1996-11-12 Response
.
.
/
, PHONE (612) 202-8000
Eu: (612) 202-9000
STEVE FENEIS INVESTMENT REALTY
1011 2ND STREET NORTH. SUITE 109 · P.O: Box 1802 · ST. CLOUD, MN 56302
,
November 12, 1996
Elizabeth Stockman
Northwest Associate Consultants
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555
St. Louis Park. ~ 55416
Re: Albertville ~ Senior Housing
Dear Ms. Stockman:
I am WTiting in response to your memo dated October 29, 1996, addr~ssed to Mr. Gary
Hale, regarding the above reference4 project~ I think i~ is ~siest to address each item
within your memo, ~ order.
I. We are in full agreement regarding the rezoning of the property from R-l, Single
Family to Planned Unit Development. We beUeve the PUD give$ the City the
advantage of controlling the site, yet gives the developer flexibility not allowed
within the R-I' zoning. ' .
2. We understand that the property being considered is currently classified as low
density, in the City's Comprehensive Plan. We would request that the City assist
us in amending the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate this plan, whJch would
'be considered medium density. If you take'into consideration the entIre site,
including the wetlands area, the density of the ofthls project is 4.00 units per acre.
While this density may exceed, by definition, the aI1owabl~ density for "Jow
density" classification within the Comprehensive Plan~ it is cert~y not a high
density use of the property.
3. We understand the concerns of the adjacent neighbors regarding tbe tenant profile
of this project; It is our intention to enter into a Development Agreement with the
City. restricting the occupancy of the rental units to tenants age 55 and older.
Regarding the sale units, we are investigating the possibility of limiting the saJe of
units to buyers age 55 and older. 1fit is allowable by law, we will certainly work
to attaln this goal. '
.
.
4. We are aware that tills parcel must be subdivided into two lots (one for rental
housing and one for O\Wler occupied housing). Wr; will show the extension of
public streets that are necessary to serve this project. We ,are prepared to dedicate
our portion for the extension of 57th Street, and would hope that the adjoining
owners would dedicate their portion. At this pomt I think the option to dedicate
66 feet for the extension should at least be considered and discussed.
5. We understand your concern regarding the adjacent neighbors. We win have our
engineer look into your suggestion.. However the layout ofth~ property, in
relationship to the wetlands area, a.11Qws for a clear separation of rental housing
from owner occupied housing, as well as the opportunity of utilizing the wetlands
area as an amenity for the owner occupied units. '
6. You bring up a number of concerns regarding the private' streets within the
development. We agree with your recommendation regarding the number of
access points o'nto 57th Street. The pl~ canhe redesigned to have one access
point onto 57th Street, m an alignment with a future street to the North of 57th
Street.
You comment about the need to connect local streets through this development.
Our preference is to maintain the streets as private, 24 foot streets, no parking on
either side. We feel it is important, as a senior community, to eliminate through
. "
traffic as much as possible. Nor do we see the need for-off site parking in
addition to designed onwsite parking. We understand the desire to connect Main
Avenue to Lachman Avenue, which 57th Street will accomplish. We are not
convinced that an additional connection at 55th Street, two blocks away, is worth
the disruption this oonnection would bring to the senior development.
7. We are in full agreement with the City Engineer's request for a drainage plan for
the remainder of the Marx property. A fmal detennination of storm water to be
run to this parcel will detennine the amount of available land for senior housing.,
We are not interested in purchasing a piece of property which may be encumbered
by future stonn wat~r runoftfrom future development ofano~herproperty owner.
8. Our development will meet or'exceed the square footage requir~ments as indicated
in your memo. '
9. We \\'ere unaware that your Planned Unit Development Zoning District has
minimum set back requirements, as most communities we have worked in use Site
Plan Approval of the City Councit' to establish set back requirements within each
Pun request. If these set back requirements are cast in stone, we will pass the
infonnation on to our engineer and have him redesign the development.
.
__ill:.;:...... _, 1~..~l.J. I I.:-'~
. - ':;<(1(1(1
P.1:::1
10. Regarding parking standards, it is our understanding that the requirements for
covered parking for rental housing is different than covered parking for owner
occupied units. We are providing 2.11 stalls of parking for each rental unit, which
includes on~ stall of covered parking for each'rental unit. I believe this exceeds
your parking requirements for rental housing. We are providing two stalls of
covered parking, as well as at least two additional stalls ofuncovered parking for
each owner o.ccupied unit. In each of our previous developments this ratio has
proved to be sufficient. .
11. Like the stonn water issue, we do not want to burdened with park land
requirements to satisfY developmeots &om other property owners. We are very
interested in developing a multi~use trail around the wetland area withIn this
parcel. We think the util1zation of the wetland area is a very good idea. We are
not sure if we want to. dedicate the trail, or iEthe City is. interested in having the
trail dedicated, for public use. If the trail is dedicated for public usc, that would
require some form of public access to the trail. We think the access issue should
be considered prior to any action of dedicating t4e trail.
12. We understand that a landscape plan is required prior to. approval of the
development. We are in agreement that Some consistency among pJantings and
softening of structural elements is important. We may have Ovet emphasized the
amount of plantings provided by the seniors wit.h.iO. the developm~nt. Their typical
plantings include flowers and greenery directly along their unit, between the
building and the sidewalk area. We do not reel there will be any conllict regarding
the landscape plan ;from the Occupants.
13. Prior to approval of the development, we will submit a detailed lighting plan.
14. Prior to approval of the development; we will submit a draft of a
Homeowners/renters association agreement, similar to documents used in previous
developments, for the City Attorney to review.
You indicate that you fuel that the site is being over ntilizOd. As per paragraph 2, we
would request that the City consider amending the Land Use Plan to acc()mmodate this
plan, which would be considered medium density. As I mentioned in paragraph 2, lfyou
take iuto consideration the entire. site, including the wetJaud area, ihe density of the entire
project is 4.00 units per acre. .
-
We have looked at difterent sites within the City fuT th.ls development. However, when
we have met with the Senior C;tizens Group lllOst interested In seeing th.ls developrnent
occur, they indicated they wanted to be close to the church and as close to the community
center as possible. We do prefer this site over the site mentioned in your memo.
.
.
We are very interested in meeting with you again. The November Staff meeting would
work fine for us, or sooner ifyol}. wish. We would like to get some indication from the
Stafft regarding the development, prior to investing too much additional money in
submission requirements. . . .
If you have any questions,. please give me a call. I look forw~4 to our next ~eeting.
Regards,
~
Steve Feneis
cc:. Gary Hale