Loading...
11-14-77 PC Minutes �'� 3 MINUTES OF THE GOLDEN VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION November 14, 1977 A regular me�eting of the Golden Vatley Planning Corrmission was held at 7:�0 P.M. on Monday, November 14, 1977 at the Civic Center, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota. Chair Sehlin presided and the following memb�ers were present: Commissioners E�strom, For�ter, Herje, Hughes, Mindess. Also present were John Darling, Planner, and Jon Westlake, staff inember. Members absent: Corrmissioners Polachek, Specktor, and Wagman. 1 . APPR�t�AL OF MINUTES: MOVED by Mindess, seconded by Hughes, carried unanimously, to approve the minutes of minutes of the October 1i , 1977 Planning Commission meeting as mailed. 2. PLANNED UNIT DFVELOPMENT - INFORMATIONAL HEARING P.U.O. #1-B Concept Plan Proponent: Colonial Acres Home, Inc. location: 5800 St. Croix Avenue Request: 100 Unit Senior Citizens Building Mr. John Darling, Planner, reviewed the Planning Report as fotlnws: 1 . This current proposat is an amendment to PUD-1 (B�nson-Orth) an officc� building complex which has been partially developed (Gity approved stages- see Planning Commission meeting minutes September 24, 1973 and City Councii minutes October i , i973). The proposed PUD Plan .�ner�dment is to construct 100 senior citizen housing units in-lieu-of completing the project area with another office building. 2. A general site plan has been submitted along with a narrative explanatory text and pretiminary building elevation and itoor plan sketches. Significant plan features are: a) One-hundred (100) retirement housing units in one (1 ) 6-story (mid-rise) building on 2.59 acres witha resultant density of 38.�, units per acre (net). b) The project is to be privately owned and operated with occupants paying for tiving space and services provided; as such, this is not a `"public" (government ) subsidized housing project. c) A total of 73 parking spaces (off-street) are provided, d) Structural (buiiding and surfaced areas) coverage is 4yq with 55% of the site being landscaped area. 3. At this time, the application is for concept approval only which would involve the following basic issues: a) Land Use - Would apartment units of the type proposed be a proper use of the site in the public interest? b) Density - Is the number of dwelling units excessive in relation to the site area and location? Are density related problems such as 274 Planning Commission November 14, 1977 page 2 traffic presented? c) Building height — Is a 6—story building ap�ropriate at this location? If the plan concept is approved, additional and more detailed plans would be required later for General Plan approval and construction permits; a� so, specific conditions woutd be drafted for inclusion in the PUD Permit. 4. It is aur opini�an �hat the applicant is correct in suggesting that this is a needed use in the ger�eral public interest and the site in question is very well suited to senior citizen housing. Other>observations are: a) Based upon our experience with similar projects in other communities, we would agree that a project of less than 100 units may not be feasible or practicable. b) Such projects can normally be expected to reduce public service costs over a period of time as noted by the Applicant. It should be determined, however, what the property tax status of this project will be as compared to other and similar projects. c) Proximity to the health care center across St. Croix Ave. is a gooc! locational feature as is proximity to the park area and convenience commercial outlets. In fact, all "locational". features add up to what could be considered an ''ideal" tocation meeting senior citizen housing needs. d) It is our opinion that a 6—story huilding at this location would not be detrimental to the neighborhood environment although much would be dependent upon the architectural style and quality as well as excellence of landscaping. e) The division of resident and staff traffic and parking is a good feature; access to resident parking only from St. Croix and no drive being developed on through to Duluth Street seems to meet prior public concerns over potential traffic probtems. The project will generate minimal traffic volumes in comparison to an office building or a standard or family type apartment building; there will be no "peak—hour'�' conflicts due to the age and occupational status of the residents: Provisions have been made for emergency vehicie access. f) It is our opinion that the Applicant is correct in the assessment , of off—street parking needs; evaluation of simitar housing projects : indicates a heavy parking demand onty on special occassions and certain holidays. Should this assessment prove incorrect, a PUD Permit condition could be to require development of additional off—street parking spaces to the immediate north of the proposed building and to pre—arrange caoperative, joint usage parking agreements for over—flow demands and needs. g) Planning studies indicate that such projects have no affect upon adjacent or nearby property values. (Neither positive r�or negative affects) 5. It is our opinion that retirement housing of the type proposed would be an exceilent land use and be in general conformity to the intent and purpose of the zoning district map and the current Comprehensive Munici.pal Plan. z � � Planning Commission November 14, 1977 page 3 6. The proposed density is not excessive for the type of use proposed and located adjacent to public open space. 