WILLMAR -- The Willmar Planning Commission Wednesday tabled for 60 days a conditional use permit for a proposed 99-unit senior living facility in north Willmar because the city planning office had not had time to review and comment on the project's plans.
The permit application and plans for the facility known as Welcome to Our Home had previously been introduced at the Aug. 22 commission meeting.
They were tabled until Wednesday night to give the Buffalo Lake developer time to revise the proposal and resolve some issues raised by the commission, such as a reduction in the number of units as well as the handling of storm water dr-ainage.
But the revised plans were only given to city planning staff on Wednesday, and the commission tabled the plans to provide review time for the planning staff.
The proposed facility would be built on a 5.3-acre tract of land located near the intersection of County Road 41 and County Road 24.
ADVERTISEMENT
It would consist of 51 units for catered living and assisted living, 20 units for people needing memory care, and 28 units for persons in congregate care. The facility would have from 35 to 40 employees.
Dale Tauer of Duluth, chief manager for Welcome to Our Home, told the commission that his revised plans complied with all Planning Commission requirements.
Adjacent property owner Steve Okins recommended the permit be denied because he felt the application was incomplete and that the commission could not make affirmative findings on seven conditions for permit approval.
Bruce Peterson, director of planning and development services for the city, said it's possible most of the issues and concerns have been addressed by the plans. He said the final plans were delivered to the meeting Wednesday night at the Fire Hall.
"But the point made by the staff and Planning Commission is that we didn't receive those revised plans until today and did not have adequate time to review them,'' he said. "The purpose of Planning Commission meetings is not to start from scratch on a review process. It's to take a look at the staff review and for the Planning Commission to look at and be aware of what's on the plans. But it's certainly not the obligation of the Planning Commission to conduct the entire plan review.''
One of the commission's issues was the size of the proposal. Commissioner Jay Lawton said the developer had proposed 70 units during discussion to annex the property into the city limits. He said the current proposal with 99 units was too large for the site.
Peterson said the building size complies with setback requirements. But he said one of the conditional use permit review standards requires the commission to find the project and the building architecture to be consistent and compatible with the neighborhood.
He said most of the neighborhood is developed in a more open style. Also, the commission was concerned with the mass of the building and the amount of coverage on the lot, and storm water runoff issues had not been resolved.
ADVERTISEMENT
In other business, the commission voted to drop a requirement for Wal-Mart to provide concrete islands within the parking lot at its Supercenter in southeast Willmar.
The commission two years ago had required Wal-Mart to build the concrete islands within the parking lot to define traffic flow and parking in front of the building.
Somehow during the construction process, the requirement was lost, explained Will Matzik from Olsson Associates, the project's engineering consultant. He apologized for overlooking the requirement and asked for the waiver.
He said substantial pavement removal would be required to comply with the requirement and the building would be less attractive.
The commission agreed to waive the requirement after Matzik presented a drawing that depicted the parking lot striping, the location of cart corrals and distribution of handicapped parking.
In other action, the commission denied a request by Sharon Thein to move a house onto a 50-foot by 150-foot nonconforming lot of record on Third Street Southeast.
The commission denied the request because members felt the sideways placement of the house on the lot was not compatible with the neighborhood. Thein proposed to place the house with the front door facing the inside of the lot.
