Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 06-13 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JUNE 13, 1996 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - May 16, 1996 4. Chairperson's Explanation The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions. • 5. North Memorial Health Care 96005 Rezoning from R-1 to PUD/R1 and site and building plan approval through the Planned Unit Development process to provide residential hospice care for more than six clients at 4201 58th Avenue North. This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 25, 1996 and referred to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment Planning Commission Information Sheet ew" Application No. 96005 Applicant: North Memorial Health Care Location: 4201 58th Avenue North Request: Rezoning/Site and Building Plan-PUD/R-1 The applicant is requesting rezoning and site and building plan approval through the Planned Unit Development process,to provide residential hospice care for more than six clients on the property currently addressed as 4201 58th Avenue North. The property in question is approximately 2.1 acres and is zoned R-1 (single family residence). It is located at the north end of upper Twin Lake adjacent to publicly owned open-space property along the south side of County Road 10 (58th Avenue North in this location). Access to the property is provided from County Road 10 by a driveway easement across the publicly owned open-space property. The subject site is bounded on the north by this publicly owned open-space property, on the east by single family residentially zoned property abutting June and Indiana Avenues, and on the south and west by Upper Twin Lake. The property has recently been acquired by North Memorial Health Care and they would like to provide hospice services for up to eight patients. These patients are dying people who are unable to care for themselves in their last few days but do not require full hospital services. This type program is considered to be a residential program under the definitions of State Statutes. The City's Zoning Ordinance at Section 35-310, Subdivision lc, acknowledges licensed residential programs with a license capacity of six or fewer persons required to be permitted by Minnesota Statutes as a permitted use of property in an R-1 zoning district. The hospice will be licensed by the State Department of Health with respect to meeting their guidelines for a certified residential hospice facility. As previously noted,the City's Zoning Ordinance only allows six or fewer persons to be serviced in a licensed residential program within the R-1 zoning district. There are no provisions built into the Zoning Ordinance to allow more than six clients in such a facility. Because North Memorial needs to provide hospice services for eight clients,they are required to seek rezoning of the property to either a higher residential zoning classification or a Planned Unit Development. North Memorial has been encouraged to pursue their hospice proposal through a PUD rezoning because it will allow the City some flexibility in dealing with the number of clients and the redevelopment of the property for the proposed hospice facility. There is rational for allowing this specific use in a residential zone given some unique characteristics of the property in question such as its size, its remote location, and the fact that it is accessed directly to County Road 10 without affecting other surrounding residential streets. The fact that North Memorial is pursuing this application through a PUD process requires the submittal of a site and building plan for approval by the City Council. It appears that the plan submitted by North Memorial can Imo• 6-13-96 1 accommodate concerns expressed and will allow this facility to exist without much impact on surrounding properties. This matter was first considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on April 25, 1996. Attached for the Commission's review is the Planning Commission Information Sheet prepared for that meeting and the Commission minutes from that meeting. The Planning Commission, following consideration of the application,tabled the matter, continued the public hearing and referred it to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group reviewed this matter at a special meeting held on May 9, 1996 at the City Hall. Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of the minutes of that Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting. The advisory group, following public comment and deliberation,recommended to the Planning Commission the approval of the PUD/R-1 rezoning proposal subject to approval of a development agreement. For the most part,there appears to be support for the residential hospice being proposed provided concerns for design of the site, lighting,parking, landscaping and screening can be addressed. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL The applicants have submitted a somewhat revised and more detailed site and building plan for the proposed hospice facility. They plan to remove the existing home and build an approximate 6,150 sq. ft. residential facility with an attached garage in approximately the same location as the existing home. ACCESS AND PARKING Access to the site would be gained from County Road 10 over an existing driveway easement through the city owned open-space property. Plans indicate that this driveway would be expanded to 20 ft. in width and blacktopped. Brick piers would be placed on both sides of the entrance drive along County Road 10 to create an entrance feature. The base of the pier would be brick with a tapered stucco column to match columns that are to be provided on the building exterior. This monument would contain simply the address for the facility. Similar brick piers would be located on either side of the drive as you enter onto the North Memorial property. As indicated,the driveway would be paved,however, curb and gutter would only be provided once you enter the North Memorial property. It is recommended that as part of the paving that B-612 curb and gutter be provided along both sides of the access drive as well. The plan further provides for a drop off and drive around area around a landscaped island. Eight parking stalls would be provided just northerly of the driveway/entrance/garage area for the facility. This would include one handicapped and van accessible parking space. The plans indicate the ability to expand this parking area by at least three parking spaces. We believe the eight parking spaces should provide adequate on-site parking for the facility. Indications are that ' 6-13-96 2 at the most three staff members, one nurse and two assistants,would be on duty at the facility. Residents of the hospice will not have vehicles available and the additional five parking spaces should adequately provide parking for visitors. The closest parking formula in the city ordinances relating to this type of facility is one for a nursing home which would require parking on the basis of one space for every four beds,plus one space for every two employees,plus one space for each staff doctor. Such a facility, if it were classified as a nursing home,would require only five parking spaces. Space is also available within the garage and there is a generous turn around area in that location. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES The applicant has submitted a proposed grading plan for the site. Because the facility is adjacent to Twin Lake, it is subject to review and approval by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. Regrading of the site is, for the most part,minimal and involves the area primarily around where the parking facility is to be provided. The plans appear to provide a ponding area off of the parking lot to collect water prior to its run off. The applicant's plan indicates the 100- year flood elevation to be 855.5 ft. Our flood plain maps show the 100-year flood elevation of Twin Lake to be 856 ft. This discrepancy will need to be resolved and may have some effect upon either the grading of the site or the location of the building. Any grading or alteration of the site below the 100-year flood elevation will require the applicant to provide compensating storage for flood waters. The plan also shows the 50 ft. building setback line from the shoreline or the ordinary high water elevation of the 853.10 ft. The applicant's grading plan also denotes the location for a proposed silk fence during construction to control erosion and run off. The site is served with both sanitary sewer and water service which the applicant will tie into. The plan indicates the need to relocate a hydrant that is existing on the property. The building will be required to have a fire extinguishing system that meets NFPA standards. City records indicate that an access easement has been granted over the open-space property to this site. It may be appropriate to define precisely the location of this easement and the applicant's maintenance responsibility for the roadway and file the document with the title to the properties. LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscape plan which would supplement and enhance the already existing landscaping on the site. The plan and a provided survey show the location of existing trees,both coniferous and deciduous, as well as heavy growths of trees and vegetation. The applicants also propose to provide extensive foundation plants and ornamental trees throughout the site. Specifically,they are proposing to relocate 24 existing spruce trees. These trees are between 12 and 20 ft. in height and would be located and in-filled around the proposed parking area to provide additional screening of that facility from the residential property to the east. This, along with the existing trees should provide more than adequate