Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-09-2008 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA July 9, 2008 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. May 21, 2008 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes.) 5. Planning Cases None 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discussion about potential code amendments for senior housing developments 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. July 23, 2008 B. August 6, 2008 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. June 18, 2008 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 18, 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 7:04 p.m. June 18, 2008. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson; Commissioners, Cramblit, Gunn, Lang, Meehlhause, Miller, and Walsh-Kaczmarek Absent and Excused: None Also Present: City Administrator Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Roberts and Planning Associate Heller Planning Associate Heller introduced Ken Roberts, Community Development Director. She stated Ken has been working for the past 19 years in Maplewood as the City Planner. She welcomed Ken to Mounds View. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page VA2008-003 Consideration of a Variance for reduced driveway setbacks at 5352-5354 Raymond Avenue (duplex) 2 AV2008-002 Consideration of an Administrative Variance to allow for a 2 foot driveway setback 4 VR2008-004 Consideration of a Variance to allow a 6 foot fence in a front yard 5 Other Planning Activity: Review preliminary plans for a new senior housing development 6 _____________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission June 18, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes May 7, 2008. MOTION/SECOND: Walsh - Kaczmarek/Cramblit. To approve the Minutes of the May 7, 2008 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2008-003 Consideration of a Variance for reduced driveway setbacks At 5352/5354 Raymond Avenue (duplex) Planning Associate Heller reported the applicant, Bob Yentsch, Kinyon Properties, has requested a variance for reduced driveway setbacks at 5352/5354 Raymond Avenue. She explained this is a side-by-side duplex located on the east side of the city. This side of Raymond Avenue has entirely identical side-by-side duplexes on 100-foot wide lots. The applicant would like to build new attached garages onto the existing duplexes. Currently, the property doesn’t have any garage but they do have a one-car width gravel driveway. The applicant wants to improve the properties by adding single car garages with paved driveways. The garages are within the setbacks but the applicant would like to make the paved driveways two-car width. Because they only have 24 feet to the setback, city code only allows for a one-car width driveway. The applicant has found many of their tenants have more than one vehicle and are juggling cars around in order to get out of the driveway. In the past they have had tenants park at the end of the driveway, which causes visibility issues when backing out. Sometimes there are cars parked on the grass. In order to have the two car width driveways, the applicant would need a one-foot variance to the setback. She stated the extraordinary circumstance is that these lots are too narrow for this type of a duplex. The city has approved variances of this nature before. Most property owners within the city have at least a one car width driveway and but since it is a duplex it makes it more complicated. The applicant purchased the existing duplexes and all of the duplexes on this side of the street are identical. Granting the variance request would not give the applicant any special privileges and anyone can apply for a variance. Granting this variance would not diminish the value of the property. She indicated public hearing notices were sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the property and staff did not receive any response. Bob Yentsch, representing the property owner is present for any questions. Mounds View Planning Commission June 18, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Miller asked when these duplexes were built. Bob Yentsch, property owner representative stated between 1965 and 1967. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Chair Stevenson asked if there is anyway the applicant could go with less than the 20-foot apron. The garage is eight feet on the other side of the garage with a 16 foot garage and if a car is parked next to the garage this would be the minimum. Planning Associate Heller stated you probably could go with a narrower driveway. The driveway is set off a bit from the garage. Several years ago there was a variance granted for a one-foot variance at another one of the applicant’s duplexes on the same street. Mr. Yentsch stated originally there were several properties that widen the end of the driveway, but they found that when someone parks another vehicle at the end of the driveway it is very difficult to back out because of visibility. He stated that most of their tenants have two or more vehicles. Commissioner Lang asked about staff report letter b and questioned the response having the word “not” in it. Planning Associate Heller stated that the word not should be taken out of the answer. Commissioner Cramblit asked if the applicant planned to enforce individuals renting the properties not parking on the adjacent property. Mr. Yentsch stated nothing has been done now or in the past and he actually he had not thought of this being a problem. Commissioner Meehlhause stated granting this variance he believes is an improvement. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek inquired about granting so many variances to allow an impervious asphalt surface would cause more run off and less rainwater to enter the aquifer. She asked if the City could suggest or encourage applicants to install a more pervious surface so water can get to the aquifer. Planning Associate Heller stated we could request it, but currently there is no code to make the applicant comply. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek stated as a planning commission we are to keep in mind all the items to the city as a whole and one is the amount of water from grass and asphalt surfaces. Possibly in the future the city could add a stipulation or assistance in doing this type of surface. Mounds View Planning Commission June 18, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Jim Ericson, City Administrator, indicated that when there is a hard surface we sometimes have an issue with drainage run off onto neighbors’ property. Possibly the new driveway could be graded to prevent run off to the neighbor. Mr. Yentsch stated the last time they installed driveways the applicant was the neighbor to both sides so the impact to the neighbor was not considered. Since this situation is different they will consider it this time. Chair Stevenson suggested amending the resolution to add an additional Now Therefore on the resolution subject to prevent run off into neighboring properties. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Gunn/Commissioner Meehlhause. To approve Resolution 886-08, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for one foot driveway setbacks at 5352-5354 Raymond Avenue as amended; MV Planning Case VR2008-003. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B. AV2008-002 Consideration of an Administrative Variance for a Reduced Driveway setback at 5053 Brighton Lane. Planning Associate Heller reported the applicant, John Wiggins, has requested an administrative variance for a reduced driveway setback at 5053 Brighton Lane. She explained the applicant is requesting to reconstruct the existing gravel driveway. The applicant would like to pave where the existing driveway is located. The applicant has some unique situations with one being a tree that is three feet in front of the garage door and another one at the end of the driveway. He would like to keep the trees and has been dealing with them for many years. Currently, the driveway comes within two feet of the property line between the trees, but this is the only place on the driveway that is wide enough to park two cars side by side. She stated this is an Administrative Variance because it is an existing nonconforming driveway. The applicant is not looking to increase the size of the driveway, just reconstruct it with asphalt. She indicated notification letters were sent to the five adjoining properties who were given ten days to respond. Staff has not received any responses. Chair Stevenson asked how many feet are between the two trees. John Wiggins, property owner, stated the distance is about 22 feet. Chair Stevenson asked if the plan was to ever go closer than 2 feet from the property line. Mr. Wiggins stated no and after the drawing was made it was determined that because of the roots of one the trees the driveway has been moved about two feet closer to the street. Commission Meehlhause asked about the existing driveway that curves out and would the new driveway be straight down. Mounds View Planning Commission June 18, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Wiggins stated the driveway would be exactly the same and in order to by-pass the trees it would curve towards the house. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Lang/Commissioner Gunn. To approve Resolution 887- 08, a Resolution Recommending Approval of an Administrative Variance to allow a two foot setback for a driveway at 5053 Brighton Lane; MV Planning Case VR2008-002. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. C. VR2008-004 Consideration of a Variance to Allow a six foot tall fence in the front yard of 2551 Ridge Lane Planning Associate Heller reported the applicants, Tom and Laurie Malaske, have requested a variance to allow a six-foot tall fence in the front yard of 2551 Ridge Lane. She explained the applicants live on the corner of Ridge Lane and Long Lake Road. Because they live on a corner lot they have two front yards and are limited to four foot fences in both front yards beyond the house line. This limits the applicants to what they can do with their backyard. The applicants are requesting a variance in the front yard for a six-foot fence and the fence is already up and constructed. The applicant is asking after the fact. The back yard is a few feet lower than the street level and walking trail on Long Lake Road, which is heavily used. They would like to have the taller fence for the additional security and privacy. Planning Associate Heller stated Long Lake Road is a very busy road and many individuals use the sidewalk. The applicants cannot control that their property is on a corner lot with two front yards and a sidewalk. There are a handful of properties that are on corners in the city. Most property owners don’t have to deal with two front yards. Planning Associate Heller indicated granting the variance would not give the applicants special privileges and most property owners don’t have to work with these setback constraints. Similar variances have been granted for taller fences in front yard areas of corner lots for properties on busier roads. Site lines have not been impacted by having the taller fence. Staff feels the requested variance does satisfy the hardship criteria. Public hearing notices were sent out to properties within 350 feet and staff has not heard any response. