08-04-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 the St. Anthony facility indicated they were constantly receiving calls from the residents regarding • insufficient parking. He added, although they met the parking requirements, there was overflow onto the streets. He added that he resided in the neighborhood of the proposed development, and did not want parking on the side streets. Mr. Pinkerton stated that he did not want the residents or their guests parking on the side streets either. He stated that they had contacted the ALS, a national provider of assisted ea'e who utilized the ratio they were using as a guideline, which is 12 stalls for 24 beds, and t at they were proposing more than one and one half times that amount. He stated that this ratio is54 t , e industry requires. He requested that the Commission direct him as to how m arking would e squired. .„"11:1011a.'`'....k:.. `Z Council Member Stigney asked how many stalls the applicant had.:<„.1 r. Pinkert < t,ilei vith proof of parking for an additional nine, there were 3 ittikkinggialls. He sta dif it tj< t ff had VOW conducted their research at 22 and felt that was adequate:>lo 211111, Chair Peterson stated that one of the parking issues was whether wathalphetesidents would have their own cars, and asked if it would be possible to restrict the `residents3 having their own cars. Mr. Pinkerton stated that they could possibly restrict a ;erc a ":e of those ' t``p'not think their lender would want to restrict the residents from havingvehicles,:<<.:: dded that i "did not anticipate a large percentage of the residents having vehicles,,l t would prof toth e a deed restriction limiting it. He stated that they had proof of parking,possiblt38`ote :iles if necessary. He added that he believed that the parking should accommodate all parties at` ll times, and that this was their goal. Anit Carol Golden, 2749 Lake Court'` rive, ask `if the applicant would be providing some type of transportation for the residents. M Pinkertonstated the<”'<had considered the matter, but this was to be determi t by the provider ti Mrs. Golden GcOagleif the entire facility would be secure. Mr. Pinkerto. . ;ghat it would 3 ih a controlled access on both floors, monitoring of the residents at all time�>" , Al `additional=j ``.«of the fenced back yard area. Mrs. Golden asked if the access to the property �:. : :oin to be �_>° �' >: y Road I. Mr. Pinkerton stated that this was what was mak, "�� A�..;:.:.:'.:.: currently proposed Commiser T,auhe ask i s o could make County Road I an entrance only. Mr. Pinkerton stated that he°."ought this would woubkoptikcellent idea. Commissioner Stevenson noted the center median, whi,:< ould prevent any<<`etrns. Chair Peterson stated he had noticed the median had been cut b.a in the revised siteVin . Mr. Pinkerton stated that this was what they were proposing. sioner He .. d.asked if utilizing an access from the SuperAmerica driveway would reduce < ` a °o.. : of ing space available at the proposed site. Mr. Pinkerton stated that at most, it m '' 's. e two parking spaces which could be picked up on the other side of the access, how= e , e did not think it would eliminate any. Chair Peterson asked the applicant for his opinion regarding the language amendment to the ordinance which would revert the property to its original zoning, should the proposal be withdrawn. Mr. Pinkerton stated, in his opinion, the current owner of the property would be in favor of that if • they did not go forward, and that he thought this was a good idea.