Loading...
PL 09/07/1994 - 30795n� � r'-1 CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Newman called the September 7, 1994, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Members Absent: Dave Newman, Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Brad Sielaff, Dean Saba, Connie Modig Diane Savage Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Martin Stapleton, Esq., 2300 American Bank Building, St. Paul, Minnesota Patricia & David Younkin, 5401 Matterhorn Drive N.E. Chuck McQuillan, Sam's Auto Buying Program Mr. & Mrs. Donald Copeland, 7981 Broad Avenue N.E. Tim Nelson, Commercial Property Investments Monte Maher, 7965 Riverview Terrace N.E. (8:25 p.m.) APPROVAL OF AUGUST 24, 1994, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to approve the August 24, 1994, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER30N NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #94-10, BY DAVID AND PATRICIA YOUNKIN: Per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1) of Fridley City Code, to allow accessory buildings other than the first accessory building over 240 square feet on Lot 2, Block 6, Innsbruck North, generally located at 5401 Matterhorn Drive N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND T$E PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:36 P.M. --1 PLANNING COMMI83ION MEETING SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 PAGE 2 Ms. McPherson stated the request is to allow a second accessory structure over 240 square feet. The subject parcel is 5401 Matterhorn Drive N.E. which is generally located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Matterhorn Drive and Hillwind Road. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are the surrounding parcels. Currently located on the property is a single family dwelling unit and an attached two-car garage. The petitioner originally proposed to construct a 30 foot x 30 foot detached accessory structure along the southwest lot line. In calculating the square footage of the existing accessory structure plus the proposed structure, the total would be 1,524 square feet. The zoning code permits a maximum of 1,400 square feet of accessory structures. Staff spoke with the petitioner on August 31, 1994, and he agreed that it would be possible to reduce the structure to 30 feet x 25 feet to comply with the code and to avoid a variance. The petitioner also indicated that vehicles, a boat, and miscellaneous items will be stored in the accessory structure. If vehicles are to be stored in it, a hard surface driveway is required. Ms. McPherson stated the structure should not block existing /'"'� drainage patterns on the site. Any substantial grading for construction of the accessory structure would require a grading plan with erosion control measures indicated. A three-foot side yard setback is required by the zoning code, and the structure does not adversely impact the lot coverage. The structure is to be architecturally compatible with the dwelling. Mr. McPherson stated that staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall provide a hardsurface driveway by September 1, 1995. 2. The structure shall be architecturally compatible with the dwelling. Mr. Kondrick asked if there had been any objections from the neighbors. Ms. McPherson stated she had received one phone call which was more of an inquiry type of call. The person calling had no adverse comments regarding the request. Mr. Younkin stated he had no additional comments. The accessory structure would be placed behind a hill to screen as much as � possible. No trees will be taken down to construct the garage. ^ PLANNING COMMIS3ION MESTING, SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 PAGE 3 Mr. Newman asked if the petitioner had talked to the neighbors. Mr. Younkin stated he talked to two neighbors. Mrs. Younkin stated she had received calls from two people who wanted to know what this was about. They were just inquiring about the plans. Mr. Kondrick asked if they had a problem with the complying with the stipulations. Mr. Younkin stated he had no problem. Mr. Oquist asked w�ere the door and driveway for the structure would be located. Mr. Younkin stated the drive would be an extension from the current driveway and the doors would open on the side facing the existing garage. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing. r"� IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CL03ED AT 7:42 P.M. Mr. Saba stated he had no problem with the request. Mr. Kondrick stated he drove by the site and, with the down sizing and the driveway, he had no complaints. He saw no problems. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve Special Use Permit, SP #94-10, by David and Patricia Younkin, to allow accessory buildings other than the first accessory building over 240 square feet on Lot 2, Block 6, Innsbruck North, generally located at 5401 Matterhorn Drive N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall provide a hardsurface driveway by September 1, 1995. 2. The structure shall be architecturally compatible with the dwelling. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CIiAIRPERSON NEAMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the request would be reviewed by the City �` Council�at their meeting of September 19. ^ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, 3EPTEMBER 7, 1994 PAGE 4 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #94-11, BY SAM�S AUTO BUYING PROGRAM: Per Section 205.15.o1.C.