07-21-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 9 staff had determined that this could only be permitted in a residential or"home" type structure. He cited the exact language of the Code which indicates"...group housing, which is only allowed if the use is in a family dwelling and be limited to no more than 12 children." He stated that the possibility of the use being altered to some other type of"group housing" would only occur if someone were to change the structure itself to a house or dwelling, and that staff did not feel this was feasible or likely. Ericson stated that the other possible option would be to provide some type of multi-family housing on the site. He explained that if the proposal as presented is built, it could not be re-used for multi- family housing, as it would not meet building or housing Codes. He stated that if there were a proposal to change this to some type of multi-family dwelling, i.e., apartments or town-homes, the developer would have to clear the building from the site. He stated that although this could happen, the economic factors would make it very unlikely. He added that, given the setback and parking requirements for multi-family dwellings, probably no more than twelve units could be constructed at that site. Ericson stated that the Code in Section 1109.04, Subdivision 2, is somewhat unclear in its definition of what would be considered a similar group housing use. He stated that as the subdivision heading is Nursing Homes, staff could contend that similar types of group housing would pertain only to elderly group housing. He explained, however, that because this is not explicitly stated, staff would recommend that if the Commission desired to limit the type of housing to the elderly, the code should • be amended to reflect that. He stated that this could be accomplished by amending the first line of Subdivision 1109.04 (2) to read, "Nursing homes and other elderly congregate housing..." which would eliminate any question of what the other similar uses would be. Commissioner Berke inquired if the applicant had provided the number of staff they would be utilizing at the facility. Ericson stated that the applicant had indicated that the busiest shift would require 8-9 employees. Commissioner Berke stated that it was necessary to learn the exact type of assisted living they would provide,adding that if it includes Alzheimer's care, there is a tremendous difference in the amount of staff required than simply assisted living. Ericson stated the applicant was in the process of negotiating with national providers who would be operating this facility, and that this would assist in determining the type of clientele they would have in that facility. Commissioner Hegland stated that the question at hand was to determine whether or not they would require parking beyond the current one space for every three beds requirement, and whether the City Code would require an amendment for this specific type of use. Ericson stated that he had attempted to research other cities parking requirements, which pertain to this specific type of use but found, as it is relatively new, it has not been properly addressed. He stated that there was room for 12 parking spots to be constructed on the premises, in addition to the 22 parking stalls, which currently exist. He added that if the parking demand was greater than the Code anticipated, the resolution could require the developer to provide those additional spaces. Commissioner Laube suggested that the applicant confer with the businesses across the street, which • generally did not fill their parking lots to capacity, to assist in accommodating overflow parking. Ericson stated that this could be explored, but that he would be concerned with people crossing County Road I. Commissioner Laube stated that Mounds View Drive was already utilized by a great