there somebody that   lives on site or they remote or you know just  to give somebody a better understanding of of   how you as the the company manages those uh the  the property and residents and so forth or any   concerns that would come up? Yep. Uh thanks again,  Commissioner Scandan. Um, so workforce housing or   affordable housing can mean a lot of different  things to a lot of different people. For us,   we're targeting people uh households that make  um 60% of the area median income adjusted for   um household size. Uh the area median income is  determined annually by HUD and it's for the 7ount   um metro area. So it's it's not specific to  Apple Valley or Dakota County. Um that is a   metric that is as is the metro overall. Um and to  kind of put it into perspective, the limit for a   um single occupant is about $55,000. Um that'd be  someone making, you know, $27 an hour. Um which   you think about various retail and service jobs.  Um there are many that are at or below that rate.   Um so really the income levels are targeting  um people working in the community um through   a wide range of of jobs whether it's um service  related, retail related um some manufacturing jobs   will will fall under that limit. Um in terms  of management, uh we have an on-site manager,  

on-site maintenance. Um we'd likely have so we'd  probably have three full-time employees um at this   property. We typically do not have um anyone  living at the property, but um Monday through   Friday during business hours um it is staffed  and then we have um you know on call maintenance   during the weekends and off of business hours  that if anything comes up residents can call and   um you know any issues they may have will be  addressed. Okay, that that helps out quite a bit.   Um then I was going to ask also is the um what  was the other question I was going to bring up has been expressed maybe a little bit this evening  and then also at the last minute is that I mean   we're kind of with the number of variances there  changes that we're looking at making and the   five stories and so forth. That's what I've been  struggling with uh in in terms of you're kind of   the last ones to come into this parcel. Everything  else is built out. Everybody has followed the   guidelines up to this point and then we're coming  upon now this five story structure. So that's   um and with and I take also note that you've made  some adjustments since we last to try to counter   some of that. So that's it's been kind of a  struggle on my part to um um with that part of it,   but I also understand the importance of um  having diverse types of housing within the   community and that this is an to me is an  important um um element coming especially   in location to rapid transit station. um that um  um that helps u you know balance out that housing  

needs throughout the city. Do you have any um with  your experience in having these type of properties   um indication as far as people that have um been  able to take advantage and and qualify for this   that they've been able to, you know, take the  next step and use this as an opportunity to   uh u work beyond having this type of uh subsidized  type housing that they be able to move forward in   higher paying jobs or what have Do you have  any data or anything that that you've um been   able to show that? Yep. Thanks again, Commissioner  Scandlin. Um I don't have any specific statistics   right now, but um there are a number of reasons  um that residents may move out of one of our   properties. We typically ask um when they move  out why they're moving out. And we do often see   um that sometimes it's cuz they're buying a  house. Um so we do see that. Um tough to say   how many residents that is but it it does happen.  Um and then one other kind of clarification with   the income limits and the workforce housing just  to clarify. So those income limits um apply to   when a uh household is initially applying to the  property, but once they are initially qualified,   they can make up to 140% of those base limits when  they're annually rectified. And the program allows   for that so that there's an incentive um for  these households to get promotions or get raises   um you know and to avoid you're qualifying  for the for the workforce housing, you get   a raise and now you're getting punished  because you have to move out. Um there are   um safeguards for that in the system as  well. Okay, that's a good point that you  

bring up and I appreciate you doing that.  So, okay, that's all the questions I have.   Does anybody else have questions? Okay,  thank you very much. Thank you very much. Well, the next step, Terry, do you have a motion? Yeah, I'll pull up that slide. Just second. Here, I'll pull it up. Give me one sec. So before is the recommended actions for this  agenda item. Um there would be two separate   recommendations or two separate motions  and that will cover all the um various   uh zoning changes and so forth. Correct.  So the first one um action item would be   whether to approve or recommend approval  or denial of the plan development number   507 ordinance amendments. And then the second  would be um recommend approval or denial of   the site plan building permanent authorization  for Valley Station Apartments subject to those   conditions that are in the draft resolution.  Okay. All right. Commission commissioners,   um could I have a motion, please? Yes, I'll make  a chair. I'll make a motion to recommend approval   of the plan development number 507 ordinance  amendments. Second. Okay. Um it was moved by  

Commissioner Puit and uh seconded by Commissioner  Sandell. All um in favor um indicate by saying I   I opposed. Nay. Nay. That um moves forward. So  thank you. Thank you. You move to the next step.   Excuse me. We need to make another motion  on the Oh, excuse me. Not the second one.   All right. My apologies. Um, commissioners,  could I have a motion for the second item,   please? I'll make a motion to recommend approval  of the site plan building permit authorization   for Valley Station Apartments subject to the  conditions in the draft resolution. Second.   moved by um Commissioner Hollis and seconded by  um Sen uh Commissioner Sindell. All um in favor   indicate by saying I I oppose. Nay. Nay. That also  moves forward. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The next item on tonight's agenda is um item  number six, other business. Tim. Uh thank you,   Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Just  a reminder, your next upcoming meeting will   be Wednesday, September 17th, followed by  Wednesday, October 1st. Um uh we also got   uh informed that we will be hosting our October  15th meeting, probably in a regent room. Uh they   will be doing some modifications or remodeling in  this room on the audio visual equipment. So your   middle meeting of October will likely be in the  Regency room, which is right across the hall here.   and we'll inform you if that changes by or any  updates as we as we know them. Other than that,   our councils are 11th and 25th of this month as  well. And uh again, we appreciate your attendance  

for tonight and hope you have a good evening.  Okay. Thank you, Tim. You're welcome. U next item   is adjourn. Move we adjourn. Second. All right.  That was moved by Commissioner uh Schindler and   seconded by Commissioner Hollis. All in favor  by by saying I. I. I. Meeting is adjourned. [Music]   Hey, [Music] hey, hey. [Music]