07-21-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 110 deal of pedestrian traffic, and with the addition of vehicles parked on the sides of the street, it would pose a serious safety concern. Commissioner Hegland stated that the Commission's responsibility was to define how much parking this type of use would require. He asked if they would, in tying into SuperAmerica's exit, run parallel to it on their own property,and just expand that entrance. Ericson stated that this could be done, and that there would be room to shift their access away from the SuperAmerica access, to prevent interference with their driveway. Commissioner Berke stated that this would align the access with the residential streets, which would not be proper planning. Ericson stated that this would not be a commercial exit, and would not generate a large amount of traffic. Commissioner Berke stated that he believed businesses should not impact residences. He added that he felt the applicant was misleading the Commission regarding the amount of parking he would require. Council Member Stigney stated that he was concerned with the parking issues. He explained that both his son and daughter-in-law were employed at care facilities, and he often visited friends in different nursing homes. He stated that he always noticed a lack of sufficient parking. He suggested that they attempt to make a comparison to the parking requirements with those of the Milwaukee facility, if similar in use. He stated that the issue of adequate parking should be stressed. Commissioner Berke stated that if this is assisted living care, the staff requirements would be lower, but the possibility then exists that the residents would be able to drive and have vehicles. He added . that if there was an Alzheimer's clientele, the residents would not be able to drive, but there would be more staff required, which would also impact the parking. Ericson noted that at this point, the applicant was applying for a rezoning and conditional use permit. He asked if the Commission felt this type of use was appropriate at this location,and if the request for rezoning could be recommended for approval. He added that,after these matters were determined, and when the type of clientele at the facility and the parking requirements were established, it would be up to the applicant to meet those requirements. He stated that the result of these determinations might indicate a lesser number of units at the facility. Commissioner Laube stated that the applicant had indicated they were considering allowing spouses to reside at the facility,and noted that a spouse might have a vehicle. In addition, he stated that if the property is rezoned, and the project fails or is withdrawn, he was concerned that the result might be the restriction of other types of businesses in the future. Ericson stated that at times in the past, zoning has been contingent upon certain conditions. He stated he had discussed this matter with the City Attorney, and explained that although zoning is not typically conditional,there were ways to draft an ordinance to reflect that the subject property would revert to its original zoning if the plan does not work out. Commissioner Stevenson stated that he would like to see that type of"conditional zoning." Chair Peterson stated that he agreed, and that this should be done in consideration of consistency with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Johnson stated that he agreed, adding that he thought that a B-2 business would be more appropriate at this location, and that this proposal would generate a large impact on the residents. He stated that he believed the applicant required at least twice the amount of parking he was suggesting.