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Tom Malaske, property owner stated the fence is 12 feet from the sidewalk. Commissioner Miller questioned why the fence was built before applying for the variance. Chair Stevenson stated that homeowner should check the city codes before building fences. He stated it is up to the homeowner to know the city code. Commissioner Meehlhause stated that he was troubled to approve a variance after the fence has already been constructed. Mounds View Planning Commission June 18, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Gunn asked if he was interested in adding a rain garden in the back swale. Mr. Malaske stated the watershed has it sloped down to hold rainwater. Chair Stevenson asked if the property was a Wetland buffer area. Planning Associated Heller stated it was. Commissioner Dunn asked who determined when a house on the corner has two front yards. Planning Associate Heller stated it is because there is street frontage on two sides that causes it to have two front yards. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Miller/Commissioner Lang. To approve Resolution 888- 08, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance to allow for a six foot tall fence in the front yard of 2551 Ridge Lane; MV Planning Case VR2008-004. Ayes – 6 Abstain – 1 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Preliminary Plans for a new senior housing development Planning Associate Heller indicated the plans on the Commissioners’ desk are the most recent. She stated the plans are very similar with a few changes to the setbacks and the style of the front of the building. She indicated this would be coming to the planning commission possibly in July but wanted the Commission to get a head start on it. Chair Stevenson asked about the parking lot facing Groveland and is there a proposal for an access. Planning Associate Heller indicated there was access at the north end of the parking lot, which would be used mostly for deliveries. There are only eight parking spaces in this area which limits the amount of traffic onto Groveland. The front parking lot will access the main entrance and underground parking garage. Chair Stevenson stated the applicant needs to come prepared with security plans for every door to prevent the memory care patients from wandering off. Planning Associate Heller indicated on the first floor of the north wing is where the memory care is going to be located. This wing will have more security with a designated outdoor gated area Mounds View Planning Commission June 18, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ and dining area for the memory care patients. It is designed to keep the residents only in the north wing. Commissioner Cramblit asked about underground parking. Planning Associate Heller stated that there will be 47 underground parking spaces. Chair Stevenson asked about the ratio for required parking. The plans states 80 parking spaces. Planning Associate Heller indicated the parking information on the plans is from the applicant and doesn’t reflect the actual code requirements. Planning Associate Heller stated the applicant will have to rezone the property to R-4 and also they will need to obtain a conditional use permit to allow for the senior congregate housing. Also, there are parking requirements that state there needs to be one stall for every three beds and one stall for every staff member on the largest shift. With this ratio used for all the units, the need would be for 43 stalls. If we used regular multi-family parking requirements for the independent living units, the requirement would be 118 stalls. The facility will provide some transportation services for their residents. Commissioner Dunn asked about the per unit density. Planning Associate Heller stated this will be an issue. Currently in Mounds View, all the senior housing is independent living facilities which have much bigger units than what is being built for assisted living/memory care residents. The city code only addresses regular one-bedroom units for minimum unit size. There are 97 units proposed but many of the units are quite small, especially since the assisted living and memory care residents do not need full size kitchens. If these were normal size apartments there would only be 45-50 units in a building the same size. These are all items that will be talked about when the application comes before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gunn asked about the status of the property. Planning Associate Heller responded that they have a purchase agreement for the three lots. Ken Roberts, Community Development Director stated independent living is defined as an individual living on their own, assisted living is individuals whom may need some assistance with medication, shopping, and memory care is for individuals with dementia and memory loss issues. These individuals are under close care and security. Community Development Director Roberts asked for any initial concerns, comments or feedback before the applicant submits their final plans. Chair Stevenson indicated the security on memory care is an issue and a second driveway on Groveland and the amount of traffic onto Groveland, and density are also issues. Mounds View Planning Commission June 18, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek stated where it is possible to use less concrete and more pervious surfaces as this diminishes the watershed. She challenges staff and encourages developers to consider the new surfaces. Commissioner Gunn asked about the backyard. Planning Associates Heller indicated that the backyard would be landscaped. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek commented on the elevation of the front of the building and its aesthetically pleasing look. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. July 9, 2008 B. July 23, 2008 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:17 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Kenneth Roberts Community Development Director Transcribed by: Barbara Suciu TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 6A Meeting Date: July 9, 2008 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discussion about Potential Code Amendments for Senior Housing Facilities Staff has been meeting with a developer about a new senior housing development (including assisted living and memory care units) for three parcels (totaling 2.38 acres) on the northwest corner of Groveland Road and County Highway 10. The developer plans to submit their development applications to the City fairly soon. Staff has been looking at the city code to determine what the City requirements are for this type of development and what planning actions the developer will need to apply for. From this research we are finding that the current city code is lacking direction and guidelines for these facilities. The assisted living and memory care piece of this project would be new for Mounds View. There are currently three other senior housing developments in the city, but all of them are only “independent living” and do not provide the services, nursing assistance or specialized living arrangements that are available at assisted living facilities. Any senior housing development in Mounds View would be zoned either R-4, high density residential or PUD if they have at least a three acre parcel. If the property would be zoned R- 4, a conditional use permit would also be necessary for any type of multi-family housing. Zoning Code Chapter 1109.04 Subdivision 2, lists the conditional use requirements for “nursing homes and other senior congregate housing” (see city code on page 5). The City has had the mindset that this type of housing must meet specific requirements by incorporating a section in the code just for senior housing. However, these facilities and their services have changed in the last several years and are often now a different type of product than independent living apartments. The primary issues that staff found when looking at the city code for reviewing the latest proposal is allowed density, minimum unit size, and parking requirements. Assisted living and memory care units are much smaller (300-600 square feet) than independent living or regular multi-family housing units (700-1100+ square feet). Because of the small units, the density for senior housing buildings, especially with those assisted living/memory care units, is at a much higher level now than allowed by city code. The parking needs are much less in assisted living and memory care buildings than those for a typical multi-family building or even a senior independent living building. Nationwide, renting households with all members aged 65 or older own an average of 0.6 vehicles. Staff has been doing research into what other cities are doing or requiring when dealing with this type of development. Many cities have found their city codes needing new direction and standards for these facilities, and a few do have some specific requirements when dealing with senior living buildings. Another common tool that cities use to accommodate new senior housing developments is to zone them as a PUD (Planned Unit Development). This could be another option for the City – require all senior housing developments to be approved as a Senior Housing Code Amendments Page 2 PUD. Such a process would give the developer and the City the flexibility needed to accomodate the unique features of this type of senior housing. The Real Life Co-op and Silver Lake Pointe in Mounds View are zoned PUD and the issues that the City found problematic with the city code (such as parking requirements) were dealt with through that process. The current city code requires residential developments, to be approved as a PUD, to have at least a three acre parcel. There are many smaller parcels (less than three acres) available in Mounds View for redevelopment, including the project area for the upcoming senior development. As such, the three acre minimum for PUD’s is a limiting factor and would not be available to use in many cases. Below are responses about senior housing requirements from other cities: Shoreview – senior housing projects are all PUD's because flexibility for a typical high density housing project is needed for parking, density, and unit sizes. Density is regulated through the comprehensive plan – there is a high density senior housing designation that permits up to 45 units per acre. Fridley – Parking spaces required for independent living = 1 space per unit with half the spaces enclosed, parking for assisted living = 0.5 spaces per unit, parking for nursing homes/memory care = 1 space for every 4 beds and 3 spaces for every 4 employees on the largest shift. There are no minimum unit size requirements for senior housing. Maplewood – Densities for senior-only housing within each of the comprehensive land use levels is based on a calculation of the number of people per unit and the lot size, rather than the number of units per acre. This allows for slightly higher densities due to the fact that seniors tend to have less people living within one dwelling unit. There are no special parking standards for senior housing. Bemidji – To date they have been addressed within a PUD process. In certain zones they do not have a density standard but allow them as a PUD through the Conditional Use process. It allows the City to evaluate them based on the land parameters and the neighborhood. Parking requirements – senior/handicap housing = 1 space per unit for each the first 20 units and a total of spaces not less than 75% of the total number of units. Nursing homes – 6 spaces for the first 3,000 square feet of floor area, and 1 space for each 1.000 square feet, with a minimum of 6 spaces per establishment. Redondo Beach, CA – an entire section of the code is dedicated to housing for senior citizens – they allow for reduced parking requirements where appropriate, and the minimum floor area for a residential unit shall be 350 square feet. Senior housing developments may apply for density bonuses. Senior Housing Code Amendments Page 3 With the issues and concerns noted above, staff has prepared the following list of topics for the Planning Commission to discuss: 1. Define “Senior Housing” – should there be an age limit for who is allowed to live there? Ages 55 or 62 are commonly used, or if a couple, at least one member must be at least 62. 