screening of the site. ' -- 6-13-96 3 i Approximately five of these relocated Spruce trees would be located close to the water's edge. The landscape plan also calls for four new shade trees such as Red Maple,Norway Maple, Green Ash and/or River Birch, one in the landscaped island area around the drop-off/turn-around drive and three along the shoreline of Twin Lake. Thirty-one new decorative trees such as Crab Apple, Serviceberry,Hawthorn and Amur Maple would be interspersed throughout the site. The plan also shows a 5 ft. bituminous walking path around the property with various seating areas. Two of the areas would provide a seat wall with brick pavers and landscape shrubs. There would also be a bench for seating close to the shoreline and an open sided gazebo close to the shoreline and adjacent to the walk path. The landscape plan also provides for decorative trees and deciduous or evergreen shrubs adjacent to the entrance area to the facility. Foundation plantings made up of deciduous or evergreen shrubs surround the building foundation. The types of shrubs which would be planted would include Spiraea, Compact Cranberry,Ninebark,Rhododendron, Seagreen Juniper and Japanese Yew. Perennials would also be planted around the foundation of the facility including Hosta, Daylilly, Phlox, Sedum and Chrysanthemums. It appears that the proposed landscaping,which makes use of existing and the addition of new landscaping,certainly will meet or exceed the typical landscape plan provided for any facility. The only concern we might have is if the relocated Spruce trees,which are to provide screening of the parking facilities,be replaced if they do not survive the transplanting. BUILDING The applicants have also provided building elevations showing the exterior elevations of the proposed facility. The building is to have a brick base and stucco exterior wall with aluminum trim and asphalt shingles. Tapered stucco columns with a brick base are provided around the building to support the roof overhang. A large deck is located on the lake side of the house adjacent to and accessed from both a four season porch and the living room. The roof line extends out over this deck area. A second deck is provided on the east side of the facility and is primarily open to the morning sunshine. A fenced play area would be located in this part of the site. They propose to have eight residents' rooms in two wings all facing the lake. Each resident room would have its own toilet area and access to a patio just outside of the room. A large dining room is provided as well as a kitchen area, living room with a fireplace, a family area,a whirlpool and patio area. LIGHTING/TRASH The applicant's plans indicate no outside trash storage. Rather the trash facility will be located inside the garage. Some concerns had been expressed about lighting on the site. In response to this,the applicants have indicated minimal lighting on the site. Two 12 ft. high poles containing a cut off down light maintaining one foot candle would be located in the parking area and two ►� , 6-13-96 4 ornamental lights would be located on 8 ft. poles in the drive-up area. The entry columns would "y contain low voltage up lights as well. PUBLIC HEARING/PROCEDURE The public hearing for this PUD/R-1 rezoning and site and building plan has been continued until Thursday evening, June 13, 1996. As indicated previously,the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group has recommended approval of the application to the Planning Commission. We have sent informational notices to those required to receive notice of this zoning proposal. The Planning Commission should take action to request additional input and comment regarding the proposal and then close the public hearing for your deliberation. RECOMMENDATION We believe this proposal has merit and the site plan submitted certainly offsets any concerns which have been expressed. Because the facility is on a large site(in excess of two acres), is secluded and has access to it which does not require traffic through residential areas,we believe it is appropriate to consider allowing a residential facility with up to eight clients, which is in excess of the limit of six established by the R-1 zoning district. This PUD proposal with an R-1 underlying zoning district meets the necessary concerns and justifies this type consideration. It should not create any adverse precedent with respect to other R-1 areas except for PUD/R-1 areas that meet these same qualifications. Attached for the commission's review is a draft resolution regarding the disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 96005,which would recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Rezoning and a list of conditions relating to this approval. w < 6-13-96 5 i �� �� _ L::J •, L. `.