Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-06-2008PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting August 6, 2008 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. August 6, 2008. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson; Commissioners, Cramblit, Gunn, Lang, Miller, and Walsh-Kaczmarek Absent and Excused: Commissioner Meehlhause. Also Present: Community Development Director Roberts and Planning Associate Heller Index to Minutes Page DE2008-001, MA2008-002, ZC2008-001, CU2008-001, VR2008-005 Consideration of a Development Review, Major Subdivision, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit and Variance for a Senior Housing Development Review proposed code amendments pertaining to senior housing 9 3. Approval of Minutes July 9, 2008. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek/Commissioner Gunn. To approve the Minutes of the July 9, 2008 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes — 6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 6, 2008 Page 2 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Planning Cases A. DE2008-001, MA2008-002, ZC2008-001, CU2008-001, VR2008-005 Consideration of a Development Review, Major Subdivision, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit and Variance for a Senior Housing Development Planning Associate Heller reported the applicant, Select Senior Living, represented by Joel Larson, has submitted a planning application for a 96 -unit senior housing development on three lots at the northwest corner of County Highway 10 and Groveland Road. She explained the proposal has five planning actions including: rezone three properties from R-1 Single Family and R -O Residential/Office to R-4 High Density Residential, major subdivision to combine three lots into one parcel (preliminary plat and final plat), conditional use permit to allow senior congregate living in an R-4 zoning district, variances for higher density, smaller unit sizes; reduced parking requirements and a roof overhang setback encroachment and a reduced building setback, and development review of the overall site plan. Three properties would be rezoned with this proposal. One property is currently zoned R -O and the other two are R-1 Single Family. The applicant is requesting that the City rezone these three properties to R-4 high density residential. She stated a rezoning is done by ordinance and requires two readings by the City Council, followed by publication in the newspaper and will go into effect 30 days after publication. The City will process the final plat and rezoning together to eliminate properties being rezoned and then abandoned after the rezoning. Chair Stevenson stated the Planning Commission is currently amending the city code to allow a senior housing PUD with land requirements of under 3 acres and was wondering why the applicant did not wait to have the City consider his proposal with the standards of the new ordinance. Planning Associate Heller stated the timing process of the ordinance amendment did not work for the applicant. She indicated it would push back the timeline for this project over a month and applicant is hoping to break ground yet this year. Commissioner Cramblit stated he agreed because we are amending the PUD ordinance, maybe the applicant could have waited. Planning Associate Heller stated that the earliest the new ordinance would be in effect would be 30 days after the last City Council meeting in September. This would be too late for the applicant to break ground yet this year. Commissioner Cramblit stated it would be in the best interest of the applicant to wait. Planning Associate Heller stated that City staff discussed this issue with the applicant when they made application for the development. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 6, 2008 Page 3 Chair Stevenson suggested running the proposed development parallel with the code amendment and move it along. Community Development Director Roberts stated the Planning Commission cannot assume the City Council will approve the amendment without any changes. The Planning Commission must remember that the code amendment and this planning case are separate issues, and the Commission should go forward now and address the two issues separately. The applicant has applied to the City for project approval with the current rules. Chair Stevenson questioned if the new code amendment was on the fast track, and what time frame it would be on. Community Development Director Roberts stated the city cannot take a development application under the standards of a new ordinance until the City adopts the ordinance. Commissioner Lang stated the proposed development would be the same either way the applicant applied. He also noted that the Planning Commission needs to look at these as two matters as separate issues. Resident Mark Schnor, 2949 Highway 10, questioned why the city is rushing a new PUD project when another developer applied for townhomes in this area. He asked what will be done with the rest of the properties along this block. Chair Stevenson stated the townhome development that Mr. Schnor is referring to is the Integra Homes development next to this proposed senior housing building, and because of economic times, that builder has not pursued the development. Commissioner Gunn stated she agreed that rarely do ordinance amendments pass the first time and we should treat these as two separate issues. Planning Associate Heller clarified that using a PUD for this development would be easier for staff versus the five planning requests, but that in the end it would be the same project either way. She continued with the overview of the project. The three properties being rezoned are at Highway 10 and Groveland Road. The second planning request is a major subdivision in which the Planning Commission makes a recommendation for the preliminary plat and then it goes to the City Council. It will be reviewed by the City Council, Planning Commission, city engineer and city attorney for any recommended changes and then go back before the City Council as the final plat. The conditional use permit for the R-4 High Density Residential district gives staff the opportunity to determine if it will fit into the neighborhood. The third request is variances for increased