7. Summary. From a planning viewpoint, this is an excellent project and, with proper controls, not be in any way detrimental to the neighborhood or community environment. As a "concept", this is a good plan although final approval for construction should be subject to approval of addi— tional and rnore detailed plans and drafting of appropriate PUD Permit conditions." The Planning Corrmission for this meeting also requested the number of apartment units that could be built on the site and a comparison of other similar uses in the community. A. Multiple Zoning — The property is zoned Multiple (M-1 ) which has a two story height limitation for an apartment project. Under current multiple density standards, the property would support 23 units or 25 units if garages were provided as part of the structure. B. Similar Uses — Presently in the community the closest similar use is the Dover Hill seven story Senior Citizen Building which cantains 122 units. The following is noted about the project: 1 . Average tenant age is 70 years old (60 is the youngest tenant). 2. Number of tenants that have vehicles are forty (40). Garages now rented are thirty—two (32). 3. Type of transportation: a) Most use public transit if they do not have a car b) Walk if a short distance c) Receive rides from relative or Social Worker d) Bus scheduling is twice a day, tenants would like more scheduled buses per day. 4. According to the resident manager, the number of trips per day is hard to determine, but it is fett on an average that there would be eight (8) trips per week. Mr. James VanVugt, Administrator for Coloniat Acres Home, Inc. , was present, and those involved in the planning, to answer the technical questions about the proposal . Mr. VanVugt ,stated they had met twice with the neighbors to inform of life for the aging citizens. The alternate that the proponents are proposing is congregate housing. The difference between congregate housing and a nursing home is that it altows the senior citizens to live independently in an apartment with certain support services such as dining, limited housekeeping, social programs, and health monitoring; however, no treatment is done at this care level . This type of care is an alternative to a much rriore expensive type of care—which is nursing home. The cost of congregate housing is about 1J3 of the care provided by a nursing home. Therefore, the proponents feel strongly that alternatives have to be pro— vided, especially for people on fixed incomes and living longer. The Federal government is very interested in this approach because of its reduced costs. The proponents ask that the Planning Commission in considering this request look at the proposal on the basis of a real need in the community. The individual apartments will range in size from 400 square feet to 800 square feet, which is a two bedroom unit, and each apartment will contain a kitchen. � 7 V Planning Commission November 14, 1977 page 4 To qualify as a resident the individual must pay an entry fee and be capable of paying a monthly maintenance fee. The age of these people for this type of housing are late 70' s and early 80' s. The parking and garage area will be bermed and landscaped for minimal visibility. The staff will not exceed 12 peopte. Regarding the traffic, there are two similar operations in Minneapolis with the following statistics: The first com- plex has 19� residents-20 of which have cars, and the second complex has 195 residents-12 of which have cars. The proposal for the 100 units contains 12 enclosed spaces, 49 open spaces, and 12 open spaces for staff located to the north of the structure. The proposal will fill a need and provide a service to the community. Mr. Mites of Crown Research Corporation, which provides consulting services for retirement communities around the country, referred to a letter on parking, guest parking, and staff parking, which was part of the agenda material . Mr. Charles Cotter of Benson-Orth Associates reviewed the previous request regarding office buitdings in P.U.D. #1 and P.U.D. #1-A. The following residents expressed their concerns as follows: One resident questioned the height of the building and number of parking spaces and the differ- ence between this parking and over crowded parking conditions now at Cotonial Acres Nursing Home. Mr. Kreber, 1500 Yosemate Ave. N. , expressed concern about traffic-especially on weekends. Mrs. Nancy Kline, 1450 Yosemite Ave. N. , was against a 6-story building, and would rather see an office building, which has no weekend traffic. Mr. Reininger, 1620 Welcome Ave. N. , questioned the benefit of the proposal because it is tax exempt. Mr. Culhane, 1430 Yosemite Ave. N. , questioned whether water and sewer were adequate to handle the proposal . Also could area be rezoned Residential? Another resident present questioned the agreement of using Benson-Orth' s office parking lot for parking of staff people. The Planning Comnission in discussing the request reviewed the accommodation fee charged to an individual occupying the unit and the monthly fee. The range of the accorrmodation fee is approximately $19,0�0 to $3$,000. The monthly fee is approximately $285.00 for a single person. The Planning Commission questioned that if a resident outlives his resources, could he then stay in the unit. It was pointed out that this is why� there is an accommodation fee, and also, contri- butions are used for this. The Planning Commission noted presently there are no specific State Laws that regulate congregate housing. The tax exempt status of the organization and the City' s housing poticy was discussed. The Corrrnission discussed the specifics of the request such as the location of the structure, land use, and height. In reviewing the request the Comnission noted the delivery and staff would use the office park entrance. The residents and visitors would use St. Croix Avenue. Emergency vehicles access is provided between the office parking lot and to the East of the proposed structure. The Planning Commission again discussed the height of the structure, access to St. Croix Ave.