09-01-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission August 18, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 1111 Mike Lewis, representative of MSP Real Estate, stated the only existing sidewalk was internal, along the driveway and County Road I, and they had not contemplated a sidewalk for the area along Mounds View Drive. He stated there was no existing sidewalk access to Silver View Plaza, and as they would be crossing over the SuperAmerica property to access this parking lot, they would not be able to create a sidewalk in that area. He noted they believed the overflow parking would only �. be utilized two or three times a year. `:i. Ericson stated this matter could be investigated further during the‘site p14.10104 He stated if there was sufficient room in the right-of-way, it might be possz " o creat '4 ; i n of sidewalk .p., ��k�:;. f4 traffic. He stated there could be _=sidewalk seg`ii"e t `>t ro ert accommodate the pedestrian ;;._«,. ,.,>��«.;,,,_,,,;>. =,p, P Y .. at the south end of the site, where the access of the parking lot enters Mounds<: ie :Drive He explained, however, the applicant had no control over thPt aus- 'derson proper bliti €uld not MEfiaconstruct a sidewalk at that location. €;.< ` <:> . z`h``ii:: gg `.:- „y•am,`... Commissioner Laube inquired if a sidewalk could be co struct d o ;::d the building, to provide a walking path for the residents, so they would not have to walk in lifiltilaw lot or cross the street if they desired to take a walk. Ericson stated the sitilatlindicatedNgotWbfsite sidewalk along the frontof the building, which although not circular,0ul =pori le>for some soin'6.00&ing activity. He stated these issues could be addressed, and he was i rtain pilo plic nt wo:U d not be averse to adding a sidewalk on their property, if it was ossible `Mr. Lew `statd'ths' s>correct, and that at this time, they had simply not progressed to this point with the site pl` hi>> ir 1111ARZS Ericson inquired regarding the number>of>parkin 4stalls prow ed on the original site plan. Mr. Lewis stated there were 24 parking stalls ith an ad onal nine, identified as proof of parking. He stated if they were..A utilize the original p lan, the00100.1fitiiasethey the parking spaces to 33 stalls. Omer 44-N Ericsonstated th > ommiss t €ul stipulate the applicant provide a revised site plan for Council review, which;;<'` 'i1 *indicate the thel4t.gmhOe property located on County Road I, as was originally proposed, as well;„ dic to the par ng and the proof of parking available. He stated that a clause VOWIW could be addectjtathtigMatipnal us permit that the proof of parking would be constructed at the request 01.0Y City, ifilallittriblhat there are problems meeting the demands of the parking. IwittiVW • cv. Co ssioner Laube statOstre cities required one parking stall for each member of the maximum . . ..> t of staff; in additiat 'to the three-to-one ratio, which, in this case, would be 31 parking stalls. is ��a Arted he liked this1i�dea. He stated they did not have many nursing homes in the City, and he .;-d the ordinapa include parking for both staff and residents in its requirement. He , o ould�.>prrrfer to see this requirement included in the ordinance at this time, instead of the • ®0aTd g: Commissioner Hegland stated the he agreed. He stated it would be much easier to Itpnor to the occurrence of a problem, and requested the requirement of 31 stalls be indicated in the resolution. Ericson inquired if Commissioner Laube was requesting the ordinance indicate this requirement. Commissioner Laube clarified he would like to see an amendment to the ordinance indicating the requirement for parking would be one stall for every three beds, as well as one space for each staff