site density, reduced minimum unit size, reduced parking, to allow an additional two - foot encroachment of the roof overhang and a 4 — 6 foot structure encroachment into the building setback. She stated this senior housing development is not a typical multi -family housing. The units are much smaller than regular apartments because most of the assisted living and memory care residents live alone and do not need full kitchen facilities or a large amount of living space as there are large gathering areas and a dining room for the residents. The required parking for Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 6, 2008 Page 4 the building under current code is 112 stalls and the applicant is proposing 85 stalls. The applicant is increasing the number of required underground parking but falls below the City requirement for the above ground parking. The required parking may be excessive because most of the residents do not have vehicles. She stated current city code allows for a two -foot encroachment by a roof into the setback. The building has a hipped roof design and to keep the scale of the roof lines in line with the size of the building, the roof overhang on the east and west sides of the north wing of the building encroach an additional two feet into the required building setback. Also, a 40 foot section of the building on the west side of the north wing encroaches four and six feet into the building setback. Planning Associate Heller stated city code requires any new development project that is larger than a one or two family dwelling units obtain approval of a development review. She indicated most of the issues for a development review have already been talked about with the other requests. She stated the entire building will have fire protection with sprinklers. She stated the building design has a strong residential feel to fit into the neighborhood. She stated during the winter the snow must either be stored on site in such a way that it does not affect adjoining property owners or reduce the amount of parking on site, or it will need to be removed. Ms. Heller also stated the applicant has submitted a landscape plan that the city forester has reviewed and approved. The applicant plans to leave several of the mature trees on the lot. She stated the development is permitted to have a maximum 32 square feet of ground monument signage plus an additional 64 square feet of building mounted signage. She indicated the lighting plan meets city code requirements. She stated the applicant has made application with the Rice Creek Watershed District. She stated the developer will be required to pay a Highway 10 trail fee and a park dedication fee. She stated this meeting was not a public hearing, but that letters were mailed to neighbors within 350 feet of the project site. Commissioner Miller questioned the garbage pickup. Planning Associate Heller stated there will be a garbage dumpster in the underground garage and one dumpster in the back of the building near the kitchen. She stated the applicant would come before the commission to address any questions. Joel Larson, Select Senior Living, stated that amount of parking is typically not an issue. At another similar development, there are usually four to five cars underground and 20 cars above ground on a busy visiting night. The 85 parking spots should be more than adequate parking based on his experience from their other senior housing facilities. He stated the memory care residents don't drive, the assisted living residents almost never drive, and the independent living residents typically have one vehicle per unit. He stated the smaller unit size is because the facility has a large dining area, salon, library, media center and other living areas. The four foot overhang is to make the building look better, but they can reduce it to only a two foot overhang if necessary. Commission Walsh-Kaczmarek asked about using more pervious surfaces instead of impervious for the parking areas. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 6, 2008 Page 5 Mr. Larson stated pervious surfaces are harder to plow in the winter. However, the area for the fire access driveway could be pavered with grass in between. He would check with the Fire Marshal to see if this is acceptable. He stated this area also needs to be plowed and that could tear up the grass. Resident Terry Bankston, 8025 Groveland Road, stated he lives across the street from the back side of the proposed development. He indicated he had concern of the rezoning of the residential properties as this sets a precedent for future rezoning. He also stated he had concerns regarding the view from Groveland Road and a concern for a decrease in property values with the new development. He questioned the retaining wall and the increase in cars and delivery trucks from the senior housing building. He felt this development proposed an increase in traffic for his street. Mr. Larson indicated the retaining wall is for drainage for the rear parking lot and is flush with the street level. The ground drops down from the road so most of the retaining wall will only be seen from the senior housing building. There will only be a small portion of the retaining wall the neighbors will see. He stated he wants to be good neighbors and could plant shrubs and tall trees to screen the area. Mr. Bankston questioned the lighting and how it would affect the residents on Groveland Road. Todd Erickson, the project engineer from the firm FFE, Inc. stated the lighting identified on the plans have a 400 watt light with a street side protector shining towards the building and limiting backlight to Groveland Road. He stated they could reconfigure the lighting in the parking lot to accommodate the sidewalk and parking issue. He stated they could add some pine trees to assist with the resident concerns regarding lighting. He also stated that the lighting plan meets city code requirements. Mr. Larson stated the overflow parking on the back side of the building would probably not be used during the night shifts as employees typically park in the underground garage. Resident Mike Guck, 8045 Groveland Road, stated he and his wife built a new house in 2000 and his concern was a three story building being built in a residential area. He felt this would have a