PL PACKET 04152025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMORANDUM To: Saint Anthony Village Planning Commission From: Stephen Grittman, City Planner Date: Planning Commission Regular Meeting for April 15, 2025 GC File No: 140-01 – 25.02 Request: Request for: • Conditional Use Permit for a 34-unit Assisted Living Facility in an R- 4 District, • Variances to required side yard setback • Variance for parking requirements, and • Variance to impervious surface coverage for revised parking (NEW) Applicant: Able View/David TeBrake BACKGROUND At the March 18 Planning Commission, the applicant brought a request for a Conditional Use Permit to develop a new 2-story 34-unit Assisted Living Facility on a 0.86-acre parcel at 0 Foss Road. The parcel is vacant with the exception of a garage building in the southeast corner of the site. That building would be removed as a condition of approval of the project. The applicant has indicated that the building may be removed without impacting other property rights on the neighboring land. The project requires a Conditional Use Permit for a senior residential building of between 20 and 40 units per acre. With the CUP, the applicant has prepared a plan that requires approval of a variance to the south (side yard) setback (reducing the setback from 20 feet to 10.5 feet), and a variance to parking requirements, reducing the parking supply from 37 to 11 parking spaces and waiving the requirement for underground parking on the site. At the public hearing in March, the Planning Commission heard testimony from the applicant related to the project, as well as from neighbors of the property in question. Neighbor testimony raised a number of concerns, including the following: 1. Parking supply on the site, and whether parking demand would flow onto Foss Road – a particular concern due to its already congested on-street parking conditions. 2. Proximity of the trash enclosure to neighboring townhouse units to the north of the property. 3. Visibility of the parking area to townhouse units to the north, and options for screening. 4. Other comments related to development of the site within an already heavily developed area. Several neighbors also expressed support for the land use generally, in the context of those particular concerns expressed above. After significant discussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend either of two optional paths for the developer. The first was to table action on the application, and provide the applicant the opportunity to modify the plan to increase off-street parking supply for the facility, and address any impervious surface issues that such a modification would create, in addition to those other aspects of the Commission’s discussion. This option would return to Planning Commission for further review. The