-noting the Use Permit does not allow access to St. Croix Ave. The Corr�nission then discussed an office use vs an apartment complex on this land. The Corrxnission reviewed the minutes of P.U.D. #1 and P.U.D. #1-A. ����� Planning Corrrnission November 14, 1977 page 5 It was moved by Herje, seconded by Forster, carried unanirr�usly, to recorrrnend denial of the request for P.U.D. T—B, noting the foltowing: 1 . A professional office building with access to Duluth Street is a better plan for the use of the property, 2. It is incongruous to place a 6—story building in a residential area, 3• The Planning Commission is not persuaded that this use is of sufficient benefit to justify waiving the neighborhood consideration, and does not represent good planning for this parcel , 4. Traffic problems have not been adequately answered, including parking and density, 5. This proposal reneges an agreement made between the developer of P.U.O. #1 and #l—A and the City of Golden Valley. 3• WAIVER OF THE PLATTING ORDINANCE Appticant: Dr. Lowetl Kleven Location: 6860 Narold Avenue Request: Add 20 feet from North Parcel 7oning: Residential The request is to add 20 feet to Lot 13 Block 3 W�ndsor Woods (6860 Narotd Avenue) from the contiguous North parcel . Both lots exceed the minimum square footage requirements. Or. lowelt Kleven was present for the request. It was moved by Herje, seconded by Mindess, carried unanimously, to recorrxnend approval of the waiver of the Platting Ordinance as submitted. 4. WAIVER OF THE PLATTING ORDINANCE Applicant: Richard Johnson Location: 221 Sunnyridge Lane Request: Divide Off Southwest Area for Additional Lot Zoning: Residential The proponent, Richard Johnson, is requesting to divide off the Southerly area of an acre lot. The proposed lot would contain 9,120 square feet with a frontage of approximately 92' at the 35—foot setback line. The difficulty in dividing the lot to meet the minimum requirements is that the existing house is in the eenter of the large lot. The Planning Con�nission reviewed the April 9, 1973 Planning Commission minutes, at which time the identical request was denied by the P1 anni ng Cornrni ssi on. The Comnissionin discussing the request asked Mr. Johnson if he had recently contacted his neighbor in regard to purchasing additional land so that the pro— posal could conform to the Ordinance. Mr. Johnson indicated he had contacted the neighbor in 1973 but not for this current request. The Commission in discussing this request noted that all tots in the area meet or exceed the minimum require— ments. Commissioner Edstrom noted that the lot division would not increase the density of the tot using the standard of 12,500 square feet if the lot is 1 acre in size. Mr. Mitton Baker of 220 Meadaw Lane North was present and asked what standards are used in determining tot size. ,-� �. . , Planning Commission November 14, 1977 page 6 It was moved by Edstrom, seconded by Mindess to reco�rrxnend approval of the request, noting there is sufficient land area for two lots. Upon vote being taken by roll call , the following voted in favor of the motion: Edstrom and Mindess; and the following voted against the same: Forster, Herje, and Hughes. The motion did not carry. 5. GENERAL (A) Highway 12 and Turners Crossroad Chair Sehlin informed the Planning Commission of the discussion regarding the Highway 12 and Turners Crossroad area at the November 7, 1977 Council meeting, after which Lowell Odland, City Engineer, reviewed the history of this area, including current concept road plans for the North side of Highway 12, and exptained the St. Louis Park proposal on the South side. (Comnissioner Herje teft the meeting. ) Mr. Tom Erickson, Attorney representing two property owners in the area, was present and asked questions. The Planning Commission asked that this item be placed on the December 12, 1977 agenda, allowing the Planning Corrmission time for response to the Council . (B) Agreement — Medicine Lake Bus Company Jon Westlake informed the Piannir�g Cor►imission of the prob]em the contractor, Rauenhorst Corporation, is having with Item 2 (e) of the Agreement which states "Flarrxnable waste traps shall be required in the fueling areas to collect petroleum products". After discussion it was moved by Mindess, seconded by Hughes, carried unanimously, that since Item 2 (e) of the Agreement appears it may not be technically feasible, the Planning Commission recommends that the proponents pravide a reasonable alternative which would not involve release into the sewer system. The Planning Commission asked the City staff to contact ths Pollution Control Agency regarding the aforesaid. �C) Housing & Community Development Commission — Block Grant Funds The Planning Corrrnission reviewed a tetter from the Chair of the Housing Community Development Cor�nission regarding input from the Planning Corrrnission on the block grant funds. The Planning Commission will place this item on their November 28, 1977 agenda to respond back to the Housing & Community Development Corrmission. (t�} Letter Withdrawing Commercial Rezoning Request for 1161 Turners Crossroad �L��� Planning Commission November 14, 1977 page 7 Jon Westlake informed the Planning Commission that he had received a letter from Thomas Erickson, Attorney representing the property owner, withdrawing the rezoning request for 4Jendy' s Restaurant which was part of a proposal at the September 26, 1977 Planning Commission meeting. The property is located in the Spring Green South Addition on a parcel known as Park. There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was on motion, duly seconded, adjourned at 11 :25 P.M. Jody Sehlin, Chair G. William Forster, Secretary �