(2) of Fridley City Code, to allow automobile agencies selling or displaying new and/or used motor vehicles on Lot 1, Block 1, Vantage Companies Addition, generally located at 8150 University Avenue N.E. (Sam's Club) MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:43 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the City issued special use permit, SP #93- 08, to conduct auto, truck, RV, boat and camper sales. Sam's Club is a separate subsidiary of Wal-Mart Corporation. Sam's Auto Buying Program works with area dealers to provide specific automobile prices for members of Sam's Club. The original special use permit allows sales at the Sam's Club site two times per year at a maximum number of three days per sale. Sam's Club has conducted its permitted two sales this year and are � requesting the special use permit to allow a third sale in October. The site of the Sam's Club is University and 81st. The property is zoned C-3, General Shopping Center District. The original special use permit had six stipulations with which the petitioner complied. In reviewing the two previous sales in 1994, there were no reported events of traffic congestion, no problems with signage, handicap accessibility, and building and fire code regulations. There were approximately 40,000 invitations mailed in 1993 per event and approximately 400-600 people per event attended the three-day sale. Ms. McPherson stated, if this special use permit request is approved, the third sale would be conducted October 6-9, 1994, in the same manner as previous sales. A total of 25,OOQ invitations are to be mailed to Sam's Club members for the third sale. Staff recommends approval of special use permit, SP #94-11, to allow a third auto sale at the Sam's Club site with the same stipulations as required for SP #93-08, as follows: 1. The vehicle sales will occur no more than three times per year for no more than three days per occurrence. 2. The use of streamers, pennants, and flags is prohibited. ,�-.� PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 PAGE 5 3. The petitioner shall comply with the temporary sign ordinance for all temporary signs on the property, including staff review of the two story balloon and its location. 4. The petitioner shall obtain a temporary building permit and shall comply with Article 32 of the uniform Fire Code. 5. T�e petitioner shall insure that handicap accessible bathrooms in the building are available. 6. The petitioner shall provide a traffic management person to properly control traffic on site and to prevent problems occurring on 81st Avenue and the frontage road. Mr. Kondrick asked if notification regarding the sale had been sent to neighbors and if there were any comments. Ms. McPherson stated the required notices were sent to adjacent property owners. She received no phone calls in response to the mailing nor have they received any calls regarding the actual sales as they have occurred. Mr. McQuillan stated the attendance of 400-600 was from 1993. � This year, they have down scaled the mailing list to 25,000 pieces per event. They are attempting to get the dealers to go back to two sales per year, but the dealers wanted to try a third sale this year as long as the City agrees. The dealers have been very accommodating, as has the City, and they would be very appreciative to be allowed a third sale this year. Mr. Kondrick asked how many automobiles are planned to be displayed. Mr. McQuillan stated there would be approximately 150 cars displayed. Mr. Kondrick asked how many persons they expected to turn out for the event. Mr. McQuillan stated this is difficult to project. The actual number of people who attended by invitation were half the actual turn out. The other half were people who were shopping at Sam's Club on a regular shopping trip and stopped at the sale. Mr. Kondrick asked if there were any problems with complying with the stipulations. Mr. McQuillan stated no. Mr. Sielaff asked if the number of cars would always be 150. ,.--� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 PAGE 6 Mr. Mcguillan stated he thought 200 cars were displayed last year because they had two dealers. Even then, they did not use the amount of space in the parking lot that they had intended. They plan to have 150 cars displayed at this event. Mr. Saba stated the request includes RV's, boats and campers. Will these also be displayed? Mr. McQuillan stated the sale has been strictly autos. The buying program is expanding its operation into RV's, boats, campers, etc. If we e�cpand in the future, this will allow them to do so and he would like to retain this, if possible. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL nOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NE�MAN DECLARED T$E MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC $EARING CL03ED AT 7:50 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated he had no problem with the request. They have been a good neighbor and good to the city. There has been no past problems. He would recommend approval. � MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve Special Use Permit, SP #94-11, by Sam's Auto Buying Program to allow automobile agencies selling or displaying new and/or used motor vehicles on Lot 1, Block 1, Vantage Companies Addition, generally located at 8150 University Avenue N.E. (Sam's Club), with the following stipulations: 1. The vehicle sales will occur no more than three times per year for no more than three days per occurrence. 2. The use of streamers, pennants, and flags is prohibited. 3. The petitioner shall comply with the temporary sign ordinance for all temporary signs on the property, including staff review of the two story balloon and its location. 4. The petitioner shall obtain a temporary building permit and shall comply with Article 32 of the uniform Fire Code. 5. The petitioner shall insure that handicap accessible bathrooms in the building are available. 6. The petitioner shall provide a traffic management person to properly control traffic on site and to prevent problems occurring on 81st Avenue and the frontage road. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NE�MAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED t1NANIMOII3LY. �"1 � ��� PLANNING COMMI33ION MEETING� SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 PAGE 7 Ms. McPherson stated the request would be reviewed by the City Council at their September 19 meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #94-12, BY MONTE AND MICHELLE MAHER: Per Section 205.24.04.D of Fridley City Code, to allow construction in the flood fringe district on Lots 16 - 21 with exceptions, Block W, Riverview Heights, generally located at 7965 Riverview Terrace N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER30N NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:52 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner had not yet arrived. She recommended they table discussion to allow the petitioner additional time. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table the public hearing for consideration of Special Use Permit, SP #94-12. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 4. LOT SPLIT REOUEST. L.S #94-04, BY DONALD DOLAN: To split all of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, excepting the South 200.0 feet of the east 363.0 feet thereof, as measured along the East and South lines of said Lot 6, generally located north of 59th Avenue, south of 61st Avenue, and west of Main Street. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is Mr. Dolan of Parson's Electric and the owners are Lauren and Gertrude Simer who owned what was previously known as Simer Pump, which is now Parson's Electric. The property is located generally at 60th Avenue on the west side of Main Street. The property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. This request is unique in the fact that the lot split as requested will not create a buildable parcel. The purpose of the lot split is to split a piece of property approximately 13 feet x 200 feet along the common property line where the existing driveway and concrete curbing of Parson's Electric property encroaches onto the vacant property to the west. It encroaches by approximately 8 feet. To resolve the matter, the two parties have entered into an agreement by which Parson's Electric would ^ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� 3EPTEMBER 7, 1994 PAGE 8 purchase the 13 foot strip from Comm�rcial Property Investments, Inc., who owns the property to the west. Ms. McPherson stated the parcel would not represent a buildable lot and should be combined with the Parson's Electric property. Mr. and Mrs. Simer have agreed to include the 13-foot strip in the contract-for-deed so the parcels can be combined into one parcel as soon as the lot split is approved. Ms. Dacy stated the legal description shall include the 13 foot x 200 foot strip in the contract-for-deed. Mr. Newman stated the stipulation can be included that this strip will be combined with Parcel B in order to create one tax parcel. Ms. McPherson agreed this would be appropriate. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed lot split would bring the concrete curb and hardsurface driveway into compliance with the five-foot hardsurface setback requirement from the newly created west property line and would eliminate any encroachments or nonconformities. The sale of this strip does not adversely impact the parcel to the west. A second stipulation which � requires the dedication of a 15-foot bikeway/walkway easement should be amended. The Simers previously dedicated a 12-foot � bikeway/walkway easement along their portion of the subject parcel. However, an additional easement along the vacant property to the north does need to be dedicated at this time for the Main Street bikeway/walkway project. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request with the following stipulations: ' 1. The 13 foot x 200 foot parcel shall be consolidated with Parcel B creating one tax parcel. 2. A 15-foot bikeway/walkway easement shall be dedicated adjacent to the Main Street right-of-way from the northeast corner of Section 22 to the southeast corner of the Dolan property. Mr. Stapleton, attorney for the petitioner, stated one of the problems that he thought had been resolved that apparently has not been resolved is that the petitioner has already created.the 12-foot bikeway/walkway easement. The Simers as owners of the property have refused to dedicate any more property beyond the 12 feet. It was his understanding that the 12-foot easement had a grandfather clause. � Ms. McPherson stated staff spoke with the Engineering Department. They are fine with the 12-foot easement that is existing on the � PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING� 3EPTEMBER 7. 1994 PAGE 9 subject parcel. At that time, 12 feet was the standard easement. It is now 15 feet. She stated that the City has been working with the attorneys for both parties and, she believed, they are researching an easement along the northerly "leg" of the L-shaped parcel. The City is fine with the 12-foot existing easement from the Simers. Mr. Kondrick stated stipulation 2 stated 15 feet and asked if that should be changed to 12 feet. Ms. McPherson stated the stipulation should be re-written stating that the 15-foot bikeway/walkway easement shall be dedicated adjacent to the Main Street right-of-way from the northeast corner of Section 22 to the northeast corner of the Dolan property. That would eliminate that portion that the Simers have already dedicated to the City. Mr. Stapleton stated he had not talked to the owners of the large parcel that are conveying the split. Ms. McPherson stated they are aware that this has been a request and stated they are researching their titles to see if they have ,'"� dedicated the easement