07-07-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Mounds View Planning Commission July 7, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 proposal would fall under the zoning requirements as outlined in Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2, pertaining to "Nursing homes and other similar group housing". Ericson provided a statement of intent from the applicant along with a proposed site plan for the development for the Commission's review. Ericson stated that staff feels the impacts of the proposed use are minimal, at least in comparison to the impacts of a potential commercial use that could develop. He stated the use would generally not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan; the property is adjacent yet behind commercial uses, separated from the park and the residential area by Mounds View Drive. He noted it does not seem probable that this project would depreciate the area in any way, as it would seem to be a good fit for the area. He stated that the apparent need for such a use exists and as such would not adversely affect other similar uses, as there are none. Ericson stated that the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as a mixed-use planned unit development. He stated that staff's interpretation was that this type of use would not be inconsistent with the land use designation. He stated that staff was also researching the construction possibilities for this site if the zoning was left commercial. He stated that those types of businesses that would • fit with the B-2 Zoning District would be, among other things, a grocery store, liquor store, drug store or video store, all uses which would generate substantial traffic. He stated that the applicant was proposing re-zoning to a residential type of use, and the specific use would generate little traffic. He stated that the access would be taken off of County Road I. He stated that there would be parking situated adjacent to the SuperAmerica store, and there would be no access on to Mounds View Drive. Ericson stated that, in addition to the typical criteria addressed for a conditional use, there were additional criteria for this specific use. He stated that one of the criteria was that the side yard setback would need to be double the minimum requirement. He stated that instead of twenty feet, the Code requires a forty-foot setback. He stated that the minimum lot area requirement is one acre, noting that this property met the criteria with approximately 1.7 acres. Ericson reviewed the five criteria that are present with all Conditional Use Permits. He stated that staff feels this type of use would appear to fit in well with this property as a business/commercial type of site. He stated that the subject property is presently vacant, noting that, given its setback from Highway 10, the demand for the property is minimal. He stated that staff feels this type of higher density use would be a good buffer between the commercial area and the adjacent housing. Commissioner Berke requested clarification of "other group housing" as defined by the Code. Community Development Director Jopke stated that the Code was not specific and therefore left this somewhat to the interpretation of the Planning Commission and the City Council as particular types • of housing are presented. He stated that other forms of group housing could be considered under this provision.