Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-21 PC Packet AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 21, 2014 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. August 19, 2014 5. Public Hearing a. 7:00 p.m. or later: Approval of a Resolution for a Conditional Use Permit Revision, Bruentrup Heritage Farm, 2170 County Road D East b. 7:00 p.m. or later: Approval of a Resolution for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from G (Government) to C (Commercial), a Resolution for a Zoning Map Amendment from F (Farm) to BC (Business Commercial) and a lot division for the Former Maplewood Parkside Fire Station, 2001 McMenemy Street North 6. New Business a. Approval of Resolution of Appreciation for Yaya Diatta - Planning Commissioner b. Consideration of dwelling-unit size requirements for senior housing—Discussion 7. Unfinished Business 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. Commission presentation for the August 25, 2014 city council meeting. Commissioner Ige attended. The item reviewed was the comprehensive plan amendment and conditional use permit for LCS Lawn Service at the former Century Avenue Fire Station. b. Commission presentation for the September 8, 2014 city council meeting. Commissioner Trippler attended. The item reviewed was the 2015-2019 CIP. Staff will present for Commissioner Trippler. c. Commission presentation for the September 22, 2014 city council meeting. Commission Chair Desai was scheduled to attend. There were no items requiring commissioner representation at this meeting. d. Commission representation for the October 13, 2014 city council meeting. Commissioner Arbuckle was scheduled to attend. There were no items scheduled for review requiring commissioner representation. e. Commission representation for the October 27, 2014 city council meeting. Commissioner Diatta is scheduled to attend but has resigned. There are no items scheduled requiring commissioner representation. f. Commission representation for the November 10, 2014 city council meeting. Commissioner Bierbaum is scheduled. The expected items for review are the Bruentrup Farm CUP and the land use plan amendment and rezoning for the former Parkside Fire Station. 10. Staff Presentations a. The November 4 Planning Commission Meeting will be cancelled due to Election Day. 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the City Hall Council Chambers and was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Desai. 2. ROLL CALL Paul Arbuckle, Commissioner Present at 7:01 p.m. Al Bierbaum, Commissioner Present Tushar Desai, Chairperson Present Yaya Diatta, Commissioner Present at 7:02 p.m. John Donofrio, Commissioner Present Allan Ige, Commissioner Present Bill Kempe, Commissioner Present Donn Lindstrom, Commissioner Present Dale Trippler, Commissioner Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager, Economic & Environmental Development Director Gayle Bauman, Finance Director Michael Thompson, Public Works Director, City Engineer DuWayne Konewko, Park & Recreation Director 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Donofrio. Ayes – All The motion passed. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the July 1, 2014, PC minutes as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Kempe. Ayes – Chairperson Desai, Commissioner’s Diatta, Donofrio, Ige, Kempe, Lindstrom & Trippler Abstention – Commissioners Arbuckle & Bierbaum The motion passed. August 19, 2014 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5. PUBLIC HEARING a. 7:00 p.m. or later: Approval of the following requests for LCS Lawn Service, Inc. at the former Maplewood Fire Station, 1177 Century Avenue: 1) Approval of a Resolution for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2) Approval of a Resolution for a Conditional Use Permit for Exterior Storage i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the commission. ii. The applicant, Jeff Meyer, LCS Lawn Service, 1389 Myrtle Street N, Maplewood, addressed and answered questions of the commission. Chairperson Desai opened the public hearing. Nobody came forward to address the commission. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the resolution adopting a comprehensive land use plan amendment from G (government) to C (commercial) for 1177 Century Avenue North. Approval is based on the following reasons: 1. The property is presently dormant and is proposed to be sold to and utilized by a private business which would be compatible with a land use classification of C (commercial). 2. The site is already zoned business commercial which is compatible with the land use designation of C (commercial) and the other commercial properties to the south. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the resolution approving a conditional use permit for exterior storage at 1177 Century Avenue. The storage area will be located directly west of the building. Approval is subject to the findings required by ordinance and subject to the following conditions: 1. All exterior storage must be contained to the area indicted by the site plan, date-stamped July 21, 2014. Staff may approve minor changes. 2. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 3. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 4. The proposed fence must be 100 percent opaque and be built with either cedar boards or a maintenance-free vinyl material. 5. Broken or knocked down fence portions shall be repaired. 6. Comply with the building permit requirements of the city’s building inspection department. 7. The applicant shall work with the building official, fire marshal and environmental planner to ensure compliance with applicable codes. 8. The open area to the north of the building shall not be used for any exterior storage purposes. 9. Any future changes to the site or building will require design review by the city. Seconded by Commissioner Kempe. Ayes - All August 19, 2014 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on August 25, 2014. b. 7:00 p.m. or later: Approval of the 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) i. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand introduced the item. ii. Finance Director, Gayle Bauman addressed and answered questions of the commission. iii. Assistant City Manager, Economic & Environmental Development Director, Melinda Coleman addressed and answered questions of the commission. iv. Public Works Director, City Engineer, Michael Thompson addressed the commission. v. Park & Recreation Director, DuWayne Konewko, addressed and answered questions of the commission. The commission stated that for next year, they would appreciate getting the graphs and charts printed out since it’s easier to view on paper compared to seeing it on the computer screen. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the 2015 – 2019 Capital Improvement Plan, based on the finding that doing so meets the goals of the comprehensive plan by guiding the future growth and development of the city in an orderly and fiscally responsible fashion. Seconded by Commissioner Ige. Ayes – All The motion passed. This item goes to the city council on September 8, 2014. 6. NEW BUSINESS None. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 8. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. 9. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Commission presentation for the July 14, 2014, city council meeting. Commissioner Donofrio attended. Items reviewed were the Days Inn CUP to convert this hotel use to senior housing, the preliminary and final plat for the Maekloth Addition and the CUP and Variance for the Whitaker used car sales business. b. Commission presentation for the July 28, 2014, city council meeting. Commissioner Kempe was scheduled to attend but was not needed for the item discussed. The council continued their discussion, tabled from the previous meeting, of the Days Inn Hotel Conversion proposal. Staff reported it was approved by the council 3-2. c. Commission presentation for the August 11, 2014, city council meeting. Commissioner Lindstrom was scheduled to attend. There were no items requiring commissioner representation at this meeting. August 19, 2014 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes d. Commission representation for the August 25, 2014, city council meeting. Commissioner Ige is scheduled to attend. The only item for review is the comprehensive plan amendment and conditional use permit for LCS Lawn Service at the former Century Avenue Fire Station. e. Commission representation for the September 8, 2014, city council meeting. Commissioner Trippler is scheduled to attend. The possible item for review is the 2015-2019 CIP. 10. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. 11. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Desai adjourned the meeting at 8:08 p.m. August 19, 2014 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, Interim City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Planner DATE: October 14, 2014 SUBJECT: Approval of a Resolution for a Conditional Use Permit Revision, Bruentrup Heritage Farm, 2170 County Road D East Introduction The Bruentrup farm buildings were relocated from White Bear Avenue to a 2.36 acre site within the Prairie Farm Neighborhood Preserve in 1999. Prior to relocation of the buildings, the city council issued a conditional use permit (CUP) to the Maplewood Area Historical Society (MAHS) to operate the farm on the new site as an educational and interpretive center. City code allows “public facilities” in any zoning district with a CUP. Since the relocation, Bruentrup Heritage Farm (BHF) has been the home of the MAHS where they host monthly society meetings and year-round educational, interpretive, and fundraising events. In 2006, the city received a $100,000 local preservation grant from the Minnesota Historical Society to complete the restorationof the barn. The restoration improvements, which included a fire sprinklerand alarm system, were needed before the barn could be used for public functions. In order to create a sustainable cash flow for farm expenses and other society projects, the MAHS requested an amendment to their CUP in order to sublease the Bruentrup Heritage Farm (BHF) site for large non-historical events, such as weddings. On July 27, 2009, the city council approved the amendment on the condition that MAHS limit the number ofpeople to 290 and the number ofevents to six per year. The MAHS is now requesting to increase the number of events and to extend the hours of operation. Background February 8, 1999, the city council approved the relocation of the Bruentrup farm buildings to the Prairie Farm Preserve. June 14, 1999, the city council approved a CUP for a “public facility” to be located within the Prairie Farm Preserve and a parking waiver for the reduction in the required number of parking spaces for such a use. December 13, 1999, the city council approved a 99-year lease agreement which allows the MAHS to lease the land and buildings for interpretive and educational purposes. The lease was never formally signed by the MAHS. July 8, 2002, the city council approved a CUP revision to allow the construction of a parking lot on the west side of the site, within the city’s open space. December 1, 2008, the city council held a workshop to discuss issues associated with MAHS including the lease, proposed fund-raising events,CUP amendment, parking, insurance, etc. April 13, 2009, the city council approved a lease agreement with the Maplewood Area Historical Society. This lease allows the society the use of the Bruentrup Heritage Farm site and buildings located at 2170 County Road D. July 27, 2009, the city council approved the amendment to the CUP allowing MAHS to hold a maximum of six private events a year with a maximum of 290 people per event. February 22, 2010, the city council reviewed the CUP and approved it for another year. The city council also approved the use of a state licensed caterer to provide alcohol for large events at the BHF. February 28, 2011, the city council reviewed the CUP and approved it for another year. April 23, 2012, the city council reviewed the CUP and agreed to review it again in one year. August 26, 2013, the city council approved the amendment to the CUP to allow the construction of a 24 stall reinforced- turf overflow parking area. Discussion The MAHS wouldlike to create additionalrevenue by renting out the barn foradditional weddings and other large events.Currently the CUP allows the MAHS to rent out the barn for 6 large fundraising, non-historical events. Initially, the MAHS requested an increase from 6 events to 15 but also wanted to exempt what they considered non-fundraising or historical events. The CUP has not in the past specifically stated what a large event is, but it has generally been considered to be 100 or more people. Staff is recommending this language be added to the CUP. Staff continued to discuss this proposal with the MAHS and it is staff’s desire to make the CUP requirements more straightforward and easier for all to understand. It would be difficult for staff to regulate whatevents are fundraising focused, or considered historical in order to effectively enforce the CUP. Because of this staff requested the MAHS give the total number of large events it would like to hold, regardless if it is for fundraising or historical purposes. The MAHS stated it would like the maximum number to be 40 large events a year. These events would include weddings or other receptions, church services and theatrical plays. Two letters from the MAHS are attached to this report. According to the MAHS, in 2014, there were 20 large events between weddings and church services. For 2015, the MAHS is planning on holding10Currently, the weddings or other receptions, 13 church services and 6 theatrical plays. CUP does not consider a church service to be a fundraising event so it does not count against the maximum 6 total. In counting the weeks between May and October, 40 the MAHSwould average about 1.5 large events a week. While 40 large events seems like a greatincrease from 6, it largely is counting events that are already being held at the site but have previously been exempt. Staff would be comfortable allowing the 40 total large events, but only allowing up to 15 of those events operate past 10 p.m. to midnight. Otherwise, the other 25 large events would have to end by 10 p.m. The society would continue tolimit bands, D.J.s, or other large-scale music venues to inside the barn. Parking No changes are being proposed to the capacity of the site or barn so no changes are required to the on-site and off-site parking requirements. The MAHS did recently add a 24-space reinforced-turf