Laserfiche WebLink
s _ � _ , � , G <br />� . _ _ <br />���, _� <br />Mounds View Planning Commission December l, 1999 <br />Regular Meeting Page 2 <br />3. Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda <br />There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. <br />4. Approval of Minutes <br />A. November 3, 1999 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller to approve the November 3, 1999 meeting minutes as <br />corrected. <br />5. <br />Ayes — 7 <br />Planning Case No. 574-99 <br />Nays — 0 The motion carried. <br />Property Involved: 7687 Long Lake Road <br />Consideration of Resolution 598-99 regarding a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Sunrise <br />United Methodist Church and a Development Review to allow an expansion to the Church <br />facility. <br />Applicant: Vanman Companies (Representing Sunrise) <br />The applicant was present. <br />Planning Associate Ericson gave the staffreport as follows: <br />The applicant, Vanman Companies, representing the property owner, Sunrise United Methodist <br />Church, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit and development review to allow for <br />the expansion of their Church facility located at 7687 Long Lake Road. The expanded areas will <br />service as additional space within the sanctuary and child care areas, will provide for office space <br />for the pastor and other church workers, and will add a meeting room and multi-use space for the <br />staff and congregation. <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated the total area of the expansion plan is approximately 7,500 <br />square feet, which brings the total building area, after expansion, to approximately 20,500 square <br />feet. He indicated the criteria for approving a conditional use permit for this proposal are all met, <br />as are the dimensional requirements for the development review. He noted an issue brought <br />forward at the previous meeting, with regard to the parking lot setback two feet from Long Lake <br />Road, which was determined at that meeting to simply be non-conformity. He added that as the <br />applicant was not proposing any alterations to the parking lot at this time, the issue would not be <br />addressed with the overall development review or the conditional use permit. <br />