1994-03-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Meeting Minutes March 22, 1994 Page 8 Council Business. continued I Mattila noted that the resident concerns include relocating the facility closer to Thorndale, moving the parking lot behind the facility, and the type of traffic generated by the facility. There would be about 28 daily van trips from the facility which is actually less than the amount generated by an apartment building. Gunderman received a call from a resident concerned that the facility would generate early morning vehicle activity similar to a group home. Mattila said the facility would generate different van activity than the group home. Mr. Bjerkesett said the peak hours of van traffic generated would be 7 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Mattila said an additional request was made which involved exiting the property from an adjacent parking lot to the Palmer Drive parking lot out onto Palmer Drive. Bjerkesett feels this is an unacceptable alternative. Laura Lind, 1113 Thorndale, noted concern of the type of traffic generated by the facility, and suggested routing the traffic onto the service drive or initiate the use of a resident permit system. LeFevere said the reduced parking levels is predicated on the assumption that each unit will be occupied by a handicapped person, and that the facility would not be converted into a conventional apartment building. He recommended the addition of a condition which would reflect that each residential unit would continue to be occupied by at least one person with a mobility handicap. Bjerkesett noted that one unit would be designed to be occupied by a caretaker who is physically abled. Mattila said the facil ity will accommodate 18 one bedroom and 7 two bedroom units. I Williams questioned staffs recommendation regarding the proposed parking requirements. Mattila said this facility is similar to the requirements applied to an elderly housing facility. However, staff had not recommended that enclosed parking facilities be required because of the possible safety hazards these may cause to handicapped individuals. Hopkins and Champlin did not require an enclosed parking facility and there has been no negative effect. Williams asked if Mattila would be comfortable in adding fewer parking stalls. Mattila feels comfortable with the 36 proposed stalls, and added that amount is greater than at the Hopkins and Champlin facilities. Williams asked if the parking could be decreased and the south bay eliminated to allow for more buffering between the freeway and building. Mattila feels it is wise to require the additional parking, and the 45 foot landscape screen provides a nice buffer from Pike Lake Drive. Mattila said that based on the Planning Commission comments and resident concerns an alternative providing a one way inlout situation would be the best option in order to eliminate the headlight glare. I Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Williams, to DISCUSS AN ACCESS ONTO PIKE LAKE DRIVE. 1 Ayes - 4 Nayes, Motion Failed.