The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-14.15 Planning Commission Packet 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 (651) 747-3900 www.lakeelmo.org NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on Monday, December 14, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. November 9, 2015 4. Public Hearings a. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit request from Arbor Glen Senior Living, LLC to construct a new senior/assisted living/memory care facility on property located at the northeast intersection of Lake Elmo Avenue and 39th Street North (Lot 1, Block 2 of Brookman Third Addition). The proposed two-story building will include 84 units with memory care on the main level and assisted and independent living on the first and second levels. The application also includes a request for a zoning map amendment to change the zoning of the site from GB – General Business to VMX – Village Mixed Use (sewered development). The PID of the subject property is 13.029.21.22.0012. 5. Business Items a. 6. Updates a. City Council Updates – December 1, 2015 Meeting i. Reider Preliminary Plat Extension – Tabled to the Dec 15th meeting . ii. Inwood Development Contract Addendum – Approved. b. Staff Updates i. Upcoming Meetings:  January 11, 2016  January 25, 2016 c. Commission Concerns 7. Adjourn Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11-9-15 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2015 Chairman Dodson called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dodson, Dorschner, Haggard, Larson, Griffin Kreimer and Williams. Fields joined at 9:15 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Fields until 9:15 STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Stephen Wensman Approve Agenda: The agenda was accepted as presented. Approve Minutes: None Presentation – Public Safety and Response Time Chief Malmquist presented data regarding public safety and response time. They identify those things that they can control and make the response time quicker. Chief Malmquist went over the County street naming system. It is a grid pattern. This has been complicated with the winding roads in the new developments. The other problem we have in Lake Elmo is the one access point in Developments. Chief Malmquist also talked about the street widths. He stated that he had sat down with Engineer Griffin and came up with some standards and would like the City Council and Planning Commission to support those standards. Malmquist talked about connectivity. There is a reason that the City put in stubs. These neighborhoods need to be connected for response time. If they are on a call, they may get another one and have to go around to the next one. One argument against connectivity was that it creates a safety issue for children. Malmquist stated that for how dense Cimarron is, there has never been a call for a child being struck by a car. Chief Malmquist would appreciate the Planning Commission supporting his recommendations for safety issues moving forward. Business Item – General Discussion of Open Space Preservation Ordinance 2 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11-9-15 City Planner Wensman introduced the topic of the Open Space Preservation Ordinance. There is currently a project in the works, and the City Council thought this would be a good time to discuss if some changes would be appropriate. The topics that have been suggested for discussion are to review the purpose and possible flexibility. Should the density go from 18 to 20 homes per 40 acres? How should the density be calculated and how should the buffer setbacks be dealt with? Should there be a buffer between two OP developments. What should septic system options be? Should community systems be allowed going forward? Should there be a minimum lot size for individual septics? Should we allow the community septic? How should lot design be determined? Should the septic be the most important? Dorschner stated that we need to decide if we want to stay rural. If that is the case, we need to consider the environment and the impacts of septic if we are not going to have sewer. He would like to hear from U of M or Washington County on what is acceptable. The Commission likes the OP, but some would like more choice such as RE. Dodson mentioned that with RE, residents would use their property more for things such as gardens etc. In some OP developments, the open space is not accessible or even usable. Larson would like to talk about the land trust documents as well and what kind of uses would be allowed. Williams thinks the first sentence of the purpose statement is fine, but would like the second and third sentence to read “This type of development is intended to provide additional flexibility of housing styles in the City. It provides an alternative to large lot, single family housing and will reduce the cost of constructing and maintaining costly infrastructure.” Dodson asked what single family attached would mean. Wensman stated it is 2 or more single family homes that share a common wall. Haggard would like to add “natural Habitats” and have the first line read “The purpose of open space preservation (OP) is to maintain the rural character of Lake Elmo by preserving agricultural land, woodlands, corridors, natural habitats and other significant natural features, while allowing residential development consistent with the goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.” Planning Commission would like an update from the PCA and Washington County regarding septic design and why there are failing systems. Dodson would like on page 3 Item (2) 4 to change “deed Covenants” to “CIC Declarations”. 