parking lot to the site. Traffic and Noise The major concerns from the neighborhood have been about traffic and noise. Any large scale music for outsideevents (such as DJs and bands) should be limited to inside the barn. Any event on the site must also comply with the city’s noise ordinance which requires that no disturbing noises be generated after 7 p.m. Staff understands the neighborhood concerns and that is why it recommends only 15 of the 40 large events be allowed to run past 10 p.m. to midnight. The other 25 events must end by 10 p.m. Since 2009, when the council amended the CUP to allow large events on the site, planning staff has not received any complaints regarding the use of the farm site. Insurance The structures and general liability are covered under the city’s umbrella insurance policy. The city requiresthe MAHSor the renters obtain additional liability coverage for the subleasingof the site for outside events. MAHS provides proof of coverage annually to city staff. City and MAHS Use of Bruentrup Heritage Farm As has been past practice, any use by the city and the MAHS for its own functions does not count towards the maximumnumber of events. Budget Impact None Recommendation Adopt the conditional use permit revision resolution for the Bruentrup Farm, located at 2170 County Road D East, to allow additional large events. Approval is based on the findings required byordinance and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1.Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2.Before the city issues a building permit, the cityengineer shall complete the necessary grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans. 3.The applicant or contractor shall complete the following before occupying the buildings: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b.Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. c. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers. The enclosures must be 100 percent opaque, match the color of the buildings and have a closeable gate that extends to the ground. If the trash container is not visible to the public it does not have to be screened. d.Install site-security lighting as required by the code. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed so the light source in not visible and so it does not cause any nuisance to drivers or neighbors. 4.If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if the city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 5.All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6.Update the January 2008 Bruentrup Heritage Farm Master Plan to include correct site size, site conditions, parking references, and purpose and intent of uses including any large non-historical fundraising events. 7. When the parking lot located east of the site cannot accommodate parking for an event(i.e., events where there are more than 84 people based on 4 people per vehicle in the21 space parking lot located to the east of the site) the society must supply off-siteparking to accommodate the events. 8.Off-site parking at Salvation Army (78 parking spaces at 2080 Woodlyn Avenue): a.The society must supply the city with a signed parking agreement between the society and the owners of the Salvation Army for the use of the parking lot. b.Transportation of guests in a wagon pulled by a tractor to and from the Salvation Army parking lot (Woodlyn Avenue)on a trail through the Prairie Farm Neighborhood Preserve is only allowed during daytime hours. c. The society must ensure safe pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Woodlyn Avenue and Ariel Street for visitors parking in the Salvation Army parking lot. Safe pedestrian crossing can involve temporary signs or crossing guards. 9.Off-site parking at Harbor Pointe (278 parking spaces at 2079 to 2127 County Road D): a.The society must supply the city with a signed parking agreement between the society and the owners of Harbor Pointe which allows the use of this parking lot. b.The society must ensure safe pedestrian crossing at the intersection of County Road D and Ariel Street for visitors parking in the Harbor Pointe parking lot. Safe pedestrian crossing can involve temporary signs or crossing guards. 10.Any large scale music proposed for any event on the site (such as DJs and bands) should be limited to inside the barn. 11.Use of the farm must comply with the city’s noise ordinance which requires that no disturbingnoises be generated before 7 a.m. and after 7 p.m. 12.The society will work with Maplewood city staff to coordinate the management of the oaksavanna located west of the entry drive within the Bruentrup Heritage Farm site with theintent of continuing to manage that portion of the site as oak savanna. 13.The barn must be posted with a maximum occupancy of 290 people. Conditions Which Apply to the Subleasing of the Site by the Society for Large Non-Historical FundraisingEvents: 14.Subleased large non-historicalfundraisingevents with 100 or more people in attendanceare allowed six40times per year.Historical events conducted by the MAHS, events conducted by the city of Maplewood and events with less than 100 people in attendance shall not count towards the maximum number of events held each year. 15.Subleased large non-historical fundraisingevents with 100 or more people in attendanceare allowed from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.Of the 40 total large events, 15 events shall be allowedtoextend to midnight. 16.Parking for subleased large non-historical fundraisingevents in which alcohol will be served is limited to the parking lotson the east side of the site and the Harbor Pointe parking lot located about a block west of the site on the north side of County Road D. 17. Maximum number of occupants allowed on site for large non-historical fundraising events in which alcohol will be served is limited to 290 people.The maximum capacity of the barn shall not exceed the posted occupancy limits as determined by the city’s Building Official and Fire Marshall. 18.Appropriate liquor licenses must be obtained prior to serving alcohol on the site. 19.The society must obtain the appropriate liability coverage forlarge non-historical fundraisingevents which holds the city harmless. 20.A rental agreement must be approved by the city which dictates hours of use, maximumnumber of people, location of parking, etc. Conditions Relative to the Proposed Reinforced-Turf Parking Plan: 21.The site and landscaping plan dated July 17, 2013, showing theproposed turf parking plan is approved. 22.Minor revisions may be approved by staff. 23.Construction shall begin on the proposed turf parking lot within one year or this approvalshall end. The city council may extend this approval for one additional year. 24.The city engineer, police chief and fire chief shall review the plans, as required by ordinance, before construction on the turf parking lot can begin. 