�; is - , �: ' PLANNING COMMISSION i I ell m APPLICATION NO: 96005 1 a ;_.' < x p 1 p J 1 J J � � � 'i •/iii iii• 'o o� fl �♦�•i j i •/i f j r i�iii, � ' •� /� i�,♦ � �, �i J. " '%,,,, :,, ; .; ; $6TH. AVE. N. • • , %' - Aver .,`!;�;r xx f �•'i�♦i i f/ i f♦, 'iii/i i f i . .• . . ,, ♦. y ♦ . •♦ ♦ �, f r ♦/♦/ r• ♦, i♦i,i,i♦ii •�r•i♦♦ AWWWr •;♦ ,,, ♦♦::♦♦♦, ♦. %::::; ,♦ ♦ ♦, , .♦ 5{TH. AVE. �;• .. ♦ ,, ♦ ♦, ♦/ iiii�♦ /♦,, rri i, �, r ` i.iii/, /iii/♦ /// '•iii♦iii �� , • 'P o� (,� ' /♦ ,. ,,� /r•�' ' iii/r ii'r,'r/' � 66.' o , ! /i,• , i i i i i/i i.i i f i i♦i♦i'r i j,.♦ ♦i f/�,�;X I ♦ ,♦r/ri fi i'•i fii♦i' i'ii'/i.'�.%�• I f �.♦'i i i♦ •�♦i'ir�i♦ ,��,%/�♦��i'i i i♦i"i'i i i ta_ 1 rr -;;-:�. // ;;;• ;;:;; I I s� N. J ''r:'i'ir:♦///;♦!♦yam, ♦���♦.♦♦ ♦♦♦///� :,' � � 1 r/,iii//♦'i••S,('i)))if♦♦//'//'i♦��♦,♦i,//' (` I� , 1 r�,ii' '•i'ri i�i i,ii'ii'i i j/i�i'♦�' ' � � I >S � 1 iii'/•iiii•i'/r�'/'• iii♦.'/♦� ' � ,Q I C' / r; iii'♦r/♦��•/ri ii/♦�i,.,r / ,,� r' f �.•�" �i i�i♦j•i i♦'i i j i i j/iii i, ��_-.� �,' I :_ 1 ♦ •r ♦♦ �♦;•♦ �♦r.♦ ♦ ; 52?10 AX ST' ,' / J i fi ri♦�i f♦��/iii♦'i f''i♦ ' ' % ' '♦ �:1/ iii •♦, I I I m I _ :AVE.K c MIDDLE 11 , / ♦:�::::;';; fie• � , • ' ':, ul � 19TH Avg TW'►_N !I _� ., '' �'� �! I I J u a ! of rSyU3 ow- O m m US Cc O W O ° CC) c Q N r � i .J X Z w o f m In M z a €� ' LPL W CO ? o U ui ca U O saoo�e�� 55 Q I r ! I t' Q W 0 rl � i 1 Z c it LLI C/) i W < < _ T W � Z m O � LU r U 1 S Ul U 9 Q N v v v Lu ,� O `n an, 0 � � w� zZ C��1Qn z£ ~W � j Z Zi- d5 23�JT5K�yy JS Q��di 0 W LLL W a0� OC m 6 ", T Z �A�rt�i d) a a �ZnLL�-" � 'U12 n OZen OZS vin.0 2 £.9 Qrv£10 Wr£.D W i r. LU it J cr Ir fz w Q 0 a0 -j 0 i m',= � =w Q u U a zQ �Q i c o = w vw Q� aQ F-CC z° ID i c W z� ¢� zz ujz Wz H 0 a -1 a WLU CD M0 wU .� i I - � � � b �� � � ►}� tllllllllllllllllllll ,� �� � y -Dd SS ti) a ✓ "rill� a 1,r ; 3 � ® �3t . �i =ft ohs Low lip I aft 3t� }_ 1 ` .1 .` t t ' '�• . : ! �' `�-•i-.mot � M• `•tom Ao\yjgy�� •��•j j®,f'' '�� `' `•` ` ( I I i JIIIIIIIIIIIillllllll Jr, N �- E aqi o :1 owo� • iii II IIII E I ! III J 111111 II � I � 411i CE cx Ai P fill Lot Nyp �AbNb el F 2a! II� r II fill 1111 JAN ::.rte:%-•-i.\ ,\e` ,. /i �j _ ~ `•�� `� IM gill �I� ! MS 1 �- I - � � _ �*i � � ,�� IIIIIIiII IIIIIIIIIII jr, rn t o C) ° v z � I j ji .i Soo < , atw Di '� ■� �'.: I �I I I i.I I 13,1111111111 ;tl!i„I,!' if h _.... I = s • • I�1; 1111 ; p 1p 1 . 1 : l I t>c i t IE i n — •i >i •_ fi rl •i —. a2 i • VD •Z ft ti e✓c ` .- i1 = i '� -* '� •; a - - _ ' a •> I w•�n $ 1 • � t I .� _ e • _ -I'i,l ply ,...•.-- = I� \:` I - 1 E •.. e '•- I • � I Cl ui P, oil a a (D too 0 QQJ jig' 77 o + `•\ J y J • I' • ., < x Ai . I . fi ; Ilili � ! - � LU I ' II ¢00 00 ■_$ iil t Z = U.�r OWO �o $ $ Z¢2mt r. I .. r-`-------------�-r I I I F I Ip I I I I 1 1 IP 1 ' I I 18 I S 1 ✓ i I Y11 i� I l_ J --J I fl O GD ; 'J Z,•� ', QUO fJ ❑ � 1 1 ■ I I R f� I---/--/------- I ►i I I 1 � , p i 1 I I I i i '.�. W CD Zm2U.JzG�� l � '�' I'd ii al 7 f� I � ii t� l � � ! Q FFF � III i 11,I VIII I . I II i I!I!IIOia t I j� I I I�Ii� iii I !� �II I�Illly ill IIIN!I I i, II .Ili I I I I I I �' I I, IIII,. IIII !ii � IIII III! �II�! i I illii i4a�$ ,y I � il' I I Ijllll � � VIII i I, 3 I I 'I hall it i� j �Il��ii 'I IIII'i�l�i I ll I I I �(sa f li. 9 :Ili I IId hit 'Ih i l y Ill. 110 if Ilia ! is iii€ � � if If If I I i I i �I IC 1 ! TAPS D 5 ImCCv M TAi c 57 511: 1 I e I I I I f BRICK •A5= i i { EVATON =N TH,l N Q:r�rr. Nc, Sheet N�. I r, 0�@C. i ZENTRANCE �1 �R�0�4TKr-1�.'tr'"�1i`Ci�'E�riv1T�c�,c,.;� I—ja_!—t�!�r1 G�•,'C� IOC Slblcy Street, Suite 5c,,O N I A L Saint Psc. I`iN aesats 551 BWSR ARCHITECTS i '' • Planning Commission Information Sheet _ Application No. 96005 Applicant: North Memorial Health Care Location: 4201 58th Avenue North Request: Rezoning/Site and Building Plan- PUD/R-1 The applicant is requesting rezoning and site and building plan approval, through the Planned Unit Development process, to provide residential hospice care for more than six clients on the property currently addressed as 4201 58th Avenue North. The property in question is approximately 2.16 acres and is zoned R-1 (Single Family Residence). It is located at the north end of Upper Twin Lake adjacent to publicly owned open- space property along the south side of County Road 10 (58th Avenue North in this location). Access to the property is provided from County Road 10 by a drive-way easement across the publicly owned open-space property. The subject site is bounded on the north by this public open-space property, on the east by single family residentially zoned property abutting June and Indiana Avenues, and on the south and west by Upper Twin Lake. The property has recently been acquired by North Memorial Health Care from the former owners, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Thompson. North Memorial would like to provide hospice services for a limited number of dying patients. These are people who are unable to care for themselves in their last days but do not require full hospital services. This type program is considered to be a