2. Unit sizes – the city code currently states that a 1 bedroom unit must be at least 630 square feet, and a 2 bedroom unit must be at least 750 square feet. These sizes are much larger than what is being proposed for new senior housing projects that include assisted living, and the city code does not address “studio” or “efficiency” apartments at all, which are commonly used in assisted living facilities. 3. Density – the city code regulates density by requiring a minimum lot area per dwelling unit. For example; multiple family requires 2,500 square feet of land per unit, a townhouse requires 6,500 square feet of land per unit, and single family detached requires 11,000 square feet of land for interior lots and 12,500 square feet of land for corner lots. This requirement for regular multiple family is realistic when you factor in 800-1,000 square foot units, 2.5 stalls per unit of parking and garages. This becomes an issue when many senior housing units are less than 500 square feet, which means there are a lot more units in a building. Density is one of the primary issues that other cities are addressing when updating their city codes about senior housing. 4. Parking – current city code requires multi family housing to provide 2.5 parking spaces per unit, with at least one of the spaces enclosed. The R-4 zoning district code does have parking requirements for nursing homes and other senior congregate living, but it does not seem to be appropriate for senior independent living as it only requires 1 space for every 3 beds, plus 1 stall per employee on the largest shift. Many will agree that congregate senior housing does not need nearly as much parking as a normal multi family development. Most cities are reducing the parking requirements for senior housing developments. 5. Ensuring that the building remains senior housing - If the buildings are designed to be different from a typical multi-family housing building, and/or the city lowers requirements for things such as parking, unit sizes, etc., should there be some guarantee that the buildings will only be used for senior housing? 6. Develop all senior housing projects as a Planned Unit Development (PUD)? – this is an option that could be used rather than changing several areas of the city code. The last two senior housing developments in Mounds View(Real Life Co-op and Silver Lake Pointe) are both zoned PUD. The city code currently requires that all PUD residential developments must be at least a three acre site, but the code could be amended to allow all senior housing developments to be a PUD regardless of property size. Because of the site size requirement, the current code limits the developments that could use a PUD. The new senior housing project is only a 2.38 acre parcel so we are not able to take advantage of the flexibility that a PUD allows. Senior Housing Code Amendments Page 4 Recommendation: Staff will be discussing with City Council at the Monday, July 7th Worksession whether they support staff and the Planning Commission moving forward with recommending city code changes for senior housing. If Council supports this idea, the Planning Commission should discuss and recommend whether code amendments should be made regarding senior housing. Sincerely, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Senior Housing Code Amendments Page 5 CITY CODE: R-4 District 1109.04: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an R-4 District (requiring a conditional use permit based upon procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 1125.01 of this Title): Subd. 1. All conditional uses, subject to the same conditions as allowed in an R-3 District. Subd. 2. Nursing homes and other senior congregate housing but not including hospitals, sanitariums or similar institutions; provided, that: (Ord. 639, 9-27-99) a. Side yards double the minimum requirements established for this District and are screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 of this Title. b. Minimum lot area shall be no less than one (1) acre, or as provided in Section 1104.02, subdivision 2b(3). (Ord. 590, 11-29-96) c. Only the rear yard shall be used for play or recreational area. Said area shall be fenced and controlled and screened in compliance with Section 1003.08 of this Title. (Ord. 590, 11-29-96) d. The site shall be served by an arterial or collector street of sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic which will be generated. e. All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be in compliance with the Mounds View Sign Code1 . f. All State laws and statutes governing such use are strictly adhered to, and all required operating permits are secured. g. One (1) off-street loading space in compliance with Chapter 1122 of this Title is provided. h. The provisions of Section 1125.01, subdivision 1e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met. (Ord. 590, 11-25-96) i. The required parking ratio shall be one (1) stall per employee on the shift having the most personnel present, plus one (1) stall for every three (3) beds or fraction thereof. (Ord. 639, 9-27- 99) 1 See Chapter 1008 of this Code.