25.23. Screening must be provided, as proposed, to buffer the proposed parking lot from theneighborto the east. This screening shall be completed before the parking lot may beused, unless the applicant provides escrow to guarantee its completion. Escrow shallbe, as is typically required, in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of installing thelandscaping. Citizen Comments Staff surveyed the owners of the 117properties within 500 feet of the site for their comments. Of the 11replies,six are in favor, four are not and one had no comment. In Favor 1.Whatever they want is fine with me, thanks. (, 720 Arcwood Road, Cindy Koebele Mahtomedi) 2.I have no problems with the later hours or more wedding rentals. (Doris Bjostad, 2161 Woodlynn AvenueEast) 3.We are in favor of the changes. This is a beautiful site and it should be used. There does needto be enforcement of noise issues and if the situation changes for the closest neighbors there may need to be another look. I think the turf parking is a great idea and it looks great. (Gene Mammenga and Charlotte Brooker, 2172 Woodlynn Avenue East) 4.Ihave no objections to increasing the number of events to 15 or to extending the hours to midnight. 10 p.m. seems to be too short of an end time for weddings. (Charlotte Nelson, 2187 Woodlynn Avenue East) 5.I am writing with regard to the permit related letter for the Bruentrup Farm. I have no objections personally, and the increased number of events and a later end time sounds reasonable. However, since Xcelcut out an entire wall of trees last year, we’ve lost basically all of our sound barrier. It would be nice if the farm helped replant some of the trees (approved kind and height by Xcel) to help give some sound barrier to the residents, in case the events (weddings mostly) got a bit loud. This seems like a reasonable quid pro quo. Also, the farm has recently come up with a $20 photo permit requirement. I’m not sure that there are enough ‘attractions’ on the farm that warrant this kind of fee (that’s how much the conservatory chargesand there’s much more to do there). I’d like to see this requirement waved to the residents (at least). (Ester Knowlen, 2215 Woodlynn Avenue East) 6.They are all good people, everything is handled nicely – I am all for their request. (Howard Nelson, 2175 County Road D East) Not In Favor 1.I think 15 events are excessive especially going until midnight. Mr. Jensen obviously doesn’t live in the area. I wouldn’t like it but as a compromiseI would be OK with 10 events and only half of them going until 11 p.m. as it would be midnight by the time it was over. Anything more than that I would start a petition to can the proposal altogether. (Kurt Merkle, 985 Oakridge Avenue, Shoreview) 2.My name is Sue Huebl andmy husband and I live directly across from the Farm’s parking lot at 2191 County Rd D. We do have some concerns about the changes that are being proposed. The first concern is the increased level of traffic in front of our home that would happen if the farm had 15 events next summer. Secondly, because the parking lot is directly in front of our home, the cars headlights are shining into our windows after dark. That may not seem like a problem to some, however we do not cover our windows because we enjoy our yards view. If the farm is open later, we would have lights shining into our rooms late in the evening even more so than we do now. (Sue Hueble, 2191 County Road D East) 3.Concerns: 1. Increased traffic on County Road D 2. Increased noises and alcohol use during events creating greater risks and potential for chaotic behaviors and/or actions impacting our neighborhoods. Timenot permitted for midnight to reduced noises – traffic and human loitering. (Txhajcawv and Mai Yia Mouanouvu, 2235 County Road D East) 4.Midnight is too late – didn’t move here to live next to a banquet hall. There is already a lot of noise and this is a residential area. (Christi Glendenning, 2226 County Road D East) NoComments. 1.I have no comments. (Carol Nettleton, 2189 Woodlynn Avenue East) Reference Information Site Description Site size:2.36acres Existing land use: Bruentrup Heritage Farm Surrounding Land Uses North: County Road D and Single Family Homes South: Maplewood Prairie Farm Heritage Preserve East: Single Family Homes West: Maplewood Prairie Farm Heritage Preserve Planning Land Use Plan designation:OS (open space) Zoning: F (farm) Code Requirements. Section 44-1092(1) of the city ordinances requires a CUP for public service and public building uses. Findings for CUP Approval Section 44-1097(a) requires that the city council base approval of a CUP on nine findings. Refer tothe findings for approval in the resolution. Application Date The application for this request was considered complete on September 29, 2014. State law requires that the city decide on these applications within 60 days. The deadline for city council action on this proposal is November 28, 2014. Attachments 1.Aerial and Location Map 2.Zoning Map 3.Land Use Map 4.Letters from MAHS, dated September 15, 2014 and October 10, 2014 5.Conditional Use Permit RevisionResolution P:\SEC2N\Bruentrup Farm\2014 CUP Revision Request Attachment 4 Attachment 4 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Maplewood Area Historical Society has applied for a conditional use permit revision to hold additional large events and to extend the hours off operation at the Bruentrup Farm. WHEREAS, Section 44-1092(1) of the city code requires a conditional use permit for public building uses. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property located at 2170 County Road D East. The property identification numbers for this property is: 022922110009 WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit revision is as follows: 1.On October 21, 2014, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered the reports and recommendation of city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council ______ this permit. 2.On November 10, 2014, the city council considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council _________ the above-described conditional use permit, because (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1.The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2.The use would not change the existingor planned character of the surrounding area. 3.The use would not depreciate property values. 4.The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing orcause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5.The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 6.The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7.The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. Attachment 5 8.The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9.The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council also determines that the above- described conditional use permit meets the following criteria: 1.Repeatthis review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. 2.Before the city issues a building permit, the city engineer shall complete the necessary grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans. 3.The applicant or contractor shall complete the following before occupying the buildings: a. Replace property irons that are removed because of this construction. b.Install reflectorized stop signs at all exits, a handicap-parking sign for each handicap-parking space and an address on the building. c. Construct a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers. The enclosures must be 100 percent opaque, match the color of the buildings and have a closeable gate that extends to the ground. If the trash container is not visible to the public it does not have to be screened. d.Install site-security lighting as required by the code. The light source, including the lens covering the bulb, shall be concealed so the light source in not visible and so it does not cause any nuisance to drivers or neighbors. 