3 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11-9-15 There was a general discussion regarding septic systems. What type should be allowed and who should oversee. There are several items that need to be discussed, but the Commission would like a presentation from the County and PCA before a decision would be made on which way to go. Wensman asked if the Commission felt it was appropriate for septic systems to be located in the preserved open space. Some members thought it was fine, but others wanted to think about it. Williams is not in favor of increasing the density. The density already reflects a bonus that was intended to stimulate development. The smaller lots already provides a bonus by having fewer roads and infrastructure when the homes are clustered. Dorschner and Dodson do not believe that we should increase the numbers in the rural areas for OP to relieve the numbers in the sewered areas. This is where the higher numbers belong. We need to think about the environment and how we are managing these septic systems. The Planning Commission as a whole is not in favor of increasing density. They also are not in favor of changing the density calculation. They would like to leave it at buildable acres. Wensman stated that buildable land is usually how all developments are measured. Williams suggested that the Commission consider changing the 50% open space to be based on gross acres vs. buildable acres. Dodson feels that minimum lot size is linked to the type of septic that it has. Others are interested in what Washington County has to say regarding septic. Williams might like to see larger lots to preserve the rural character in the OP. Kreimer is concerned that the 1 acre for individual well and septic might not be big enough. He feels that there should be a requirement at preliminary plat to prove that the lot perks when they come before them for primary and secondary and where the house is going to be. The majority of the Commission still would like to see a 1 acre minimum even with a shared sewer system. Williams mentioned that there is such a variance in buffer zones because in the past, there was not enough oversight. He would like the existing rules to be enforced. The Commission was interested in exploring using discretion with the buffers. They would like to explore a possible list of things that could be used for when to employ the buffer, instead of just requiring one. Dodson feels that anything less than 40 acres is too small for an OP development, especially if there is a CIC. Other Commissioners felt that anything smaller than 40 acres might require private septic. The Commission wanted the Planning staff to explore if it 4 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11-9-15 is even viable to do less than 40 acres for OP. Some thought anything less than 40 acres should possibly be RE. The Planning Commission discussed the lot design objectives and their relevance. There was no real consensus on this. Dodson asked that the boulevard landscaping be checked for consistency with our landscaping code. If it is a higher standard we would keep it in, if not we should probably defer to the landscape code. Williams asked about the impervious and thought 20% of gross seemed high and possibly should be buildable. Williams thinks the review process should follow that of any other development within the City. This section needs to match what we are already doing, or possibly it should be one section for all types of development. Also the wording in 150.179 should probably be changed from “development stage plan” to “Preliminary Plat”. 150.183 (2) (e) should also include trails. 150.184 should be reviewed for public hearing and stage requirements. Williams would like to add something to the effect that an application is not complete until all of the City Engineers comments are met. Commissioners would like these met before the preliminary plat moves forward. Dodson would like “Homeowners Association” changed to “Common Interest Community” wherever it appears in ordinance. Council Updates – October 20, 2015 Meeting 1. Hammes Plat Extension – Passed Staff Updates 1. Upcoming Meetings a. November 23, 2015 b. December 14, 2015 Commission Concerns Haggard asked if the staff has a chart regarding all of the developments that have passed and all of the conditions of approval. Have they all been met? How is this tracked? Wensman stated that it is an issue that they are going to be working on. Dodson stated that Fields, Rolf and him went to a seminar. He went to energy planning which was very interesting and they talked about how this should be part of the planning. 