Laserfiche WebLink
• Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 13 <br /> Ms. Sheldon noted that she had received a request 7. Planning Case No. <br /> from a resident for a change to the city's zoning code. SP-008-96 <br /> This request pertains to parking lot setbacks between <br /> residential and non-residential uses. <br /> Mr. Moon has requested that a provision be added to the <br /> code that would require that where there is non-residential <br /> uses in a residential district, the parking lot associated with <br /> those uses be at least 15 feet from the property line and <br /> that the area be used for landscaping and buffering. Ms. Sheldon <br /> noted that one must also take into consideration how a change such <br /> as this would affect existing churches. It appears that most of the <br /> existing churches would meet the 15 foot proposed requirement. <br /> The Planning Commission must determine whether it should <br /> be fifteen feet or more than fifteen feet. She would <br /> recommend that it be based somewhat on the size of the <br /> site and that an allowance be made for existing parking <br /> lots to remain but if they are ever reconstructed, <br /> 4111 they would need to be brought into conformance. <br /> Ms. Sheldon noted that code allows any property owner <br /> in Mounds View to initiate an amendment. Another <br /> issue that the Commissioners may want to look at also <br /> deals with minimum lot size required for these types <br /> of facilities. <br /> Commissioner Miller stated she would like to discuss the <br /> changes further and would also like to see what impact <br /> a change like this would have on existing buildings and <br /> schools. <br /> Commissioner Stevenson stated he would like a survey <br /> completed to see what other cities' ordinances are <br /> with regard to setbacks. <br /> Ms. Sheldon stated she had prepared an Ordinance and Resolution <br /> in regard to the requested amendments for the Commissioners' <br /> consideration. She noted that part of the reason she wanted to <br /> present this information at this time is that it does have some <br /> relationship to the other case and staff did not want to prevent it <br /> • from moving forward. Discussion on this can be scheduled into <br />