4.If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if the city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. 5.All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 6.Update the January 2008 Bruentrup Heritage Farm Master Plan to include correct site size, site conditions, parking references, and purpose and intent of uses including any large non-historical fundraising events. 7. When the parking lot located east of the site cannot accommodate parking for an event(i.e., events where there are more than 84 people based on 4 people per vehicle in the21 space parking lot located to the east of the site) the society must supply off-siteparking to accommodate the events. 8.Off-site parking at Salvation Army (78 parking spaces at 2080 Woodlyn Avenue): a.The society must supply the city with a signed parking agreement between the society and the owners of the Salvation Army for theuse of the parking lot. Attachment 5 b.Transportation of guests in a wagon pulled by a tractor to and from the Salvation Army parking lot (Woodlyn Avenue) on a trail through the Prairie Farm Neighborhood Preserve is only allowed during daytime hours. c. The society must ensure safe pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Woodlyn Avenue and Ariel Street for visitors parking in the Salvation Army parking lot. Safe pedestrian crossing can involve temporary signs or crossing guards. 9.Off-site parking at Harbor Pointe (278 parking spaces at 2079 to 2127 County Road D): a.The society must supply the city with a signed parking agreement between the society and the owners of Harbor Pointe which allows the use of this parking lot. b.The society must ensure safe pedestrian crossing at the intersection of County Road D and Ariel Street for visitors parking in the Harbor Pointe parking lot. Safe pedestrian crossing can involve temporary signs or crossing guards. 10.Any large scale music proposed for any event on the site (such as DJs andbands) should be limited to inside the barn. 11.Use of the farm must comply with the city’s noise ordinance which requires that no disturbing noises be generated before 7 a.m. and after 7 p.m. 12.The society will work with Maplewood city staff to coordinate the management of the oaksavanna located west of the entry drive within the Bruentrup Heritage Farm site with theintent of continuing to manage that portion of the site as oak savanna. 13.The barn must be posted with a maximum occupancy of 290 people. Conditions Which Apply to the Subleasing of the Site by the Society for Large Non-Historical Fundraising Events: 14.Subleased large non-historical fundraisingevents with 100 or more people in attendanceare allowed six40times per year. Historical events conducted by the MAHS, events conducted by the city of Maplewood and events with less than 100 people in attendance shall not count towards the maximum number of events held each year. 15.Subleased large non-historical fundraisingevents with 100 or more people in attendanceare allowed from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.Of the 40 total large events, 15 events shall be allowed to extend to midnight. 16.Parking for subleased large non-historical fundraisingevents in which alcohol will be served is limited to the parking lotson the east side of the site and the Harbor Pointe parking lot located about a block west of the site on the north side of County Road D. 17. Maximum number of occupants allowed on site for large non-historical fundraising events in which alcohol will be served is limited to 290 people.The maximum capacity Attachment 5 of the barn shall not exceed the posted occupancy limits as determined by the city’s Building Official and Fire Marshall. 18.Appropriate liquor licenses must be obtained prior to serving alcohol on the site. 19.The society must obtain the appropriate liability coverage forlarge non-historical fundraisingevents which holds the city harmless. 20.A rental agreement must be approved by the city which dictates hours of use, maximum number of people, location ofparking, etc. Conditions Relative to the Proposed Reinforced-Turf Parking Plan: 21.The site and landscaping plan dated July 17, 2013, showing the proposed turf parking plan is approved. 22.Minor revisions may be approved by staff. 23.Construction shall begin on the proposed turf parking lot within one year or this approval shall end. The city council may extend this approval for one additional year. 24.The city engineer, police chief and fire chief shall review the plans, as required by ordinance, before construction on the turf parking lot can begin. 25.23.Screening must be provided, as proposed, to buffer the proposed parking lot from the neighbor to the east. This screening shall be completed before the parking lot may be used, unless the applicant provides escrow to guarantee its completion. Escrow shall be, as is typically required, in the amount of 150 percent of the cost of installing the landscaping. The Maplewood City Council _________ this resolution on _______, 2014. MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, Interim City Manager FROM: Michael Martin, AICP,Planner DATE: October 14, 2014 SUBJECT: Approval of aResolution for a Comprehensive Plan Amendmentfrom G (Government) to C (Commercial), aResolution for a Zoning Map Amendment from F (Farm) to BC (Business Commercial)and a lot division for the Former Maplewood Parkside Fire Station, 2001 McMenemy Street North Introduction Project Description The citycouncilhas approved apurchase agreement for the former Maplewood Parkside Fire Station, at 2001 McMenemy StreetNorth.The proposed user for this building is an auto glass business which is permitted by the business commercial (BC) zoning. Currently the site is guided and zoned for a government use,sothe comprehensive planclassification needs to be amended to C (commercial) and the zoning to BC(business commercial).In addition, the city is proposing to divide the lot into two parcels, with the city retaining the northern portion for potential development in the future. Requests The City of Maplewood is requesting that the city council approve: 1.A comprehensive land use plan amendment from G (government)to C (commercial). 2.A zoning map amendment from F (farm) to BC (business commercial). 