|
�
<br />- _
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission
<br />Regular Meeting
<br />March 15, 2000
<br />Page 11
<br />feels very confident that prior to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, they
<br />addressed. :�
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant proposed ta c
<br />approximately 400 square feet at the most southerly point of thE
<br />purpose of housing lawn mowers and equipment, and as a u�i
<br />He stated staff is recommending this structure be relocated,�'
<br />volleyball court. He explained that the City Code requires;;t�t
<br />the rear of the property, behind the primary structure.
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated the demolition of the trj,�c� ����
<br />immediately to make room for the parking lot expansion, wl��€��d
<br />Y '»
<br />of the development. He indicated permits from the City'�i�voi
<br />project, as well as notification to the Minnesota Pollu�zo�� :� '���t
<br />possible stipulation in the StaffReport.
<br />,
<br />1
<br />be
<br />;ruct an �����r��k,��,�F '�iructure of
<br />�,: on K�c������r�c� �.� i��, for the
<br />uilding fo�� �k��; �:;;�it3���x� racility.
<br />rear of i�.� loi�, �����;��&� �o th�
<br />, ;:. ,
<br />y
<br />r�moved would proceed
<br />��.�.e�1 into the first phase
<br />������;�� i or the demolition
<br />r: ;��r;���r��� is indicated as a
<br />� .
<br />� . <4y .. . %�
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated the StaffulZeport �t��t ���c. ;,�u�cific �onditional use permit
<br />requirements as they apply to Churches, ar���similar us�'in ��� ��.�-1 �p�tii�ig District. He indicated
<br />that all of the specific requirements ar��inet as pr�:�osed. ��� ��;ated in terms of the general
<br />conditional use permit requirements; st�f#� feels �e�% comfortal5:�e that the use will not create an
<br />excessive burden on existing park,s, ��t`eets, sch�i�ls, and ot��:r public facilities. He pointed out
<br />however, there is some question �ii�i regai-c� +:� y��F^ use bei'ng;sufficiently compatible or separated
<br />by distanc�.or screening frotxa �dj�ent residf;ha������ :y.�����a �r used lands. He explained that this is
<br />the area i�� ��r�?��;�1 he has ���t+.�� ,� �.,:��.���hat fact �����2 F�4����:������1 landscaping and screening on the site is
<br />trees,
<br />af%cts crit�� i
<br />d���,�;� fP��.�A�'��ti,�� tl�is be ac�;X��r�pli�h�;ca through bernung, fencing, or evergreen
<br />�,�z�;L �a�x��; �; � rF���,,;�Jed, and until that time, staff feels that those particular
<br />�U�ci i�;al1�'���,r �� s_ '��R�; al�o indicated, that in Staf�'s opinion, all of the adverse
<br />m��ra� ��z�;s�i�������,��d����—aresatisfied.
<br />ung;�.ssociate :F 4 1���r ��3� ,r� �here is no resolution before the Planning Commission at this
<br />�� explained ���rY=. t.6�<, d,e.�p�. �� was strictly the discussion of this item, in terms of resolving
<br />�:;
<br />�`the issues and dip�:f-y�����, ����: applicant to come back before the Commission at the next
<br />ing with changes thc��wil�'satisfy the requirements.
<br />�v
<br />���n.riarng Associate ,��cson stated that staff has received a couple of telephone calls from
<br />i•:: .
<br />�� a�,��t�c��-s who ha��;�ndicated concerns regarding the expansion, and the potential change in the
<br />c,�<<Fa ��s ;�; ,. �a�: :3 �a�� area, in terms of removal of two homes and the additional impervious surface.
<br />;,��- q�����.�i ����; ��lepinone call from a resident to the north of County Road H2 who lives across the
<br />��,..� ,� ��
<br />
|