07-21-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 13 1110 should be established,particularly in consideration of preventing a negative impact to the residential area. Commissioner Laube stated that he felt rezoning with the reversion clause was appropriate, and that the language indicating elderly congregate housing was necessary. He stated that he was a resident in this area,and that the proposed idea fit very well with what they would like to see at this location. He stated that he was concerned in regard to the parking, and had many phone calls from residents expressing their concerns in this regard as well. Commissioner Stevenson stated that he concurred with Commissioner Laube, adding that this was a preliminary stage in the process, and that they should go forward with the conditional zoning at this time. Chair Peterson stated he thought this was, in general, a good use for the property. He stated that in his opinion this was a commercial operation,although more residential in nature and that he could not think of a use that would be more appropriate for this site. He stated that he believed this would be a lower impact use than some commercial uses, adding that the majority of the traffic would be for visitors,whereas a retail type of operation might have customers coming in and out all day long. He stated that he thought it was a good idea to proceed with the zoning and the conditional use permit, and that clarification of the parking issues was required. • Commissioner Miller stated that in general she felt this was a good proposal, and if they could resolve the parking issues, she would be in favor of it. Commissioner Johnson stated that he was completely against the project, and not in favor of"down- zoning." He stated that if he was a business owner, with a business located next to the subject property, and had intended to see other businesses locate in that area, he would be very upset. He stated that in addition to this they did not have enough information regarding the issues. Commissioner Berke stated that he would have to be satisfied with the parking prior to moving forward,and that he would require clarification regarding what type of usage would be applied to the facility. He stated that the matter was still too vague, and needed clarification regarding the staff requirements. He stated that if he were satisfied with the outcome of these matters, he would be in : - - elle. . . Commissioner Braathen stated that he did not object to the proposal. He remarked that the applicant had presented an attractive facility. He stated that the specific use required clarification. He stated that persons with Alzheimer's disease do require extensive care, and that as this disease progresses, these people generally do not remain at this type of facility. He stated that he felt strongly about the layout of the parking and the traffic pattern considerations, but believed the applicant was working diligently to resolve these issues. He stated, in regard to the rezoning, he was of the opinion that they should not rush to develop all the land in the area, however he was not against the proposal and would wait to gain more information prior to making his determination in the matter. •