3.Alotdivision. Background This property is the site ofthe Maplewood Parkside Fire Station. Itwas placedfor sale due to its being decommissioned as a functioning station. The city council is moving forward witha purchase agreement from BradeRick Holdings LLCto purchase this property from the cityand operate an auto glass business.BradeRick Holdings LLCis not proposing anychanges to the exterior of thebuilding and will be utilizing the parking lot as it is currently configured. In the future, any changes to the exterior part of the building or the parking lot would trigger a design review process by the city. The site currently meets minimum parking requirements for the building. Discussion Comprehensive Plan Amendment The former Parkside fire station is a commercial building positioned between commercial and residential land uses. This building will eventually be used for a commercial purpose. The city presently has an offer for an auto glass installer to buy this building to operate theirbusiness. The building is suited for such a use and would be compatible with the neighboring commercial development. It would not be as compatible with the residential homes to the east and south but would not be too different from its previous use as a fire station in terms of the degree of this non-residential activity. The land use plan must be changed from its current G (government) classification to C (commercial) to suit the land use classification to this commercial building. This proposed change to commercial would also be applied to the undeveloped portion to the north of the building. Future commercial development could occur in this location. Zoning MapAmendment The city is proposing to amend its zoning map for this site to BC (business commercial) from the existing zoning of F (farm). The BC district would be compatible with the C land use designation and permit the use of an auto glass business. The nearby non-residential parcels are zoned either limited business commercial and commercial office. The BC district is compatible with the existing fire station building which was not constructed as an office buildingand was intended for a more intense use. The zoning of this site to BC will not change the character of this neighborhoodas the building is to remain in its present state. The site will be improved from being a vacant building to having an active user on site. Criteria for Rezoning Section 44-1165 of the zoning ordinance states that, to revise the zoning map, the planning commission and council shall: 1.Assure itself that the proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of this chapter. 2.Determine that the proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property orfrom the character of the neighborhood and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3.Determine that the proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4.Consider the effect of the proposed change upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5.Be guided in its study, review and recommendation by sound standards of subdivision practice where applicable. 6.Impose such conditions, in addition to those required, as are necessary to ensure that the intent of this chapter is complied with, which conditions mayinclude but not be limited to harmonious design of buildings; planting and the maintenance of a sight or sound screen; the minimizing of noxious, offensive or hazardous elements; and adequate standards of parking and sanitation. Lot Division The city is proposing to divide the existing 1.3 acre parcelinto two and retaining the north portion of the property. If approved, the north parcel would be approximately 0.6 acres and the south parcel approximately 0.7 acres. The city would consider potential development options in the future for this parcel. The proposed property line would run down the middle of theexisting parking lot. Parking,access and utility agreements would be required to ensure the needs are both parcels are met. Please see the reportfrom the city engineer regarding this action attached to the report. Even if the city council decides not to move forward with developing the northportion of the lot it would need to retain the agreements to ensure access to the site for maintenance purposes. The buyer of the fire station building is not interested in purchasing the entire lot as it currently exists. Typically, city staff can approve a lot division administratively but because there are needed comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments these requests has been packaged together. Committee Review October 21, 2014: The planning commission will reviewthis project and make a recommendation regarding the comprehensive plan amendment and the conditional use permit. Budget Impact The approval of comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments and a lot divisiondo not have any direct impact on the city’s budget. The selling of the fire station property has been addressed by the city council in other actions. Recommendations A.Approvethe resolution adoptinga comprehensive land use plan amendment from G (government) to C (commercial) for 2001 McMenemy StreetNorth. Approval is based on the following reasons: 1.The property is presently dormantand is proposed to be sold to and utilized by a private businesswhich would be compatible with a land use classification of C (commercial). 2.The site would be zoned business commercial which is compatiblewith the land use designation of C (commercial) and the other commercial properties in the area. This action is subject to the approval of a comprehensive plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. B.Approve the resolution amending the zoning map for 2001 McMenemy Street Northfrom F (farm) to BC (business commercial) for the following reasons: 1.This proposed rezoning would enable the continued use of the existing, non-residential, building on site. 2.This change would comply with the comprehensive land use plan commercial classification. 3.The proposed rezoning would meet the following six criteria for a zoning map revision as required by city ordinance: a.Assure itself that the proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of this chapter. b.Determine that the proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. c.Determine that the proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. d.Consider the effect of the proposed change upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. e.Be guided in its study, review and recommendation by sound standards of subdivision practice where applicable. f.Impose such conditions, in addition to those required, as are necessary to ensure that the intent of this chapter is complied with, which conditions may include but not be limited to harmonious design of buildings; planting and the maintenance of a sight or sound screen; the minimizing of noxious, offensive or hazardous elements; and adequate standards of parking and sanitation. C.Approve the lot division request to subdivide the 1.3 acre parcel at 2001 McMenemy Street North. This lot division approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Satisfy the requirements set forth in the staff report authored by Mr. Love, dated October 14, 2014. 2.A survey must be submitted to planning staff for final approval. 