Laserfiche WebLink
• Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 1996 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 5 <br /> to the City Council that it be denied. <br /> Ms. Sheldon noted that the purpose of the Development <br /> Review is to check the plan to see if it meets the dimensional <br /> requirements of the code. The areas where the proposal <br /> fails to meet the requirements are as follows: <br /> 1) the front setback <br /> 2) number of parking spaces-they have provided 30, <br /> they need 31 and of those 10%, or 3 spaces, can <br /> be compact. <br /> Ms. Sheldon stated staff feels that it is difficult to accommodate <br /> the sizes of the parking lot and the building on the site, so <br /> the plans have been designed with more compact spaces. There is <br /> also a problem with the length of the spaces. There is a problem <br /> with the drive aisle on the north side of the building. <br /> With regard to signage, the code does not provide much <br /> • guidance for churches in residential districts, so staff has <br /> used the neighborhood business district as a guide. That <br /> district allows for 100 square feet of signage. The <br /> current proposal shows 115 square feet. Staff would <br /> also suggest that any lighting be at a very low level and turned off <br /> at a certain time each night. The lighting for the parking lot <br /> as proposed would be building mounted on the north and east <br /> sides and would shine out on the parking lot. Staff is somewhat <br /> concerned about it shining out into the yards of the adjacent homes <br /> and would recommend that lighting be put on the perimeter of the <br /> lot so it would shine inward. <br /> Staff recommended denial of the Development <br /> Review, based on the fact that some of the dimensional <br /> requirements have not been met and they do not see an <br /> easy way to achieve them. <br /> Ms. Sheldon noted two letters which she distributed <br /> to the Commissioners: one from the Fire Department and <br /> one from Paul Ostrow who represents Mr. and Mrs. Moon, <br /> expressing concern about whether or not the project meets <br /> the criteria and that it would have serious impact on the <br /> client's property. <br />