2011_0822_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment D 1 Adopt a Resolution Approving Assisted Living Facility as a Conditional Use at 621-637 2 Larpenteur Avenue (former Consent Item 7.h) mm At the request of Mayor Roe, Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA )i dated July 25, 2011. Mr. Lloyd advised that all site 5 development was required to meet zoning code requirements with the exception of some 6 setbacks that didn't presently meet requirements,, but were not recommended by staff for the 7' same precision as some in the past. 8 Councilmember McGehee questioned rationale in removing the code requirement for 150 square 9 feet of green space for each individual in an assisted living facility; and her difficulty in lo separating this facility from that of a prison. Councilmember McGehee questioned what type of 11 assisted living facility this represented when residents couldn't go outside. While recognizing 12 the need to avoid residents wandering off, Councilmember McGehee opined that they should still 1'3 be able to have sufficient green space to allow residents and staff, or residents and their visitors 14 to go outside. Councilmember McGehee, while wanting the project to move forward, requested 15 that the requirement remain. 16 Related to other issues and concerns provided to her by neighbors, Councilmember McGehee 1 `7 advised that those concerns were related to fencing and buffering for adjacent properties, as well 18 as the height of the building. Councilmember McGehee advised that she had not found any 19 place in the conditions of the Conditional Use that would provide peace of mind to neighbors on 20 those issues beyond discussions held at the Planning Commission's Public Hearing level. 21 Councilmember McGehee referenced a particular example in place in Roseville and lack of that 22 Conditional Use in place to provide any resolution for that situation, advising that she didn't 2'3 want to create a similar problem on this site, and sought more specificity in the Conditional Use 24 and related conditions to avoid a recurrence. 25 Councilmember McGehee opined that the exterior of this building looked like a "barracks"' and 26 suggested the developer articulate the building design better while also providing for some 2 7' interior open space for potential outside access for residents, staff and/or family members while 28 keeping everyone safe. Councilmember McGehee questioned the height of this building to the 29 adjacent apartment buildings. '30 Mr. Lloyd noted that this proposed structure was taller than the flat roof apartment building next J, N�3 1 door; but that the pitched roof of the building was within height limitations of that zoning J' 32 N district; and advised that the building would appear shorter with a flat roof versus a pitched roof. J, 3 As addressed at the Planning Commission's Public Hearing, Mr. Lloyd advised that the '34, applicants had attempted to design the building to reflect the residential nature of this building '35 and that of the adjacent residential to the north with the pitched roofs of those homes, even J' 6 N�3 though it added some height. N3 7' Councilmember McGehee questioned how tall the [adjacent apartment] building was; with Mr. '38 Lloyd responding that there were three (3), living stories, with one of those at garden level. '39 Councilmember McGehee advised that she had no issue with the building, provided it had more 14,,0 articulation and didn't shade the buildings to the north. 141 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had done some preliminary review of potential shading of this 142 building to adjacent properties, including the apartment building; and found that it would not 4,'3 create shadows on the apartment building, only on the project site. Related to concerns that a Page 1 of 4