|
i,
<br />���_ :�_ � '��� 1�� �� :_ 1 �.�: , : ���. `i� : � ��� ` 1; ,.. ... � �` `�.
<br />,� ;�� �� ; , ;�; � _ ° :_� .. � ��;:
<br />�s �+ Ir 1.
<br />� � '
<br />� �� : �; :f � � � — ��� �. ��.
<br />�� �� =� " � : � � � � * � ���� �� `i; � � 1- I��'� �- � �� " :S� ; �- �: 1 �� `� .!. �, �,. : � : � . `I;�
<br />�B9�Y .EJ.�l'1 �A' �A6iJ�J1`l�l\�E 1��. S�oy t'11i �1�A711`I�1V�1`d IilYlBr' 1Y3P11�4F � 1'0%� V1VBfJ
<br />�W Z��iG CODE, 'I'�'�'LE 110Q, SECT'IOl�dS 114200�, 1104.01, 1104.02, �106.04,
<br />�107e05, 1109D04, 1114004, �1�1.09, 1221011, ��►d 1123a02; PI,r�,�dl�dIr1G C'A5E NOo �P-00�-
<br />950
<br />�REAS, residential districts aliow for certain non-residential uses such as schools, day
<br />care cen�ers, community centees, churches, and nursing hornes as conditional uses, and additional
<br />buffering is needed between the parking lots associated with these uses and adjacent residential uses;
<br />and,
<br />Wi�EREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the request oiDan�y
<br />D. Moon for an arnendmeni to the Mounds View Zoning Code io require a se�back of fifteen feet
<br />for parking lots for churches and commercial uses, where such partcing lots abut property in a
<br />residential district; and,
<br />` `3
<br />- WI�REAS, in reviewing this request, the Planning Commission has concluded that
<br />setbacks of twenty feet, foc parking lots on sites of 2.5 acres or less, and thirty %et, for parking
<br />lo�s on sites of more than 2.5 acres, where such parking lots serve non-residential uses and abut
<br />property in a resideniial disirict, is advisable to allow sufficient landscaping and buffering between
<br />residentzal properties and non-residential uses; and,
<br />�� � V4THEREAS, in reviewing ttus request, the Planning Commission has identified additiona.l
<br />�����.,a
<br />�rovement needed in the Zoning Code including establishing a minimum lot size for non-
<br />residential uses in residential ciistricts, clarifying vvhen and how front setbacks for new residences
<br />in the R-i and R-2 districts shall be adjusted based orc the setbacks of existing residences in the
<br />same block, clarifying and establishing setback requiremenis for accessory buildings, clarifying
<br />setback requirements from "second fronCs" on through lois, inereasing parking lot setbacks from
<br />streets far multiple family residential, commercial and industrial uses, and adding cross-references;
<br />and,
<br />U+IHEREA�, r�vith the adopiion of increased setbacks for parkirrg lots abutting residenrial
<br />properties, it is advisahle to address the continued use of existing parking lots which do not conform to
<br />the revised setback requirements, and the abiiity to repair and resurface therr�i'�j �,�- t
<br />WI-�EREAS, the Planning Commission recorrimends provision he made for e;cisting
<br />parking Iots w�ich would not�riie�the new setback requirements to be treat�d as legal non-
<br />conforming uses. ±
<br />�ds���
<br />
|