CC 09-12-1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Page two September 12, 1977 about 175 people about 275 people - single-family homes - apartments and nursing care units. Miller noted that standards have not been established for this type of facility. . Traffic evaluation: Single-family homes would generate more traffic on Pascal and Wesley Avenues. Retirement facility would generate more traffic on Snelling Avenue and Old Highway 10. Slngne-famlly homes traffic Is based on 8-10 tripS/day. Retirement facility Is anticipated to be from 2-4 trips/day. Peterson said that traffic generation depends on how available public and private transportation Is to the facility: TCCH will provide transportation for shopping etc., estimates 2 trips/day per unit. Miller noted that the streets that would serve TCCH traffic (Snelling, Highway 10 and County Road E) are adequate to handle this, and a great deal more, traffic: there Is no serious problem In that respect. Miller noted that the 50 homes (used In the comparison) would be on re-platted lots, not existing plat: number could vary up- ward for a PUD. Miller noted that the nearest units, as proposed, would be about 1600' from Lake Valentine; within about 600-700 feet of some low land, which mayor may not require an EAW (not determined>. Miller reported that the question of devaluation of properties Is primarily dependent on the quality of the apartment proposal and how well the site can accommodate them: If treated correctly en- vironmentally and aesthetically, It Is not necessarily true that surrounding neighborhood values would be devaluated, or that these surrounding properties would be also uti Ilzed for the higher density use. Miller noted that proposed building Is about 150' from the nearest residence; parking lot is about 200' from nearest residence; wi i I look for screening and bermlng In these areas. After discussion, Woodburn moved, seconded by Crichton, that Council deny the Special Use Permit for the TCCH retirement center Planned Development on the basis that: . I. land Is now platted for single-family residences (R-Il. 2. No better use has been shown for this land. 3. Density Is considerably higher than that of single- family home development. 4. Proposed .ratl rement fac III ty Is essent I a II y an apartment project (units sold as apartments) sponsored by a non- profit organization. In discussion Hanson noted that Councl i had approved a Special Use Permit for TCCH about two years ago; feels Council Is morally obli- gated to continue the Initial Special Use Permit which was granted. Crichton said he did not see some of the short-comings at time of the Initial proposal. Woodburn said that the density of the Presbyterian Homes Geriatric facility In an R-I zone, and the Impact that the Northwestern College Fine Arts facility proposal had In an R-I zone are examples of problems which are similar to those problems he envisions ~hls proposal could create. Crichton noted that the Impact of Presbyterian Homes and North- western College on the neighborhood could have been greatly reduced If a wider buffer strip were provided; did not see this impact when considering the Inltla.! Special Use Permit for TeCH. -2-