08-04-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 10 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 deal of pedestrian traffic, and with the addition of vehicles parked on the sides,of#:the street, it would pose a serious safety concern. Iingage .F4i'... <4'iliNitimuCommissionerc inlying u� �.:..:::...:::.:::.:.,,�<.,::,.para to it on their own property, and just expand that entrance. iso stated that this could e one and that there would be room to shift their access away fli .uperAmerica access,to prevent interference with their driveway. Commissioner Berke statas would align the access with the residential streets, which would not be proper planning. r 'on ted that this would not be a commercial exit, and would not generate a large amount of traffic:.Com ssioner Berke stated that believed businesses should not impact reside.: <H;e added fa `felt the applicant was he p u:<..:...�x:�::.::::::. misleading the Commission regarding the amount> * .arking e would` '` uire. 40, PRIONabote Council Member Stigney stated that he was wOr concerned wit: h ; ' in issues. He explained that both his son and daughter-in-law wer mployedN at care fseiiiaies, and he often visited friends in t : 'z • different nursing homes. He stated tha .alway�Yiticed a lOr of sufficient parking. He suggested that they attempt make a comparison to the retirements with those of the Milwaukee facility, if similar in use. He stater that the issue of.e equate parking should be stressed. Commissioner> e,ke statdttaqtfitws is assist d living care, the staff requirements would be lower, os but thepossibilityten existittlipTesidents would be able to drive and have vehicles. He added • that if therelatbeimer"k§ifieftpe residents would not be able to drive, but there would be more staff reiedwhich would al o m act theparking Ericson noted that at this point, the m_ . applicant was applying forr,ezoningand conditional use permit. He asked if the Commission felt • .::40; i location, and if the request for rezoning could be recommended for approViiite lded that, after these matters were determined, and when the type of c tentele at the facility>and the parking requirements were established, it would be up to the applicant to meet those r tiirements. He stated that the result of these determinations might indicate wryer number of units>at the facility. IV - : �.,.:.;l, stated that the applicant had indicated they were considering allowing spouses to>;:si e a , ;->-facility, and noted that a spouse might have a vehicle. In addition, he stated that if the pros `rty`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 •