residential program under the definitions of State Statutes. Section 35-310, Subdivision 1 c, of the City's Zoning Ordinance, acknowledges licensed residential programs with a licensed capacity of six or fewer persons required to be permitted by Minnesota Statutes as a permitted use of property in an R-1 zoning district. The hospice will be licensed by the Department of Health with respect to meeting their guidelines for a certified residential hospice facility. The City's Zoning Ordinance only allows six or fewer persons to be serviced in licensed residential programs within the R-1 zoning district. There are no provisions built into the Zoning Ordinance to allow more than six clients in such a facility. North Memorial needs to provide hospice services for at least eight clients to make it economical. They are, therefore,proposing to be allowed to have a facility that will service between 7 and 16 persons in the facility. In order to accommodate this number of clients, the property must be rezoned either to a higher residential zoning classification or to a Planned Unit Development. We have encouraged North Memorial to pursue their plan through a PUD Rezoning because it will allow flexibility in dealing with the number of clients and the redevelopment of the property for the proposed hospice facility. Also, under the PUD, there will be a development agreement between the City and North Memorial outlining the conditions, development restrictions, and limitations involved with the plan. To simply rezone the property to a more intense/dense Page 1 4-25-96 residential district that would allow more clients in a residential program as a permitted use may be short-sighted because all other uses allowed in the zoning district would be allowed as well. Pursuing this proposal through a PUD/R-1 rezoning allows North Memorial to prooceed with its plans in a manner that sets no precedence for other properties, other than ones that can meet the same PUD standards. As will be reviewed later, a number of factors make this particular property more viable and acceptable as a residential program use. Such things as its location, its size, and access make it more acceptable, but at the same time these factors are not common to many properties. The PUD process of rezoning with site and building plan consideration was considered the most appropriate way to address this proposal. REZONING A Planned Unit Development proposal involves a rezoning of land to the PUD designation followed by an alpha numeric designation of the underlying zoning district. This underlying zoning district then provides the regulations governing uses and structures within the PUD. The rules and regulations governing that district(in this case R-1) would apply to the development proposal. One of the purposes of the PUD district is to give the City Council the needed flexibility in addressing redevelopment problems. Regulations governing uses and structures may be modified by conditions ultimately imposed by the City Council on the development plans. The Planning Commission's attention is directed to Section 35-355 which addresses Planned Unit Developments (attached). The PUD process involves a rezoning of land and, therefore, is subject to the rezoning procedures outlined in Section 35-210 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The policy and review guidelines are attached for the Commission's review as well. The applicant has submitted a letter and a written statement regarding how they believe their proposal addresses the rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. A review of those guidelines and the applicant's comments and staff response follows: a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? Applicant - The applicant indicates that there is a clear and public need or benefit in that residential hospice serves a clear need for dying patients who can no longer remain in their own homes. A residential hospice answers a long-voiced need by patients and families for a non- institutional, quiet home-like setting in which dying persons may live their remaining days. They add that the use of the property for residential hospice will be a significant benefit to the community and will not negatively impact neighboring properties. Page 2 4-25-96 Staff- We do not argue with these observations and note that all of the points mentioned can be • - considered public needs and the providing of a residential hospice facility is certainly a benefit to the community. b. Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? Applicant-The applicant answers yes to this particular question and notes that a residential hospice facility is compatible with adjacent residential uses. They add that the facility is approximately 4,550 sq. ft. and will not negatively affect the density of the property or adjacent land uses. Staff-The property in question is surrounded by land designated public open space and single family residential property along with lakeshore. The use and redevelopment of this property as a residential hospice facility can be considered compatible with the surrounding land use classifications. The size of the land (over two acres), its distance from surrounding single family residential property, along with its somewhat remote location should make this property a good neighbor to the surrounding land uses. Access to the site is from County Road 10 over the publicly-owned land and will continue to be in this location. Persons visiting the hospice will not have to enter into the adjoining residential neighborhoods to gain access to this site. .Certainly its relatively quiet location surrounded by open space and the lake make it a quiet and ideal site for a hospice. c. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? Applicant-The applicant's response to this point is yes. They point out that North Memorial Health Care is willing to enter into a Planned Unit Development agreement with the creation of a written development plan. Staff- We believe all of the permitted uses within an R-1 underlying zoning designation could be contemplated for development on the subject property as the property is currently being used as a single family home. The proposed hospice by North Memorial, involving services for between'? and 16 clients, can be comprehended given the size, location, and access to the property. The site plan which is also being presented will show how other development considerations will be met. The site will have to comply with shore land setbacks of 50 feet and be located above the 100 ft. flood elevation for Twin Lake. North Memorial is proposing to have a larger one-story facility than is currently there but it appears that it can meet all of the development requirements of the City. The Planned Unit Development rezoning gives the City . Page 3 4-25-96 I the opportunity to allow more clients than what is normally comprehended under an R-1 zoning district because of the flexibility allowed in this particular zoning designation. Also, a development agreement will need to be drawn up establishing the allowed use of the property and the conditions, development restrictions, and limitations involved with their proposed plan. d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Applicant -N/A Staff-There have been no substantial physical or zoning classification changes made in this area since the property was zoned under its current zoning designation of R-1. For all practical purposes, the use of the property will continue to be an acknowledged residential use. e. In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? N/A f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed rezoning district? Applicant - Yes, based on the site plan. Staff-The subject property should bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for this proposed PUD/R-1 proposal based on findings that will eventually have to be made by the City Council and a development agreement between the City and North Memorial. The proposal may have to be reviewed by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission and is subject to flood and shore land regulations. We also will review the site for appropriate off-street parking for the use and assess screening and landscaping,as well. g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district with respect to size, configuration, topography, or location? Applicant - The applicant indicates that the property is suited for residential use. They note that the property meets the State Department of Health guidelines for a certified residential hospice facility. They also indicate that they heard other interested buyers were interested in subdividing this property thereby increasing the possible property density and adversely affecting adjacent land owners. They note that their proposal maintains the residential character with only a modest change. Page 4 4-25-96 r Staff- The subject property is not unsuited for residential utilization as it is currently zoned. The . applicant points out correctly that there have been proposals to subdivide the property or to utilize it in a more intense residential use. The former owner, in 1991, had proposed to rezone this property to R-3 in hopes of being able to develop eight townhouses on the property. Also, since the property has been on the market, we have had a number of inquiries about the potential of subdividing the land to create other residential lots, as well. Again, the location, size, and access to this property make it a good site for the proposed hospice use and with the number of clients requested by the applicants. h. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district warranted by: 1. Comprehensive Planning; 2. The lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3. The best interest of the community? Applicant- The applicant indicates that the land designated for Planned Unit Development is not contrary to neighboring land uses. Staff- The applicant's comment is correct. We would also add that the comprehensive plan is silent with respect to the future use of this land which indicates that a residential use should continue.. This residential program is considered a permitted residential use; it is only the number of clients served that is in question. We believe that it is in the best interest of the community to allow the hospice use of the property. L Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interest of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? Applicant- The applicant indicates that their proposal sets to rest the future use of this property as well as past concerns of neighboring property owners. They point out again that interested buyers have expressed interest in dividing the property and/or constructing multi-residential housing. Staff- We would concur that this does settle the question about the potential use of this property for an extended period of time. The proposal appears to have merit beyond only the interests of the particular property owner by providing for community needs, and it does appear to have a positive impact on the community. SITE AND BUILDING PLAN PROPOSAL The applicants have submitted a preliminary conceptual plan for the hospice. They plan to remove the existing home and build a new 5,204 sq. ft. one-story residential facility with an attached garage in approximately the same location as the existing home. They had considered Page 5 4-25-96 I using the existing facility by modifying and expanding it, but in order to make it accessible (ADA and handicapped) and usable for their purposes it becomes cost prohibitive. They propose to have eight resident rooms in two wings all facing the lake. Four would be located to one side of the main living room area and four would be to the other side. A deck would be located on the lake side of the house off from the living room area. They propose an outdoor walking path and outdoor seating also. Access to the site would be from County Road 10 over the existing driveway easement through the city owned open space property. A small parking facility showing nine parking spaces is indicated at the northeast comer of the site. We have not determined a set number of parking spaces for the facility. A nursing home's parking requirement is one space for every four beds, plus one space for every two employees,plus one space for each staff doctor. A hospital requires one space for every two beds,plus one space for every two employees, plus one space for each staff doctor. We will need to make a determination regarding appropriate parking based on staff, visitors, etc. The nine spaces might be appropriate. A drop off area and garage entrance are also provided adjacent to the parking area and front entrance. North Memorial proposes a one-story facility for accessibility purposes and also to keep the facility residential in character. The plan does not yet indicate building exterior and finish. There is a setback requirement of 50 ft.from the 853 ft. shoreline elevation. The 100 year flood elevation is also shown on the plan. Grading of the site would be minimal and plans may be subject to Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission review and approval because the site is adjacent to Twin Lake. The applicants propose to maintain as much of the existing landscaping as possible, and it appears that they propose to add additional landscaping between the facility and the residential properties to the east particularly where the parking lot is to be located. Site lighting has been mentioned but not yet shown. The concern is to meet the need for security lighting and to avoid light glare and shining on adjacent residential properties. PROCEDURE This PUD/R-1 proposal, as previously mentioned, is a rezoning with a specific development plan. As such, it must go through the normal rezoning process. This means that following the Planning Commission's public hearing,the rezoning proposal and the site and building plan should be referred to the appropriate neighborhood advisory group for review and comment. In this case, it would be referred to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. We have invited advisory group members to attend the Planning Commission meeting. We will attempt to schedule a meeting of the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group within the next few weeks for the purpose of a formal review. It should be noted that North Memorial has held an informal Page 6 4-25-96 meeting with many of the people living in the adjacent neighborhood to initially discuss their proposed hospice plans. Persons receiving notice of the Planning Commission's public hearing (property owners within 350 ft. of the subject property) and anyone else who desires to be notified will be informed of the date, time, etc. of