3.The lot division and any and all easement agreements must be recorded with Ramsey County within one year of approval date otherwise the approval is null and void. Citizen Comments Staff surveyed the owners of the 51 properties within 500 feet of the site for their comments. Of the fourreplies,one was in favor and three were not. In Favor 1.Regarding the old fire station, an auto glass business would be more low key than something like a retail store of some kind. I am thinking of the effect that would have on selling the property across the street and lot one on Toenjes Place.I have no specific objections to the rezoning plan. (Herb Toenjes, 1950 Hawthorne Avenue East) Not In Favor 1.We do not agree with the dividing of the parcel. Rezoning okay. Maintain one parcel as commercial. (MnCon Inc., 1959 Sloan Place North) 2.We would like to see something useful to the neighborhood go in here. 2. Our mainconcern is that the “new” property be neighborhoodfriendly. Understandably, the property is zoned commercial but it is still a residential neighborhood. We don’t consider an auto glass business to be neighborhood friendly. My main concerns are also added lighting, signage traffic, etc than we already have! Our space and privacy is being invaded more and more. (Sharon Tarble, 1975 McMenemy Street North) 3.See attached letter. (William and JoLynn Giles, 1967 McMenemy Street North) Reference Information Site Description Site size: 1.3 acres Existing land use: Former Maplewood Fire Station Surrounding Land Uses North: St. Paul Business Center East South: Single dwellings West: St. Paul Business Center East East: Single dwellings Planning LandUse Plan designation:G (government) Zoning: F (farm) Attachments 1.Aerial and Location Map 2.Land Use Map 3.Zoning Map 4.Site and Proposed Lot Division Map 5.Steve Love, engineering report, dated October 14, 2014 6.Letter from William and JoLynn Giles 7.Comprehensive Plan Amendment Resolution 8.Zoning Map AmendmentResolution P:\SEC18\2001 McMenemy St\Land Use and Zoning Amendment_2014 1:3,600 Attachment 2 Parkside 0250500125Feet Maplewood Future Land Use Map Legend Low Density ResidentialParkMixed Use Rural/Low Density ResidentialInstitutionCommercial Medium Density ResidentialOpen SpaceIndustrial ¯ High Density ResidentialGovernment Attachment 3 Parkside 0250500125Feet Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Maplewood Zoning Map Legend Open Space/Park Business Commercial (bc) Single Dwelling (r1) Limited Business Commercial (lbc) Multiple Dwelling (r3) Business Commercial Modified (bcm) ¯ Farm (f) Commercial Office (co) Planned Unit Development (pud) Double Dwelling (r2) Attachment 4 Approx. Proposed LotLine Attachment 5 Engineering Plan Review PROJECT: McMenemy Fire Station Lot Split – 2001 McMenemy Street N. PROJECT NO:14-19 COMMENTS BY: Steven W. Love – Assistant City Engineer DATE: 10-14-2014 PLAN SET: No plans submitted to date The City of Maplewoodis requesting a lot split of the property at 2001 McMenemy Street North. The site currently consists ofan existing fire station building and parking lot.Additionally,the lot consists of a large unused area north of the parking lot.The Citywishes to split the existing property to sell the portionthat contains the existing fire station. The proposed lot split will not alter the existing site conditionsfor theproposedsouth lot. The following are engineeringreview comments on the proposed lot split request: 1)Theexisting propertyis proposed to be split down the middle of the access lane forthe north parking lot. a.A shared parking and access easementwill need to be signed and recorded. This easement shoulddiscuss parking rights, access rights, maintenance responsibilities, andcost participation. 2)Drainage from the McMenemy Street and the proposed south parcel will across the north parcel. a.A drainage easement will need to be signed and recorded. This easement should discuss drainage rights, maintenance responsibilities, and cost participation. 3)The existing site has two raingardens north of the parking lot that provide water quality treatment for the proposed south lot. a.Ifthe proposed north lot is developedin the futureit will be required to meet the City’s storm water quality and rate control requirements. b.Additionally, any futuresite layout for the proposed north lot willneed to account for the existing raingardens, if they are moved or replaced,to meet the City’s stormwater quality and rate control requirements. Attachment 5 4)The exiting building is serviced by private utilities. The private utilities, such as water, sanitary andgas,will need to be located. a.If any of the private utilities that service the existing building are found to cross the proposed north lot they will either need to be relocated or have easements created and recorded to cover them. 5)A survey shall be created and that shows the existing site conditions, the proposed lot split, existing utilities, and any proposed easements. 6) The new owners of either of the two proposed properties shall satisfy the requirements of all permitting and reviewing agencies including(but not limited to)the MPCA, Metropolitan Council,and SPRWS. 7)The applicant shall submit all necessary permit fees (e.g. SAC, WAC, PAC, grading, building) prior to the issuance of any permits. - END COMMENTS - Attachment 6 Attachment 7 COMPREHENSIVEPLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood,has requested a change to the City of Maplewood’s land use plan from G (government) to C (commercial) for consistency between the plan and actual use of the land. WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located at 2001 McMenemy Street North.The property identification numberis: 18-29-22-14-0002 WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1.On October 21, 2014, the planning commission held a public hearing. The citystaff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended thatthe city council ________the land use plan change. 2.On November 10, 2014the city council discussed the land use plan change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council ___________ the above described change for the following reasons: 1.The property is presently dormant and is proposed to be sold to and utilized by a private business which would be compatible with a land use classification of C (commercial). 2.The site would be zoned business commercial which is compatible with the land use designation of C (commercial) and the other commercial properties in the area. This action is subject to the approval of this land use plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. The Maplewood City Council _________ this resolution on November 10, 2014. Attachment 8 ZONING MAPAMENDMENT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood,has requested a change to the City of Maplewood’s zoning mapfrom F (farm)to BC (business commercial) for consistency between the zoning mapand actual use of the land. WHEREAS, this change applies to the property located at 2001 McMenemy Street North.The property identification numberis: 18-29-22-14-0002 WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1.On October 21, 2014, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council ________the zoning mapchange. 2.On November 10, 2014the city council discussed the zoning map change. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the citycouncil ___________ the above described change for the following reasons: 1.This proposed rezoning would enable the continued use of the existing, non- residential, building on site. 2.This change would comply with the comprehensive land use plan commercial classification. 