CC 09-12-1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Regular Council Meeting , Page three September 12, 1977 Howard Kern, 1400 West County Road E, said the City should feel no moral responsIbility to TCCH; It was only after many assurances and much reservation that they received even a passive response from the community on the Initial proposal; after obtaining that Special Use Permit they did not follow through; a different build- ing Is proposed now. Kern said, If a poll were taken of Arden Hills residents, he feels that less than II would want an apart- ment next to them; apartments are not comparable to our existing homes. It was noted that this TCCH proposal Is lower In height but closer to the residential area than the previous proposal. . Architect Winsor said that only two stories 8"1" the end of the building will be visible to residential; traffic within the grounds wi II be peaceful - older people as contrasted to that of younger drl vers. Woodburn noted that the reason the first Special Use Permit was not used was because the deveioper could not find proper financing. Peterson said the nature of the facility has not changed; financing of the project has changed - are now aiming at a middle-upper Income group, rather than subsidized housing; "fee1 we have made Improvements In the site plan - moved buildings to the west and lowered them two stories; will provide screening to the residential area to the south; other directions are primarily naturally screened. TCCH Is not In the single-family home business; wants to provide a housing facility for the elderly prior to their need for a nursing home. Peterson referred Council to former Council Meeting Minutes which Implied that If a similar proposal were presented, Council saw no reason why It wouldn't be approved; density Is not Increased over the last proposal. Mrs. Stoutenberg, said the property Is zoned residential; would like to see It kept that way. Hanson advised that the Zoning Ordinance lists alternative land uses which are permitted in R-I zones with a Special Use Permit. Mr. Stoutenberg noted that when the project was formerly approved by Council, a petition opposing the project had been presented; another petition was presented against this proposal; apparently this petition carried more weight. Mayor Crepeau advised that the Council does pay attention to petitions; we accept and consider all petitions. Larry Peterson stated that at the last Public Hearing (held before the Planning Commission) many residents immediately adjacent to the sIte supported this proposal; the ordinance provides for develop- ments of alternative housing - thIs Is a residential development. The motion carried unanimously. . Case No. 77-40. Front Setback Variance for Garage Addition - 1840 Venus Avenue. Clifford Anderson Planner Miller referred Council to his report of 8/30/77 and ex- plained that the app~lcant Is proposing to convert the existing garage to laundry and living space and construct a new garage In front of the existing garage, requiring a 7' front setback variance; reason for modifying Is to provide laundry facilities on the main floor for medical reasons. Miller explained construction options which could be considered. An addition to the rear would require either a sldeyard setback or an off-set of the new wall; el"l"her would De less desirable to the applicant than the proposed construction; '~he front encroachment, as proposed, would not In his opinion adversely affect the appear- ance of the neighborhood; not convinced thore is a genuine hard- ship to the lot. Miller reported that the Board of Appeals and Planning Commission recommend Council approval, and 12 neighbors have endorsed the plan. -:i-