08-04-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 110 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 rate a large impact on the residents. He stated that he believed the applicant required` t least twice the amount of parking he was suggesting. AMOint AtO Commissioner Hegland asked what prevented them from le ng the zoning of ex Hs erty B-22,pd why they could not adjust the Code if necessary to allow thistype of04h 4n a B-2 D i ? .ym rlcson explained that the Code could be amended to allow a certa` e.in4,tlt district, and f 'particular use appears to be a good fit for this location, however he explAteeilikiwy not be appropriate in another location, which was the danger in amending the Code. 111111116, Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding signage at the location. Eli ' at:ed that to some degree all of the high-density residential uses have some, psignage, w < permitted by the City Code. He stated if this matter proceeds to thata i nte=of i It addressee with the site plan review. He stated in consideration of the expense c raftin 4 i l:an otl e developer requires some assurance that the City would like to see thistype offacility OilitS4troopption, and that the zoning was attainable. 1 : w °°_' Mike Lewis, representative of MShileal Estate,providedfe Commission with a revised site plan, which indicated a drive-through from CougtlitRadijrMoundsCounty View Drive. He stated that he believed this addressed the»m:o c 'ns regarding regar4Olomory vehicle ingress and egress. He stated that they had,,calLqii$1,the representative of SupOdiffidica regarding utilizing their access for delivery, and that fhe es ant to provide ordtdott,Opement, and would probably only give a permit or some type of license fortllis.<Pur ose, which:=wo l<dNommo:<be revocable. NftjemirkMr. g Lewis s:.. > t i in regara.rd to *staffing staffing requirements, and in terms of the type of clientele x residin <: e facilit , , : consulted with Senior Solutions, in Madison, Wisconsin, and the Fairvie . and Beckland a l l s.v" e stated they had determined that the Alzheimer's residents, in app, , mately 24 units, would woulatgquire six staff members (for every four residents there would be one staff ember), and the other 24 assisted care residents would require an additional six. He stated that Aso dnv,f, peak operation tyre would be a maximum of 12. He stated that this was the consensus of the , ;'0s health care they had contacted. " t , ;representative of MSP Real Estate, stated that all of the parties they had contacted stateda they had more than sufficient parking. He stated that assisted living facility residents generally require 24-hour care, and would not likely be driving. He added that the price point they would be asking of their residents would provide that they would not be in this facility if they did not require true assisted living, and that all 48 rooms would require full 24-hour care. Mr. Pinkerton • stated that the City staff had surveyed several assisted living facilities, the architects had designed 40, and their care provider had worked in approximately 30 facilities. Commissioner Berke stated that