Agenda Packets - 1999/08/23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MSP Rezoning& CUP August 23, 1999 Page 4 The applicant has been apprised of these conditions and together with staff, have determined that all of the above conditions can be satisfied. The last condition, Item H, pertains to the adverse effects associate or resulting from this use, which the Planning Commission and Council are to consider in their decision. The adverse effects as they are appear in the code are as follows: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. Staff and the Planning Commission, which discussed and reviewed the merits of this proposal over the course of four meetings, feel that the impacts of this proposed use are minimal, at least in comparison to the impacts of a potential commercial use that could be developed. The use would generally be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the property is adjacent yet behind commercial uses, separated from the park and the residential area by Mounds View Drive. It does not seem probably that this project would depreciate the area in any way as it would seem to be a good fit for the area, acting as a buffer between the commercial corridor and the residential neighborhood. As stated above, the apparent need for such a use exists and as such would not adversely affect other similar uses as there are none. Site-Related Issues: Parking: Through the course of the many meetings at the Planning Commission, much testimony had been offered regarding the proposed use, most notable among the concerns of both the Commission and neighboring residents was the amount of parking being provided. The first proposed site plan showed parking in an amount to satisfy what our Code would require--four spaces plus one parking stall per every three beds. The proposed use would have 48 rooms with a possibility of 52 beds, so the Code would have required 22 spaces. However, after inquiring with other cities as to their parking requirements and polling actual assisted living facilities, and due to the Alzheimer care that would be provided, it was the Commission's consensus that the City's parking requirement would not adequately meet the facilities true parking demands. The developer was asked to increase parking to a level that would accommodate space for all employees on the busiest shift plus the additional one stall per three bed requirement. The resulting parking requirement, as directed by the Planning Commission, would be 31 stalls, which the developer has shown on the revised site plan, which is attached for the Council's review. Even with the 31 stalls, there would be events that would generate more parking that could be accommodated on the subject property--staff parties, holiday gatherings, for example. Because the Commission and residents were concerned about vehicles overflowing into the residential districts during periods of high usage, the developer secured an agreement in writing with the owner of the Silver View Plaza to allow for overflow parking with advance notice behind the shopping center. This area of Silver View Plaza's parking lot is not well utilized and would allow for a convenient overflow parking alternative during peak times. While on-street parking is