Laserfiche WebLink
_ _ . _ _. - _ ^ _ _ _ � _ _ _ . <br />i ,.. . • : . - --� =---- _ -°--- -- �- '-- _. . . ------ , <br />_ , . � <br />_ _ <br />- -- ; . -- � ' ' --=.:_. _ : - <br />Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br />indicate 47 feet, which is the e�sting setback, and will not be altered. He advised these items would <br />be corrected within the 5taff Report. <br />Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the seating capacity would increase from 275 to 368, and if these <br />calculations were used to forrnulate the parking requirements. Planning Associate Eric�on stated this <br />was correct. k��s��� <br />�<<x�.�- <br />;;�; <br />Chairperson Peterson stated he did not believe it was necessary �o, indica��; �r�}��'�if parking with this <br />proposal. He explained it has been the practice of the I'l��r�irtg Comta�i:�E�,��r:� it� avoid requirit�� <br />pavement, in speculation of a future need. He stated in thi� �ase there appear� c� �� ��af�°xcient rQt�m <br />to add parking in the future, if necessary. Commissior� .�tevenson�<:�t�.ted h� ���c�r E�:��< r+ t�.•�����is <br />statement. <br />Commissioner Kaden stated he also agreed. He addec� ih� <br />desire to provide sufficient parking for their customers or .��� <br />it will be provided. <br />ChairpersonPeterson inquired ifthe Church had,,;m���`� ���� j���; <br />Ride type of service, and if a portion of the �o� rr%oial� ���, � c,� <br />�:; <br />Q;.;..,•. <br />�� <br />Carey Lyons, representative of Sunris�`United �ethodi�'r' <br />Church had a tentative agreement for fi�i3S service� liowever, <br />�� � <br />� ior <br />�;1� or business would likely <br />'�h�refore, if it is necessary, <br />%us route for a Park and <br />purpose. <br />°�h stated several years prior, the <br />were not presently providing this. <br />Commissioner Kaden stated the p�rsonage l���i.�.�izr�g was;�c�cated 20 feet from the property line, and <br />. lHi� <br />inquired if th�: 30�foot setb?��:�� r-�quiremeYa� �1�, t��3t �;�1'evant because this structure was not being <br />altered. <br />Planning l��s�� ����� ����r�o� ���1a�.���� t���i �taffinterprets this setback requirement to be applicable <br />to principle :,�t7-�o.;����-�;_ �.�.� advised ���<zi :����acks for accessory structures are typically less than the <br />setback for th� ��+!���k���� u�.�3l��t����, ���� '�ti�� small house is considered by staffto be an accessory <br />structure ta �li�e priK�c;i��� r1;:� t����ich is the Church. <br />Plar�g Associate Encso� ������P��E�d if it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to direct staff <br />to r���ft a resolution of ap�roval �'or consideration at the next meeting. <br />``�tated it appeared this proposal was well prepared, and there were no lssues <br />corrections. He added that the proposal appears to be a benefit to the Church <br />as the community. <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would prepare a resolution for consideration at the next <br />meeting of the Planning Commission, and would schedule a second public hearing before the City <br />Council at approximately 7:00 p.m., on December 13. <br />