Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-2008 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA August 20, 2008 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. July 23, 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 A. VR2008-005 Consider Variances for a Senior Housing Development Applicant: Select Senior Living Address: 12415 – 55th Street North, Lake Elmo, MN 6. Other Planning Activity A. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. September 3, 2008 B. September 17, 2008 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. August 6, 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 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 2 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 August 6, 2008 Regular Meeting 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 August 6, 2008 Regular Meeting 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, what timeframe 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 do 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 August 6, 2008 Regular Meeting 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 in to 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 the 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 August 6, 2008 Regular Meeting 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 in 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 August 6, 2008 Regular Meeting 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 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 August 6, 2008 Regular Meeting 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 fulfills the requirement with Met Council. 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 August 6, 2008 Regular Meeting 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 we remove the nine parking stalls in 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 August 6, 2008 Regular Meeting 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 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 decks. 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 20th 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 23rd 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 August 6, 2008 Regular Meeting 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 on 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 Motion carried. ___________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. August 20, 2008 B. September 3, 2008 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session 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) Respectfully submitted, Ken Roberts Community Development Director Transcribed by: Barbara Suciu TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No:5A Meeting Date: August 20, 2008 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Review and Consideration of Variances for the proposed “Select Senior Living” Senior Housing Development; Planning Case VR2008-005 Introduction: 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. The building would have 32 independent living units, 19 memory care units and 45 assisted living units. The developer/applicant has purchase agreements to buy the properties. This proposal involves five planning actions, four of which received approval recommendations by the Planning Commission at the August 6th meeting. Tonight’s meeting is a public hearing and the Planning Commission can take action on the variance resolution. Background: The project area is made up of three parcels that equal about 2.38 acres with street frontage and access both onto County Highway 10 and Groveland Road. The area is mostly single family residential homes, although the properties adjacent to the west and north are currently vacant and Steve’s Appliance is across Groveland Road to the east. VARIANCE DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting four variances for this project; increased site density, reduced minimum unit size, reduced parking, and to allow an additional 2 foot encroachment of the roof overhang and a 4-6 foot structure encroachment into the building setback. Needing to apply for multiple variances for any project is not desirable. Staff would prefer to have this type of development be zoned as a planned unit development to allow the flexibility needed to accommodate the proposal. The current city code does not address many of the characteristics unique to senior housing, and thus the developer needed to apply for four variances. Increased Site Density – the city code requires an R-4 zoned site to have 2,500 square feet for each housing unit. This requirement would allow the 2.38-acre project site to have 44 units, whereas the applicant is proposing 96 units. This senior housing development is not typical multi- family housing. Many of 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. Having smaller apartments allows more units in the same sized building. Select Senior Living Staff Report August 6, 2008 Page 2 Reduced minimum unit size – the city code requires a one bedroom unit to have a minimum of 630 square feet and a two bedroom unit to have 750 square feet. As proposed, 17 of the 19 memory care units are under the minimum square footage size, as would be 37 of the 45 assisted living units and 2 of the 32 independent living units. As stated above, most of the assisted living and memory care residents do not need the amount of space in a living unit that a family or typical tenant would need. The idea behind these senior housing buildings is for the residents to congregate together and not stay in their apartments. Meals are provided in a separate dining room eliminating the need for much kitchen area in the individual units, and community activity spaces are provided for the residents to come out of their units and socialize together, or to use if they have guests visiting. Reduced Parking - Parking requirements are addressed in Section 1121.13 of the Zoning Code. The Code requires that multiple-family dwellings (the independent living) provide one and one half uncovered parking spaces and one covered space per unit; and the assisted living and memory care dwellings must provide one space for every three beds, plus one stall for every staff member on the largest shift. This proposal originally showed a total of 85 units, but at the August 6th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended removing the nine spaces from the rear parking lot and showing them as “proof of parking.” At any time