Laserfiche WebLink
MIND aS <br />PLANNING CONLYIISSION <br />JANUARY 13, 2000 <br />CUP FOR <br />RESPITE — <br />HOME — <br />LITTLE CANADA <br />ROAD — <br />NORTHEAST <br />RESIDENCE <br />Motion seconded by Duray. <br />Motion carried 6 — 0. <br />George Rossez, Advent Construction, and Corrine Schmidt, <br />Northeast Residence, appeared before the Commission requesting <br />approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a group home <br />facility providing short-term respite care as well as a Variance <br />from the setback requirements. The home is proposed adjacent <br />to the St. John's Credit Union at the corner of Little Canada Road <br />and McMenemy Road. <br />The City Planner reported that the respite home qualifies as a <br />single - family residence according to State Law. The property is <br />currently zoned Residential Business, and the respite home is a <br />permitted use. A Conditional Use Permit is required because one <br />level of the structure is proposed to be used for commercial office <br />space. <br />The Planner further noted that a variance is being requested to the <br />City's setback requirements. The building was designed <br />anticipating 10 -foot side yard setbacks. The RB District requires <br />15 -foot side yard setbacks. <br />The Planner noted that the City Engineer has raised issues relative <br />to the drainage of the site and is suggesting that a storm water <br />retention pond will be needed on the site. <br />The Planner pointed out that the building as proposed takes up <br />most of the property. Parking is proposed to occur in the rear. <br />Because of the side yard setback issue as well as the need to <br />redesign the site to accommodate storm water retention, more <br />analysis is needed to see what fits on the property. The Planner <br />pointed out that the applicant is not excited about redesigning the <br />building and has expended a considerable amount of money <br />getting to the point they are at now. <br />The Planner indicated that if the Commission were inclined to <br />grant the variance, the narrowness of the existing lot of record <br />could be used as a hardship. However, the Planner pointed out that <br />the argument could be made that the lot could be developed <br />without a variance. The building would just have to be designed <br />differently. <br />Page 52 <br />