5 Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 11-9-15 Williams stated that his packet did not arrive until Monday at 5:00. He would like to see packets arrive on Thursdays before the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 10:15 pm Respectfully submitted, Joan Ziertman Planning Program Assistant BUSINESS ITEM 4a PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 12/14/15 AGENDA ITEM: 4a– PUBLIC HEARING CASE # 2015-19 ITEM: Public Hearing for Arbor Glen Senior Living Facility – Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit SUBMITTED BY: Stephen Wensman, City Planner REVIEWED BY: Ben Gozola Jack Griffin SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a Rezoning request and a Conditional Use Permit from Arbor Glen Senior Living LLC for an 84-unit Congregate Housing (Senior Living) to be located on 3.77 acres of land at the northeast corner of Lake Elmo Ave N (CR 17) and 39th St North. The Comprehensive Plan guides the site as Village Center- Mixed Use VMX Zoning District. The site has urban services available. Staff is recommending that the public hearing be opened for public and planning commission comments, then extended to the January 25th meeting date to provide adequate time to process a comprehensive plan text amendment concurrent with this land use request. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Arbor Glen Senior Living, LLC, 215 N. 2nd Street, Suite 204 Property Owner: Frisbie Properties, 215 LLC, 215 N. 2nd Street, Suite 204 Location: Northeast corner of Lake Elmo Ave N (CR 17) and 39th St North, Lot1, Block 1, Brookman 3rd Addition, Washington County, MN PID: 13-029-21-22-0012 Request: Application for Rezoning from GB-General Business to VMX-Village Center Mixed Use and a Conditional Use Permit for Congregate Housing (84-unit, plus 1 guest suite, senior living facility). Lot Size: 3.73 Acres Existing Land Use Commercial – Vacant. Current Zoning: GB – General Business. Proposed Zoning: VMX – Village Center Mixed Use. Surrounding Land Use: North – Village Preserve Subdivision; East – Vacant Commercial; West – CR 17/undeveloped Village Urban Low Density; and South – 39th St North and vacant Commercial. Surrounding Zoning: North - LDR – Low Density Residential; 2 BUSINESS ITEM 4a East – GB- General Business; West - RT – Rural Development Transitional; and South – GB-General Business Deadline for Action: Application Complete – November 17, 2015 60 Day Deadline – January 16, 2016 Extension Letter Mailed – No 120 Day Deadline – March 17, 2016 Applicable Code: Article VII – Specific Development Standards Article XI – Village Mixed Use District Article VI – Environmental Performance Standards City of Lake Elmo Design Guidelines and Standards Manual SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: Arbor Glen Senior Living LLC is requesting a rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, Brookman 3rd Addition from GB-General Business to VMX – Village Center Mixed Use and a conditional use permit to allow Congregate Housing. The applicant is proposing an 84 unit (plus one guest suite) senior living facility. The proposed facility will have 24 memory care, 29 assisted living, and 31 independent living units, plus 1 guest suite. The site is located in the GB-General Business zoning district, but is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as Village Mixed Use. In addition, the senior living facility is classified as Congregate Housing which is a conditional use in the VMX – Village Mixed Use zoning district. After public notification, staff received feedback from the Metropolitan Council that the assisted living units are to be counted towards housing units. With that interpretation, the proposed density exceeds what is allowed in the VMX district/Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is proposing and will soon make application for a comprehensive plan text amendment to allow additional density for senior congregate housing in the VMX district. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission open the public hearing to collect and provide feedback to the developer regarding the proposal and the suggested comprehensive plan text amendment then continued to the January 25th Planning Commission meeting in order to give staff and the developer time to address comments and for the applicant time submit the comprehensive plan text amendment application. REVIEW: Rezoning/Comprehensive Plan Designation: The proposed senior living facility is located in the GB-General Business zoning district and is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as VMX – Village Center Mixed Use. The applicant has made application to rezone the property to VMX – Village Center Mixed Use. Density: The proposal is for the senior living facility to be rezoned to VMX – Village Mixed Use zoning district. The underlying density in the VMX district refers directly to the comprehensive plan. The VMX district code specifically states: “no development may exceed the residential density range as specified in the Comprehensive Plan for the Village Mixed Use land category.” That density is 5-10 3 BUSINESS ITEM 4a units per acre. Of the 84 units, 24 are memory care units which do not qualify as “housing units” according to the Metropolitan Council’s definition. The proposed assisted living facility will have a density of: 60 units/3.73 acres - 16 units per acre The proposed senior living facility exceeds the underlying density allowed by the comprehensive plan and cannot be approved under the proposed zoning and comprehensive plan guidance. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment The applicant is proposing to process a comprehensive plan text amendment that would allow greater density for senior congregate housing. Ben Gozola, Consultant Planner, preliminarily reviewed the idea and determined that such an amendment might be possible. The rationale for the change would be: Senior congregate housing is recognized as being different from standard multi-family residential development given that residents in such facilities no longer have to be at work, pick up children, or do their shopping at specific times of the day; many residents no longer drive. Such facilities provide on-site services to meet resident’s needs which further reduced the overall impacts typically associated with high-density residential development. Any amendment of the comprehensive plan to allow increased density for senior congregate housing would need to be contingent on the Metropolitan Council’s approval. This application will be processed prior to the January 25, 2016 meeting date. Site Character The site is vacant and relatively flat. A hedgerow of Amur Maples and Spruce line the northern property line. Architecture The proposed building is an architecturally pleasing mix of lap siding, shingles, brick and stone. The façade is varied with a balconies, windows, dormers and other architectural elements breaking up the massing and creating visual interest. The architecture appears compliant with the City’s Design Guidelines and Standards Manual. Congregate Housing Standards The proposed facility is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood, there is adequate greenspace provided on site (50 sq. ft./resident = 4200 sq. ft), and there is adequate transition between the use and adjacent properties. The proposal complies with the congregate housing standards. Access and Parking The proposed access is off of 39th Street N. There are 49 surface and 46 underground parking stalls proposed. There are 4 handicapped accessible on the surface lot and 2 underground. According to the applicant, the memory care and assisted living residents will not have cars. There will be van or 4 BUSINESS ITEM 4a bus service to take assisted living residents out for groceries and activities. The parking will be for the approximately 50 staff members, independent living residents and guests. The proposed parking exceeds the parking requirements of the city code. CR 17 Right-of-way Washington County has plans to widen CR 17. The site plans show the 25‘future highway right-of- way easement, but none has been dedicated for this purpose with this proposal. Trails and Pedestrian Access An 8’ trail is proposed within the future 25’ highway right-of-way easement connecting 39th Street N to the Village Preserve development to the north. There is an existing trail along 39th Street N. Alongside the parking entrance, the site plan shows a walkway connecting the public sidewalk to the parking lot. Walkways also connect the entrance and axillary doors to handicap parking stalls on the west side of the surface parking lot and to landscaped gathering/resident use areas in the rear of the building. Dimensional Standards Setbacks in the VMX- Village Mixed Use district are: 10’ for the front 10’ for the side 10’ for the corner side yard 10’ for the rear The proposed building complies with all setbacks, however when CR 17 is widened, the effective setback from the future right-of-way will be 5’. The Village Mixed Use district allows for 35’ and 3 stories. The proposed building is a two-story structure with a height of 39’ to the roof peak. Building height is normally measured as the average between the peak and eave elevation which is 31.5’. The building complies with the height requirements. Lighting The lighting plan indicate several parking lot lights and building wall lights. The lighting plan comply with the requirements of the code. Landscaping/Screening The landscape ordinance requirements are as follows: 1 tree per 50 lineal feet of street frontage, plus 5 trees for every 1 acre of development. 5 BUSINESS ITEM 4a The required trees must be 25% deciduous, and 25% coniferous. Landscape requirements for the site are as follows: 840 lin ft of frontage/50 = 16.8, or 17 trees + 3.77 acres x 5 = 19 trees = 36 trees The landscape plan proposes 71 trees: 16 deciduous trees, 21 coniferous trees, and 34 ornamental trees. The proposed trees and shrubs meet the requirements for size and variety including requirements for interior parking lot landscaping. The landscape ordinance requires screening between differing land uses. The majority of the existing trees on site are located along the north perimeter which will provide a natural screen between the differing uses. In addition, the landscape plan shows additional landscaping within that zone. The landscape ordinance also requires screening of parking from the public right-of-way with 50% opacity with a 3.5’-4’ height. The landscape plan shows extensive screening between the parking lot and rights-of-way with a mix of deciduous and coniferous shrubs, grasses and perennials. In general, the proposed landscape will be aesthetically pleasing with rich in diversity of plant materials which exceeds