negative effect on his property. He stated he was concerned for seniors living on Highway 10, the disruption to the neighborhood with the deliveries, garbage trucks, employees smoking at the back entry, privacy issues and the loss of the mature trees on the lots. Mr. Larson stated he couldn't estimate if the property values are going to go down or not. He stated their development in Coon Rapids has townhouses on one side and single family homes on the other and there has been no negative feedback. As for the garbage pick-ups, one container is located in the underground garage and would be picked up at the garage entrance at the front of the building. He stated there would be one garbage pick up per week and some deliveries during the week for food. The size of the delivery trucks would be that of a UPS truck. The mature trees are seen as an amenity to the project and neighborhood and they are doing as much as possible to keep as many of them as they can. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 6, 2008 Page 6 Residents Greg and Tarin Baldauf, 8030 Groveland Road, stated they are new to the city and have a major concern with privacy since they will be next door to this new building. With the layout of their house, the bedrooms are on the south side and would face the building. They believe the three story building would cause them to lose their privacy. Mr. Larson stated they are proposing a six-foot tall fence to screen the property however they could put in 12 -foot pine trees instead if the neighbors prefer. Chair Stevenson stated the trees would not assist in the lighting issue. He stated the parking lot lights can be directed differently to avoid illuminating their home. Also, there are no deliveries at night and most of the traffic would come off the main entrance. Chair Stevenson asked the applicant to address the security of the memory care residents. Mr. Larson stated the memory care unit is on the first floor of the building. They have completely separate staff, dining area and a fenced in outdoor courtyard. These residents are contained in this area and security is very tight for them. Mr. Guck asked about the height of the building and suggested residents in the third floor units can look right in to the back yards of the adjoining properties. Mr. Larson stated there aren't decks located on that side of the building but there are windows. This would eliminate residents from overlooking the back yards of residents. He stated the walking paths on the plans are a request from the city. He stated the residents of this facility are older individuals who don't make a lot of noise or disturbances. Mr. Schnor questioned the right in to the parking lot and a right out onto Highway 10. Commissioner Gunn stated anything along Highway 10 is going to be a commercial development with a right in and a right out. She stated Ramsey County requested that there wouldn't be any more driveway accesses onto Highway 10. Mr. Bankston questioned how far the commercial district is going into the residential areas. Chair Stevenson stated the Comprehensive Plan from 1999 indicates there will not be any more single-family residential development along Highway 10. He stated this has been planned for a long time. He stated the commercial development would not go any further than the Blanchard's property. Community Development Director Roberts stated the Comprehensive Plan future land use map that was in the agenda packet shows many sites along Highway 10 designated as Mixed Use PUD. The city had a vision that these properties would be re -developed into something else. This senior housing development is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 6, 2008 Page 7 Chair Stevenson indicated that he and Commissioner Miller were a part of the last Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Bankston stated he understands the plan of 1999 and now is when the plan is being implemented. He questioned what impact this would have on this property. Chair Stevenson stated this development will have less of a negative impact to residents' property than if it was townhomes or a strip mall. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek explained the Metropolitan Council sets senior housing requirements and this development will assist Mounds View to fulfill our requirement. She stated that ideally we hope it would not impact any residential property but Highway 10 is the only development option for Mounds View. These requirements change to accommodate the changing of population. Unfortunately, these types of developments bring higher density housing. Mr. Bankston questioned the imposed requirement from Metropolitan Council. He stated currently Mounds View has two senior high rises and wondered at what point are the Met Council requirements fulfilled. He also asked if these developments are limited to Mounds View residents. Commissioner Gunn stated that these are not limited to Mounds View residents. It is similar to low income housing. She stated every city is required to provide a certain number of low income housing. It is a mandated number and it applies to every city. This is true for senior housing. She stated the memory care and assisted living do not factor into the requirement because this is more of a medically assisted living. The independent living portion will assist Mounds View in the senior housing requirement. Mr. Bankston asked if there was a ratio of the population for Mounds View's requirement. Director Roberts stated in 2020, the Metropolitan Council has projected Mounds View's population to increase by 660, and of that, there needs to be an increase of 81 affordable housing units. He couldn't recall there being an actual designated number increase for senior housing. He stated the Metropolitan Council is encouraging all cities to increase their senior housing because of the aging demographics. He stated this development is consistent in trying to meet these goals. The Metropolitan Council is looking for land and areas of development or redevelopment for additional housing units. The Highway 10 corridor is the area to expect the most redevelopment in Mounds View. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek stated Metropolitan Council wants to limit urban sprawl. This eliminates stress on utility lines, highways and creates better livable areas in general. The Metropolitan Council is giving these goals so cities can absorb these residents. Director Roberts stated with the goals from the Metropolitan Council, density will likely increase closer to the Highway 10 corridor. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 6, 2008 Page 8 Commissioner Gunn stated the east end of Highway 10 is considered downtown Mounds View and the other end is going to be higher density residential. She stated that having a senior building versus an apartment building should limit the amount of noise from the site. Planning Associate Heller stated because the process was not completed for a public hearing, the Commission cannot take action on the variances. City staff will bring the variance requests back before the Commission on August 20. She stated there are two other resolutions that the commission can take action on tonight. Commissioner Lang stated because the applicant already applied for a parking variance, could the applicant remove the nine parking stalls on the back of the building? This would reduce the parking to 75 stalls. Community Development Director Roberts stated the development does need the public safety driveway, but the applicant could show the parking as the alternative "proof of parking." This would eliminate the back parking, but the applicant would be required to install the spaces if the city determined in the future that there is a need for them. Chair Stevenson stated this could eliminate some of the lighting issues that were expressed by the residents. Mr. Larson stated he was in favor of the "proof of parking" concept. He stated he would contact the Fire Marshal to address any concerns. Planning Associate Heller indicated the Planning Commission could go forward with the non - variance issues. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Gunn/Commissioner Cramblit. To approve Resolution 891-08, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Rezoning Request to R-4, High Density Residential, at 2865 County Highway 10 and 7980 and 8020 Groveland Road; Planning Case ZC2008-0012 Ayes —6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Planning Associate Heller introduced Resolution 893-08, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the "Select Senior Living" Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, and Preliminary Plat for the properties at 2865 County Highway 10, and 7980 & 8020 Groveland Road, Mounds View Planning Case Numbers: DE2008-001, MA2008-001, and CU2008-001. She asked the Commission if they want to address some of the issues brought up tonight and possibly amend the resolution. Community Development Director Roberts stated that if the Commission desires they could add a number 5 on page 3 of the resolution to include the proof of parking that was talked about. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 6, 2008 Page 9 Commissioner Cramblit stated the only issue with the proof of parking is the handicap parking stall located in the back parking lot. Community Development Director Roberts stated the handicap parking stall could be reworked into the front parking. Planning Associate Heller stated the other item discussed were the decks on the back of the building. Commissioner Cramblit indicated he would like to remove the 3rd floor decks from the plans Chair Stevenson asked for a motion to approve Resolution 893-08. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Gunn/Commissioner Miller. To approve Resolution 893- 08, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the "Select Senior Living" Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, and Preliminary Plat for the properties at 2865 County Highway 10, and 7980 & 8020 Groveland Road, Mounds View Planning Case Numbers: DE2008-001, MA2008- 001, and CU2008-001 as amended. Ayes —6 Nays — 0 Motion carried. Chair Stevenson encouraged residents to come back to the August 20"' meeting when the commission addresses the variance requests. Break; 9:08 p.m. Reconvened: 9:13 p.m. 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review proposed code amendments pertaining to senior housing Planning Associate Heller stated based on the direction at the July 23`d meeting, staff made additional changes to the PUD senior housing code amendment. There were changes to number four to include the setbacks, number 5 was rewritten to list the parking requirements more clearly, and number 6 added as a minimum age requirement for the independent living units. Commissioner Gunn stated she read through these amendments and it still didn't seem correct. Chair Stevenson stated as long as at least one of the residents in each unit is over 55 they are eligible to live there. Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting August 6, 2008 Page 10 Community Development Director Roberts stated a legal guardian could be a sister. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek stated the age requirement only applies to the independent living units. Commissioner Miller stated item 4 should include "building setbacks." Chair Stevenson stated amending the "Now Therefore", by adding paragraph "g" after the word incorporating. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Lang/Commissioner Gunn. To approve Resolution 890- 08, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Amendment to Chapter 1120 of the Mounds View Zoning Code to Add a Section for Senior Housing with amendments. Ayes —6 Nays — 0 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. August 20, 2008 B. September 3, 2008 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session Motion carried. There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 9:18 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Ally s ,rts Community Development Director Transcribed by: Barbara Suciu TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. PLEASE SIGN IN MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: b , < CIOV Name Address Phone A7,y j .�ssC,,� .X57 1YP-� Y7 N lo 7( > -��s'- o bol ,)(Q4 nilil1 6VCk C-�19 I� tSi�L�� 6fjteI 7G 3 -7�6 ` �Glrivl (�r{c j�6iUauU `(o'>0 G)vvv�e lcmj �J yV3. 717 1 7 Z �did L�,.�4s , E . �; I LAIw ssuyc l2liN> sr f,4 St. !� 6'Sl-i°3�- -1t,57lckg/ fG�c3© �y,, VL'9zT geou&CI�No' 2 776-3 -7$4'7014