already. Mr. Nelson, Commercial Property Investments, stated he had a question regarding the praposed bikeway/walkway easement. Is there an existing pathway or sidewalk along Main Street? Ms. McPherson stated there is currently not a bikeway in place at this time along the strip from I-694 north to 61st. However, Anoka County and the City of Fridley are installing a bikeway south of I-694 along the west side of Main Street. It is in the long-term bikeway/walkway plan to connect that strip up to 61st. Mr. Nelson stated he can see where the issue arises with respect to the parcel to be conveyed, but he is not sure he sees where is arises with respect to the other two parcels to the north. It seems it would be more appropriate to deal with that easement at such time as there is some application with that property. He understands the City likes to get the easement when they can but he did not know if this was the proper time to ask for an easement on those properties to the north. Ms. Dacy stated she was familiar with the properties. Staff were initially confused as to whether the lot split pertained to the three lots because it was under one ownership. What they would like to do is to evaluate this and report back to the City Council on that. She understands Mr. Nelson's position that the �., abstract is probably already identified as a separate PIN number. � �`1 PLANNING COMMI83ION MEETING� SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 PAGE 10 Mr. Nelson stated he is not necessarily suggesting he disagrees in concept or in actuality. He would prefer the opportunity to review this in more detail. He first heard about �his when he saw the draft planning report. There will likely be a green strip in front anyway, and this would have no impact on the use of the property. Unless it is required as part of this application for the two parcels to the north, he would prefer not to include them. Ms. Dacy stated what they need to determine is what is the resulting description from the lot split. She thought there were three PIN numbers and this is more of a detail issue that staff will have to work out. Mr. Nelson stated they support the request for the lot split. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve Lot Split, L.S. #94-04, by Donald Dolan to split all of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota, excepting the South 200.0 feet of the east 363.0 feet thereof, as measured along the East and South lines of said Lot 6, generally located north of 59th Avenue, south of 61st Avenue, and west of Main Street with the following stipulations: 1. Upon completion of purchase, Mr. Dolan or his successor shall consolidate the 13 foot x 200 foot parcel with Parcel B creating one tax parcel. 2. A 15-foot bikeway/walkway easement shall be dedicated adjacent to the Main Street right-of-way from the northeast corner of Section 22 to the southeast corner of the Dolan property. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY. Mr. Newman stated the City Council would review the request on September 19, 1994. 3. (Continued) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #94-12 BY MONTE AND MICHELLE MAHER MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to continue the public hearing to September 21, 1994, and to request staff to re- notify all concerned parties. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF AUGUST 11, 1994 n PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 PAGE 11 � MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of August 11, 1994. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 11, 1994 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Human Resources Commission meeting of August il, 1994. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOII3LY. 7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 16 1994 MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting of August 16, 1994. OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY. 8. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 23. 1994 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of August 23, 1994. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER30N NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOII3LY. 9. CONSIDER ELEMENTS OF SOUTHWEST OUADRANT DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS Ms. Dacy reviewed the properties considered to be part of the southwest quadrant. The City Council and HRA have not yet come to a conclusion but they are evaluating the option to significantly rehabilitate the apartment buildings or the option to acquire the apartments, relocate the tenants, demolish the buildings and gain additional acreage. That decision should be made fairly soon. Between now and November, there will be two processes going on at one time. The Planning Commission is being asked to look at how the development should be designed and how this should look. At the same time, staff will be working with ^ developers to solicit interest in owner-occupied townhomes or, perhaps, apartments for empty nesters. �` PL_ANNI1dG COMMISSION MEETING� 3EPTEMBER 7. 