the minimum landscape requirements. Staff has identified a few plant selections that it will recommend changing and will recommend eliminating the w eed control fabric under the mulch in planting beds. Tree Preservation No tree preservation plan was submitted with the application as required. There are 10 Spruce that qualify as “significant trees” and 22 clump Amur Maple on the site survey. Tree preservation ordinance allows for 30% removal of significant trees, or 3 trees. The demolition plan indicates that 6 - 14” Spruce and 6 clump Amur Maples will be removed. According to the tree preservation code, a mitigation plan is required. The required tree mitigation is calculated as follows: 3 trees x14” = 42 caliper inches 42” x ½ (for conifer replacement) = 21 caliper inches Because conifers are sold by height, the determination for replacement credit is as follow: Or (Height of Replacement Conifer)/2 = diameter inches of credit # Replacement Trees = 21/(6/2) = 7 - 6’ B&B Conifers The landscape plan proposes 71 trees. 36 are required to meet landscaping requirements. The remaining 35 would satisfy tree replacement. The applicant has proposed tree protection fencing to protect the existing trees on site from construction disturbance. 6 BUSINESS ITEM 4a Signs The site plans indicate a wall sign and 2 monument signs. The proposed signs will need to comply with the sign ordinance and will require an approved sign permit. RECOMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission open the public hearing to collect and provide feedback to the developer regarding the physical proposal and potential remedies to the density issue. Staff is also requesting that the public hearing be continued to the January 25 th Planning Commission meeting in order to give staff and the developer time to address comments, submit alternate zoning applications as needed, and to draft proposed ordinance amendments if needed. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Official Zoning Map – Existing 2. Official Zoning Map – Proposed 3. Comprehensive Plan – Planned Land Use Map ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction ........................................................................................ Planning Staff - Report by Staff ................................................................................... Planning Staff - Questions from the Commission ............................ Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing .................................................................................. Chair - Continue the Public Hearing to the January 25, 2015 meeting date ................ Chair - Discussion by the Commission .............................. Chair & Commission Members ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application Forms 2. Site and Building Plans, November 17, 2015 submittal date 3. City Engineer Review Memo dated December 7, 2015 4. Ben Gozola review email, December 4, 2015 PAGE 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM Date: December 7, 2015 To: Stephen Wensman, City Re: Arbor Glen Senior Living Cc: Planner Ben Gozola, Senior Planner, Sambatek Final Plat Review From: Jack Griffin, P.E., City Engineer Engineering has reviewed the revised Site Plans for the Arbor Glen Senior Living Building. The submittal consisted of the following documentation prepared by Ayres Associates:  Civil Plans, including Certificate of Survey; Site Plan; Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plans; Utility Plan; and Construction Details, dated November 10, 2015.  Stormwater Management Plan dated November 17, 2015.  Architectural Plans, Site Photometric and Landscape Plans were received but are not a part of this review. STATUS/FINDINGS: The engineering review comments have been separated for Final Plat approval and Final Construction Plan approval. Please see the following review comments relating to the Final Plat application and approval. 1. The Stormwater Management Plan must be approved by the VBWD to receive VBWD permitting requirements. The VBWD preliminary review indicates that the plan is compliant with VBWD rules. Any plan changes required by other permitting agencies must be resubmitted for City review and approval. 2. The Stormwater Management Plan was received, dated November 17, 2015 and includes the following:  The plan proposes an on‐site filtration basin together with a StormTech underground infiltration chambers. Due to on‐site soils being marginally suitable for infiltration, drain tile underdrains have been included in the plans.  The project proposes to divert the runoff from the north filtration basin to the Village Preserve stormwater pond and ultimately to the Goetschel Pond subwatershed. Engineering views this as a favorable stormwater diversion proposal.  The VBWD is considering to approve a variance request as the underground parking garage first floor elevation will be 2‐feet above the 100‐year on‐site flood level. The VBWD has required additional engineering submittals to demonstrate alternative protection against flooding. 3. Easements and Agreements: Drainage and utility easements and easement agreements in the City’s standard form must be provided as outlined below and as shown on the November 17, 2015 Civil Site Plans. The following easement agreements must be recorded at Washington County prior to the start of construction.  