Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />- :i <br />�Y , � n _ `� <br />� ���� � <br />;� <br />'I'oc Mounds `Iiew Planning Cammission <br />Froa�: Pamela Sheldon, Communiiy Development Director <br />��a�,�ecto Setbacks for Parking Lots for Non-R�sidential Uses <br />Planning Case No. 5P-008-9b <br />Da�eo <br />Issue <br />October l, I996 <br />Meeting on October 2, 1996 <br />Ttem ��S <br />Mr. Danny D. Moon, a property owner in Mounds View, has requested the Zoning Code be <br />arrtend�d to require a minimum 15 foot setback between parking lots a.r�d property lines, when th� <br />parking lots are for churches or any commercia,l uses, when these uses abut residential �ses. At <br />your last meeting, the Planning Cammission reviewed a proposed ordinance on this issue. Th� <br />proposed ordinance also included a minimum lot size requirerr�ent for churches and commerciai <br />uses, and a number of clean-up items. <br />The City Attorney has advised that it is best ta praceed as if the 60-day n,ile applies to this <br />requesi. Staffhas notified Mr. Moon that the City is extending th� time period for review of his <br />request for an additional6� days, or a tofial of 120 days from the date oF submittal. The Plannin� <br />Commission needs to act on Mr. Moon's request by October 9 i� arder for staffto have enough <br />time to place this reques� before City Council for action. <br />At your last meeting, the Plannirag Commission requested an ordinance be drafted which <br />addressed Mr. Moon's specific request and the additional of a minimum lot size requirement for <br />churches and corrunercial uses. <br />Discussion <br />StafF has prepared two ordinances for the Planning Commission's review. Draft #4 is a barebon�s <br />proposal which adds Mr. Moon's request to our existing Cocle, and a one acre mirumum lot size <br />for churches and any commercial uses in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts. Draft #4 includes no <br />cleanup items, and more or tess relies on the way the existing Code is organized. Stafffeels ihat <br />there are some problems with this approach and would urge the Planning Commission to consider <br />Draft #3. <br />