08-04-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 8 however, the parking demand might be higher with this specific type of use. Ericson stated that during periods of increased demand, other cities utilized on-street parking to accommodate overflow. He stated that the City of Mounds View prohibits on-street parking to meet on-site parking requirements, however, if there is a demand for on-street parking beyond City Code requirements which cannot be met on-site, there is enough room on Mounds View Drive to accommodate some extra vehicles. He stated that staff believes the parking concerns can be satisfactorily;addressed. Ericson stated that another concern raised at the previous meeting was in regard to delivery vehicles, specifically semi tractor-trailers, and whether or not they worleibe ableertrm a safe entry and exit from the site. He explained that as currently proposed, the is only ons; ' band one way o::;_ of the parkinglot, and no room is available for a large truc.: i turn aro ' it hat although fin;::: t;< °� �� ,x;..;2'7 such a vehicle might only be servicing the location once ateek, the v hicle wou o b.. out onto County Road I, one of the busiest streets in thet and s would posei ii o s safety concern. Ericson stated that staff had instructed theapplicant to initiate discussions with SuperAmerica to see if it would be possible to tie into their real';ac si onto Mounds View Drive. He stated that another, possibly preferable option was available, which>would be to provide an access onto Mounds View Drive, eliminating any concerns or safety issu ' i e and to the trucks going in and out of theproperty. He stated that this could also -provide access` r timer g enc vehicles, which might need to enter and exit the facility. Ericson' d dvthat:::,the issuei` 'throu h-traffic could be addressed in the site plan review, with a requirement thalt,061Weis,bethatposted "no exit," "emergency exit," or"truck exit only. : -mi'' i is • Ericson stated that with regard to Wig anotheFissue is tl� `median located between the east and t" '`"` ro osed entrance to the property. He west lanes of County Road I which:<eIends ju><� ��ieyond tt� "p p p p y. stated that staff had suggested lte applicant>contact ii he Ramsey County Traffic Engineer to determine if itwould bepossible:to mnove the° e t ;ack. He stated it is not yet known whether the county would .unit the taintdb cut bac allow safe access, but that staff would require that some alteration b'e ade to% ( is ss more convenient. He explained that it might be premature to begin inqur:: _g i t Athis matter an that<these issues could be addressed in the future with the site plan review. `j "" w Ericson sated that the ques't1 < ftaxes was brought forward at the Commission meeting, pertaining � to theis erences in tax generation between the proposed use and an unspecified commercial use. He state:.:;that, in speaking fictiTilmsey County Tax Department, staff learned that a use such as the proposed assisted living facility would be taxed at the same rate as any other commercial use, 2.4 up to the first $$:50,000 in valuation. From thatpoint on, commercial uses are taxed at the <i.� ° .4 percent. e stated that there is a provision in the tax code that allows for"elderly living at `,.:``' y tn'the 2.4 percent rate at valuations after $150,000 as well, thus the proposed use "I i.. < atthe 2.4 percent for its total valuation. He stated that while a commercial use may be taxed'at a higher rate after the initial $150,000, it would not be unrealistic to assume that the proposed use would be"valued" significantly higher than a retail or commercial use. He added that it is not currently known what assessed valuation the County Assessor would establish for this use, and there are no known similar facilities with which to compare. He stated that, as best as staff can determine with the information available, the proposed facility would likely generate an equal or • greater amount of taxes than many, but not all, commercial uses.