3.The proposed rezoning would meet the following six criteria for a zoning map revision as required by city ordinance: a.Assure itself that the proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of this chapter. b.Determine that the proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. c. Determine that the proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. Attachment 8 d.Consider the effect of the proposed change upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. e.Be guided in its study, review and recommendation by sound standards of subdivision practice where applicable. f.Impose such conditions, in addition to those required, as are necessary to ensure that the intent of this chapter is complied with, which conditions may include but not be limited to harmonious design of buildings; planting and the maintenance of a sight or sound screen; the minimizing of noxious, offensive or hazardous elements; and adequate standards of parking and sanitation. The Maplewood City Council _________ this resolution on November 10, 2014. MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, Interim City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner DATE: October 1, 2014 SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution of Appreciation for Yaya Diatta - Planning Commissioner Introduction Yaya Diatta has submitted his resignation as a member of the Maplewood Planning Commission. The city council appointed Yaya to the planning commission on November 14, 2013. Commissioner Diatta expressed regret to leave the planning commission, but because he has moved out of Maplewood, he no longer is eligible to serve. Budget Impact None Recommendation Approve a resolution of appreciation for Planning Commissioner Diatta. Attachment 1. Resolution of Appreciation for Yaya Diatta P: Planning Commission\Resolution of Appreciation for Yaya Diatta PC Memo 10 7 14 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, Yaya Diatta has been a member of the Maplewood Planning Commission since November 14, 2013 and has served faithfully in that capacity to the present time; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has appreciated Yaya’s experience, insights and good judgment; and WHEREAS, Yaya has freely given of his time and energy, without compensation, for the betterment of the City of Maplewood; and WHEREAS, Yaya has shown sincere dedication to his duties and has consistently contributed his leadership, time and effort for the benefit of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED for and on behalf of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, and its citizens that Yaya Diatta is hereby extended our gratitude and appreciation for his dedicated service. Passed by the Maplewood City Council on ___________, 2014 ____________________________________ Nora Slawik, Mayor Passed by the Maplewood Planning Commission On _____________, 2014 ____________________________________ Tushar Desai, Chairperson Attest: ________________________________ Karen Haag, City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Melinda Coleman, Interim City Manager FROM: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Andy Welti, Intern DATE: September 22, 2014 SUBJECT: Consideration of Dwelling-Unit Size Requirements for Senior Housing Introduction On June 17, 2014, while reviewing the proposed conversion of the Days Inn motel into senior housing, the planning commission directed staff to explore revising the city’s multi-family unit size requirements to address seniors’ housing needs. Currently, they only address unit sizes appropriate for typical housing needs. In recent years, the city reviewed several senior housing projects that had unit sizes considerably smaller than the minimum floor-area requirement for a one-bedroom unit of 580 square feet. A concern of the planning commission was that without some guidance or standards within the ordinance they would be making uninformed recommendations to the city council. Staff checked with some of our neighboring cities to see how they regulated unit sizes for seniors’ housing projects. See below. Background Maplewood’s Minimum Multi-Family Unit-Size Requirements Maplewood's zoning code requires the following minimum multi-family unit sizes (there is no distinction for senior housing unit sizes): One-bedroom and efficiency units 580 square feet Two-bedroom units 740 square feet Three-bedroom units 860 square feet Four-bedroom units 1,040 square feet Recent Senior-Housing Unit-Size Variances Approved The city has allowed smaller unit sizes for assisted-living and memory-care units as follows: Project Name Number of Units (includes memory care) Approved Unit Size Comforts of Home 42 (15 MC) 221 - 360 square feet Lakewood Commons 100 (30 MC) 425 square feet The Shores 105 (32 MC) 433 square feet The Seasons 150 (30 MC) 382 square feet Proposed Days Inn Conversion 115 (54 MC) 312 - 640 square feet Staff has heard from the developers of senior housing that the senior-housing industry has moved toward smaller room sizes since it has found that assisted-care and memory-care residents do not need larger spaces. The city has regularly allowed variances for smaller unit sizes based on this justification by developers. When considering the proposal to convert the Days Inn to senior housing, that developer gave the following justification for smaller unit sizes: “We request a variance due to the fact that this type of facility does not require larger units because so much space is dedicated to common areas. In assisted living and memory care facilities, residents tend to spend most of their free time in the common spaces, using their personal rooms mostly for resting. We serve meals in common areas so the rooms do not require large kitchens. Activities are set up in the common areas and conducted by staff so we need little room in the individual units for social activities. When looking at the proposed floor plans, you’ll notice when compared to a typical multi-family housing project, there is significantly more common space dedicated for this facility.” Discussion Neighboring Communities Staff contacted the neighboring cities of Woodbury, Roseville, White Bear Lake and Oakdale to get a comparison of their requirements. These cities reported the following: Woodbury: There is no unit-size minimum for seniors housing. Roseville: There is no unit-size minimum for seniors housing. Oakdale: The minimum unit size is 220 square feet (based on International Building Code). White Bear Lake: For senior housing White Bear Lake requires a minimum of 400 square feet for an efficiency/studio, 500 sq. ft. for a one bedroom unit, and 700 sq. ft. for a two bedroom unit. If a developer proposed a project with unit sizes smaller than the minimum requirements, staff would require the developer to apply for a variance. 2 Staff’s Comments Staff feels that it would be hard to establish a minimum unit size for assisted-living and memory care units. The developments approved so far all had different minimum unit sizes. If we established a minimum unit size, for example of 355 square feet (the average), it is possible that a developer could propose a unit size smaller than that established. The city would again end up reviewing a unit-size-reduction variance request. We have heard from developers that persons in memory care benefit from smaller unit sizes because the additional space in larger units may be overwhelming for those residents. They say smaller unit sizes are more comfortable and more manageable for those residents, perhaps safer as well. Developers also say the common areas are better for socialization so small unit sizes are all that is needed for sleep and personal care. Recommendation Staff is presenting this data for discussion purposes. If the planning commission decides that the city should consider changing the ordinance for seniors housing unit size, staff will prepare a code amendment for the commission's review based on their direction. P:planning commission\seniors unit sizes review 2014 3