1994 PAGE 12 Mr. Kondrick stated, regarding the senior apartment building, there is a high-rise on Central Avenue by the car wash. It was a senior building for many years and then it changed to open housing. Since that change, there has been an increase in crime and problems. Is there a way to insist that this will remain as originally intended? Ms. Dacy stated this can be controlled to a certain degree. Housing for seniors and/or empty nesters does not necessarily mean a high-rise. The taller the building the more room that is needed for parking. Staff are thinking of 40-60 units with a building three or four stories tall. Mr. Kondrick stated he has talked with friends about townhouse developments and they want to know what kind of money this will mean. There are concerns about this being low income and that this may turn into something that we do not want. Mr. Saba stated he has also heard similar concerns. Ms. Dacy stated this is HRA. The minimum value approximately $90,000. /"\ development as part of also a concern of the City Council and of the homes being considered is They want this to be a quality the downtown area. Mr. Kondrick stated he has concerns also about multiple owners. Mr. Newman stated he thought one must look at the market place. Multiple owners can purchase a single family home if they qualify. They must meet the requirements just as others must. This is the same opportunity as with single family homes. Mr. Kondrick asked if they could recommend that this development be of a higher quality or higher caliber to maintain this as a quality development. Mr. Saba stated he is concerned also that this particular location may not appeal to a developer. If we cannot get what we want and have to take less than we want, how much less are we willing to accept? Mr. Kondrick agreed that this could be a good development if it is quiet, well planned and well developed. There is access and this is a convenient location. Ms. Modig stated, in order to be an attractive development, they will need to acquire the apartments also. With the apartments there as they are, this will not be an attractive area. � Mr. Saba stated he thought the railroad tracks would also have an effect. Residents need access to the river or to a park area, �� PLANNING COMMISSION AZEETING. SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 PAGE 13 and he didn't think you could get that with a shopping center across the street. Mr. Kondrick stated he thought this could be a quality development but it will take some dollars to make it an attractive area. Ms. Dacy stated there are two processes going on at the same time. The Planning Commission is to review the consultant's site plan and the architect will bring forward some designs. Concurrently, the HRA is concerned about market issues. Staff have talked to developers to address the site, and the developer is asking some of the same questions. Hopefully, when the Planning Commission is done, the HRA will have a short list of developers willing to work with us on the design issues. What we can do to make this better is the intent. She thought the City Council and HRA agree with the concerns expressed here. Mr. Kondrick asked the number of units proposed for senior housing. Ms. Dacy stated the senior housing would be 40 to 60 units. The other issue is to try to get the density on the to�nhomes to be ^ attractive to a developer and at the same time generate the tax increment base for the HRA. The townhome developers would like to have all 10 acres. This is one of the few sites left zoned R- 3. Mr. Sielaff asked if there was a determination of need for senior living. Ms. Dacy stated a study done in 1991 showed the immediate demand for 10 years was about 200 units. The Westminster project is aimed at low income seniors. Mr. Sielaff asked if the proposal takes into account the need. Ms. Dacy stated it does not satisfy the entire need but it does address the need somewhat. Mr. Oquist asked if Ms. Dacy had an idea of what affect that may have on a townhouse development parallel with that. It seems to be based on the size of the area. Ms. Dacy stated the reaction from developers has been positive. They would like the entire 10 acres, but the uses can co-exist. Mr. Kondrick asked, if the apartments were to be acquired, the overall acquisition costs would be increased and this would also have a bearing on this. n PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 3EPTEMBER 7, 1994 PAGE 14 Ms. Dacy stated this is a decision to be made by the HRA and the City Council. The Planning Commission should try to focus on the exterior designs and look at a site plan. Also, conduct a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Oquist stated the timetable is tight. Ms. Dacy stated the HRA would be selecting the short list of developers in October. Staff would have the•rest of October to work with this short list to see if one developer will work. The schedule is aggressive. She hopes in two weeks to have someone at the meeting to present some comments. Mr. Newman recommended having two meetings. One of the key events is the Parade of Homes. If this could be done by next fall, this event would help. The City does not want to force a bad product and will take the time needed. Ms. Dacy stated the architect will look at the exterior of the buildings. Staff have asked for three alternatives just to start laying out some concepts and asked members to try to visualize how they want this to look. This will be included as part of the next meeting's agenda. � 3. (Continued) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #94-12 BY MONTE AND MICHELLE MAHER Mr. Newman stated informed the petitioner that the Commission had already taken action to table this item until September 21. Because there were persons attending the public hearing from the neighborhood, he would stand by the motion to table the public hearing. The Commission directed staff to renotify the neighbors regarding the request. ADJOURNMENT � MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to adjourn the meeting. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECI,ARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE SEPTEMBER 7, 1994� PLANNING COMMI83ION MEETING ADJOIIRNED AT 9:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � ��� /�� � Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary � � �� S I G N— IN S H E E T W�dnesday, Septeffiber 7, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING,�_