the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting. The Planning Commission should discuss the proposal, open the public hearing, and then table the application and refer it to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for additional review and comment. The Commission may wish to comment on the proposal and give any direction to the Neighborhood Advisory Group that they believe is appropriate for their review. Page 7 4-25-96 r' Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 96005 SUBMITTED BY NORTH MEMORIAL HEALTH CARE WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 96005 submitted by North Memorial Health Care proposes rezoning from R-1 (single family residence) to PUD/R-1 of the property located at 4201 58th Avenue North; and WHEREAS, this proposal comprehends the rezoning of the above mentioned property and site and building plan approval for a residential hospice care facility for more than six clients; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on April 25, 1996 when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning and site and building plans were received; and WHEREAS, the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group met to consider this matter on . May 9, 1996, at the City Hall and unanimously recommended approval of this Planned Unit Development proposal; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission resumed consideration of this matter on June 13, 1996, received an additional staff report and took further testimony during a continued public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the rezoning and the site and building plan request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the provisions of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance contained in Section 35-3 55, and the City's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 96005 submitted by North Memorial Health Care be approved in light of the following considerations: I. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal are compatible with the standards, purposes and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the City's Zoning Ordinance. • 2. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will allow for the utilization i of the land in question in a manner which is compatible with, complimentary to, and of comparable intensity to adjacent land uses as well as those permitted on surrounding land. 3. The utilization of the property as proposed under the Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal will conform, for the most part, with City Ordinance standards. Variation from the Zoning Ordinance limitation of six or fewer persons being served in an licensed residential program to allow up to eight hospice patients is justified on the basis of the development plan submitted and the unique characteristics of the property under consideration such as its large size (in excess of two acres), its remote and secluded location, and the fact that access to the property does not require traffic to go through adjacent residential neighborhoods. 4. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development proposal are considered compatible with the recommendations of the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area of the City. 5. The Rezoning and Planned Unit Development appear to be a good utilization of the property under consideration in that it maintains the residential character of the property and provides for•the ability to meet the needs of dying persons who are unable to care for themselves, but do not require hospital or nursing care services. • 6. In light of the above considerations, it is believed that the guidelines for evaluating rezonings as contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance are met and that the proposal is, therefore, in the best interests of the community. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that approval of Application No. 96005 be subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. • 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all driving and parking area including the access drive leading to this site from County Road 10. 8. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 9. The property owner shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems, prior to the issuance of permits. 10. The applicant is subject to the requirements and regulations of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission with respect to this site. The storm drainage system shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City to be reviewed • and approved by the City Attorney, prior to the issuance of building permits. Said agreement shall acknowledge the use of this site as a licensed residential hospice serving no more than eight clients at any one time and acknowledging all the previous stated conditions of approval. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.