Easement for connection to the existing 39th Street storm sewer.  Easement for the storm sewer outfall pipe to the City storm water pond at Village Preserve.  Easement for 6‐inch Watermain extension interior to the site. This watermain and hydrant will be publically owned and maintained. FOCUS ENGINEERING, inc. Cara Geheren, P.E. 651.300.4261 Jack Griffin, P.E. 651.300.4264 Ryan Stempski, P.E. 651.300.4267 Chad Isakson, P.E. 651.300.4285 PAGE 2 of 2  The plans must be updated to provide 3 additional fire hydrants, and associated watermain, as requested by the Lake Elmo Fire Chief. The Site, Grading and Utility Plans must be updated to include additional watermain easements accordingly and the necessary easement agreements must be provided for recording at Washington County.  A storm water easement and maintenance agreement must be provided to the City in the City’s standard form and recorded with Washington County indicating that the applicant will own and operate the private on‐site storm water system including the infiltration basin and parking lot underground storm chamber system. 1 Stephen Wensman From:Benjamin Gozola, AICP <BGozola@sambatek.com> Sent:Friday, December 04, 2015 4:48 PM To:Stephen Wensman Cc:Clark Schroeder Subject:Suggested Comp Plan Amendment Alright – I think we have a winner. I’ve confirmed your finding that “Congregate Housing” is a conditionally permitted use in the VMX zoning district (154.501), and I’m happy if you’re happy that the proposed use fits the definition of congregate housing (I’ve never seen a ton of specifics on what they want to do). Because our only zoning hang-up is the density restriction in Section 154.502(a), we just need to amend the comp plan to eliminate that restriction.  Applicant can proceed with their rezoning application and conditional use permit applications, but should also be made to apply for a comprehensive plan amendment as well. All three applications will be reviewed concurrently. Making them apply for the comp plan amendment will be an implicit acknowledgement by the applicant that they fully understand their applications are non-compliant with existing regulations and that all requests are at their own risk.  Their Comp Plan amendment request can simply be the application, fee, and a letter stating they would like the comprehensive plan amended to allow senior/congregate housing at higher density that standard residential development. We as staff can take it from there.  The Comp Plan amendment should include the following changes to Section III (Land Use), page 22: The land use categories as applied in the Village Planning Area include:  V-LDR – Village Urban Low Density Residential at 1.5 to 2.5 units per acre  V-MDR – Village Urban Medium Density Residential at 3.0 to 4.0 units per acre *  VMX – Village Mixed Use with residential densities of 6.0 to 10.0 units per acre * * Congregate Housing in the V-MDR or VMX land use categories may exceed the listed density maximums up to X.X units per acre provided the facility can satisfy all applicable conditional use permit review criteria.  The Comp Plan amendment should also include the following changes to Section IV (Housing), page 6: 3. Expand housing opportunities for seniors in Lake Elmo, placing an emphasis on affordability and life- cycle housing. As the data from the 2010 Census indicates, the Lake Elmo population is aging. 11.0% of the population in Lake Elmo is over the age of 65. In order to provide opportunities for these residents to remain in Lake Elmo, the City must strive to attract and develop a greater variety of housing that suits the needs of seniors, including those who require medical assistance or are disabled, requiring barrier-free housing. In addition, affordability is increasingly becoming an important factor for many seniors in making housing choices. To give these residents the option to remain in Lake Elmo, developing housing options that are both senior friendly and affordable will be critical over the next 25 years and beyond. Senior/congregate housing is recognized as being different from standard multi-family residential development given that residents in such facilities no longer have to be at work, pick up their children, or do their shopping at specific times of the day; some residents don’t even drive anymore. Furthermore, many senior communities provide on-site services to meet their residents’ needs which further reduces the overall impacts typically associated with high-density residential 2 buildings. Because of these differences and the recognized need for these facilities within the City, senior/congregate housing may be allowed at densities of up to X.X units per acre.  Approval of the rezoning and CUP will need to be contingent upon Met Council approval of the comp plan amendment and final publication. We should play with this language some more, but I think those two changes get you where you need to be. We can chat more next week – hope you have a great weekend! Benjamin Gozola, AICP Senior Planner P 763.746.1650 M 952.217.0252 E BGozola@sambatek.com Minnetonka, MN | Mandan, ND Engineering | Surveying | Planning | Environmental MFRA is now Sambatek!