the applicant could be required to construct these additional nine spaces if the city decides that they are necessary. The applicant is requesting to be allowed to provide a reduced total number of parking spaces. The table below shows the proposed number of parking stalls, as well as the code requirements. Code Requirement Proposed Parking Covered Parking 32 47 Uncovered Parking 80 38 Total 112 85 = 76 constructed + 9 proof of parking The proposed parking would provide 27 fewer spaces than the total number required, however it would provide 15 spaces more than the requirement for covered parking. The applicant states that the required amount of parking is unnecessary for their type of housing since many of the residents do not have vehicles. Select Senior Living owns other senior housing facilities in the area and told staff that from their experience, much of the parking that is built is not used. 2 Foot Roof Overhang Encroachment and 4-6 foot Reduced Building Setback – the city code allows up to a two foot encroachment into the setback for things like bay windows, fire escapes, front stoop and roof overhangs. Due to the residential hipped roof design on the proposal, in order for the scale of the roof lines to be in line with the size of the building, the roof overhang on the east and west sides of the north wing of the building would encroach an additional two feet into the required building setback. The overhang will be on all sides of the building, but it will only go beyond the setbacks on these two sides. A 40 foot section of the building on the west side of the north wing also encroaches four and six feet into the building setback. Select Senior Living Staff Report August 6, 2008 Page 3 Variance Considerations: For the city to approve a variance, the applicant must demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The exceptional circumstances for this proposal are the unique lot size and shape and the type of housing. The city code does not clearly accommodate the proposed housing. The city recognizes these issues and is proposing additions to the code that will deal with density, unit size and parking requirements for these types of senior housing developments. Had the city code addressed these issues, the applicant would not have needed to apply for as many variances. The additional two foot overhang encroachment is unique in that most buildings of this size are not designed with hipped roofs and overhangs. The applicant wants the building to have a residential look, having the four foot overhang fits the scale of the building and helps give the building the characteristics to better fit into a residential neighborhood. The small section of the building that is encroaching into the side yard setback is where a stairwell and a corner unit are located within the building. The city code requires that senior housing in an R-4 district have a 40 foot side yard setback versus all other R-4 multiple family housing is only required to have a 20 foot side yard setback. The encroachment is four feet and six feet, which still gives this section of the building 36 and 34 foot setbacks. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not necessarily deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone. Denying the requests for increased density, reduced unit sizes and reduced parking, however would limit their ability to proceed with this project. Granting the variance to allow the additional two feet of roof overhang would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that other property owners are able to apply for a variance in order to improve the function or appearance of their property. Select Senior Living Staff Report August 6, 2008 Page 4 c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. This type of senior housing is new to Mounds View, but is the commonly built type in the area. The city has not yet addressed in the city code some of the unique characteristics of assisted living and memory care housing. The applicant and the city would have preferred this project to be zoned PUD, but per city code, more land is required in order to use this designation. Most of the lots in Mounds View are small and the applicant would need to buy one or more lots (that are not for sale) in order to have at least 3 acres needed for a PUD. d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and viability of their development proposal. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The applicant believes this is the minimum variance to alleviate the hardships, as it allows for a well designed project with new housing options for Mounds View residents, and fits the architectural characteristics of a residential neighborhood. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Granting these four variances would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code, especially since the city is in the process of amending the code to address most of the issues requiring variances. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The requested variances would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. Public Notice: Notices were mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the property, and the notice was published in the newspaper on August 6, 2008. Deadline for Action: This application was accepted on July 17, 2008 and in accordance with MN Statute 15.99, a decision shall be made within 60 days of application acceptance. The deadline for action is September 15, 2008 unless the city exercises its option to extend the timeline for another 60 days. Select Senior Living Staff Report August 6, 2008 Page 5 Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected property owners, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variances as requested. Resolution 892-08 is attached for the Commission’s approval if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Deny any of the requested actions for rezoning, preliminary plat, conditional use permit, variances and development review. The Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Updated Site Plan showing rear parking lot as only “proof of parking” 3. Resolution 892-08 Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 892-08 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES TO ALLOW FOR INCREASED SITE DENSITY, REDUCED UNIT SIZES, REDUCED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND TO ALLOW ROOF OVERHANG AND BUILDING SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS AT THE SELECT SENIOR LIVING DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT 2865 COUNTY HIGHWAY 10 AND 7980 & 8020 GROVELAND ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2008-005 WHEREAS, the applicant, Select Senior Living, has applied for the following variances for a new 96-unit senior housing development to be located at 2865 County Highway 10 and 7980 & 8020 Groveland Road: 1. Increased Site Density, 2. Reduced minimum unit sizes, 3. Reduced number of parking spaces, 4. To allow a two foot roof overhang encroachment and a 4-6 foot structure encroachment into the building setback, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested to rezone 2865 County Highway 10 and 7980 & 8020 Groveland Road to R-4, High Density Residential, and are legally described as: Lot 49, Auditor’s Subdivision Number 89, Subject to a 5 foot strip easement along the rear line for public utility use, Ramsey County , Minnesota (PIN 06-30-23-31-0030) And, That part of Lot 48, Auditors Subdivision Number 89 lying South of the North 300 feet front and rear thereof, except that portion taken for the highway right of way purposes. Subject to restrictions contained in Document Number 238161, Ramsey County, Minnesota (PIN 06-30-23-31-0029) And, The South 150 feet of the North 300 feet, front and rear of Lot 48, Auditors Subdivision Number 89, including any portion of any street of alley adjacent thereto, vacated or to be vacated, together with all road privileges, easements and appurtenances thereto attached, Ramsey County, Minnesota (PIN 06-30- 23-31-0028) WHEREAS, Section 1104.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code requires multiple family developments to have a minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 2,500 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a senior housing development proposal with a lot area per dwelling unit of 1,148 square feet, due to the smaller unit sizes; and, Resolution 892-08 Page 2 WHEREAS, Section 1104.02 of the Mounds View Zoning Code requires one bedroom multiple family units have a minimum floor area of 630 square feet and two bedroom units to have a minimum of 750 square feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting approval for studio and one bedroom units that have floor areas of 432 to 716 square feet; and, WHEREAS, Section 1121.13 of the Mounds View Zoning Code requires multiple family properties (independent living units) to provide 2 ½ parking spaces per unit and the assisted living and memory care provide 1 space for every 3 beds plus 1 space for every staff member on the largest shift; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code would require this development to provide 112 total parking stalls and the applicant is requesting a variance to provide 27 fewer stalls than required by the zoning code - 76 constructed parking stalls and 9 proof of parking stalls, which the City of Mounds View may require the applicant to construct at any time the City determines it necessary; and, WHEREAS, Section 1104.01 of the Mounds View Zoning Code allows for up to a two foot encroachment for roof overhangs, and Section 1109.04 states that the side yard building setback for R-4 zoned senior congregate living is 40 feet, which is double the normal R-4 minimum side setback requirement; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has designed a three story residential style senior housing building with hipped roofs that have a four foot overhang that would encroach two feet into the building setback on the west and east sides of the north wing, and a small section of the building footprint that would extend four and six feet into the large building setback; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents about this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Proposed Site Plans 3. Staff Report WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, August 20, 2008, about this variance request; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, all of which must be satisfied, in order for the city to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. Resolution 892-08 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request: 1. The property is proposed to be zoned R-4, High Density Residential. 2. The extraordinary circumstances surrounding this property are the unique lot size and shape and the type of housing. The city code does not clearly accommodate the proposed housing. The side yard building setback for senior housing is double what is required of any other multiple family housing developments. 3. Granting the variances would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that all property owners are able to apply for a variance to improve the function or appearance of their property. Denying the requests would limit the applicant’s ability to redevelop the property. 4. The special conditions or circumstances necessitating the variance request do not result from the actions of the applicant. The city has not yet addressed in the city code some of the unique characteristics of assisted living and memory care housing, that made it difficult for the applicant to avoid needing variances. 5. The applicant believes that permitting the property to have the requested increased density, reduced unit sizes, reduced parking and encroach into the building setbacks is the minimum variance, as it allows for a well designed project with new housing options for Mounds View residents and fits the architectural characteristics of a residential neighborhood. 6. Granting these variances would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code since the city is in the process of amending the code to address most of these issues. 7. The proposed variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above identified finding of facts, does hereby approve the variances request to increase the site density, reduce the minimum unit sizes, reduce the total number of parking spaces to 76 constructed and 9 proof of parking stalls from the required 112 spaces, and allow a two foot roof overhang to encroach and a four to six foot structure encroachment into the building setbacks for the proposed 96-unit Select Senior Living development located at 2865 County Highway 10 and 7980 & 8020 Groveland Road. Resolution 892-08 Page 4 Adopted this 20th day of August, 2008. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Kenneth Roberts Community Development Director (SEAL)