My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01723
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1700-1799
>
pf_01723
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2024 1:32:07 PM
Creation date
2/21/2024 1:31:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1723
Planning Files - Type
Planning-Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
:7 <br />GOOD NEIGHBOR, INC., CASE 1723 <br />0 <br />PAGE 2 <br />bedroom to the east. Ten adults will be cared for during an eight hour <br />period on weekdays only. Ms. Oswald -Anderson indicates the cost is <br />$23.00 per day. She notes that approximately half of the clients are <br />market rate subscribers and the other half are subsidized by existing <br />adult alternative care grant programs administered by the County. <br />5. The organization utilizes a van with a capacity of eleven persons to <br />pick up the clients who will then be unloaded in the driveway area. <br />The site plan indicates a turn -around so that the vehicle can back up <br />around the property and head forward onto County Road B. <br />6. Food will be prepared in the Golden Age Nursing Home and transported <br />to the facility for service at the site. The nominal staff requirement <br />is one staff person per eight clients. Thus, there may be one or two <br />staff persons on site at any one time. <br />7. Ms. Oswald -Anderson informs us that she has talked to many of the <br />neighbors in the immediate area and received a positive response to the <br />program. Good Neighbor, Inc. owns the contiguous residence to the <br />west on the immediate northeast corner of County Road B and Hamline. <br />8. Though many of you are probably familiar with this area of the City, It <br />would certainly be helpful if members of the Planning Commission and <br />Council were to view the property. If providing a residential setting <br />for the proposed function is an objective, it would appear that this sire <br />would do so. If clients are generally moved by a van from their <br />residences to the site, it would appear that traffic and parking conflicts <br />may not be a problem. However, there appears to be no parking area <br />for onsite, employees. if such employees operate out of the Golden Age <br />Nursing Horne, this may not be a problem. <br />9. In Minnesot:,, group homes can be operated by withuut City permission <br />for up to six persons living in a home in any residential district. In <br />this rase, of course, none of the ten clients will be living on the site. <br />Up to Con persons will be there from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on the <br />weekdays. <br />10. Tho application is for a Special Use <br />Permit to which the conditions can <br />be applied. One condition might be related to timing. The Planning <br />Commission and Council may consider <br />a time limit on the permit, <br />thereby giving an opportur ty to <br />experience the operation of this <br />relatively new type of service: in a <br />single-family home. The remodeling <br />costs do not appear to be significant; <br />therefore, a trial period of two <br />to three years may be reasonable. <br />We suggest that the permit might <br />be conditional upon there being no <br />expansion to the facility and that <br />the operation be confined to serving <br />tc,i clients as proposed by the <br />applicant. The permit could be <br />conditional upon there being State <br />regulations that are applicable. <br />If there are no such regulations <br />adopted, additional conditions could <br />be considered with respect to this <br />proposal. <br />11. It appears <br />from past experience in <br />Minnesota <br />that the regulation of such <br />facilities by the State has been appropriate <br />and well done. It would <br />appear in <br />the best interests of the <br />City not <br />to duplicate or to compete <br />with the <br />State in this area of <br />activity. <br />Thus, adoption of State <br />regulations <br />for the facility proposed <br />would appear <br />to be the best course. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.