Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission October 2, 1996 <br /> • Regular Meeting Page 10 <br /> in the office by the Community Development <br /> Department. <br /> Chair Peterson informed Ms. White that this is <br /> an informal process and once this is <br /> established the parking area will stay on the <br /> property and that the new owner of the property <br /> should be informed of this agreement. He <br /> suggested that the details of the letter be <br /> worked out as soon as possible so that Mr. <br /> Manning could proceed with his building permit <br /> for the driveway. Commissioner Miller asked if <br /> the City had a standard form that could be <br /> used. Ms. Sheldon replied that we don't right <br /> now but it is something that could be created. <br /> Director Sheldon began the discussion by 8. Discussion of Proposed <br /> • explaining this ordinance amendment was Ordinance No. 590 <br /> started in conjunction with the request for a Regarding the Revision <br /> church development at 3025 County Road H. of Parking Lot Setbacks <br /> The adjacent property owner has proposed a and Revision of <br /> Code amendment that would require at least 15 Minimum Lots Size <br /> feet between parking lots for churches and Requirements for Non- <br /> commercial uses when those parking lots are Residential Uses <br /> next to residential property. She explained that <br /> when Staff began drafting the ordinance to <br /> bring it before the Planning Commission, <br /> additional items were included. She reminded <br /> the Commission that at their last meeting, the <br /> Commission asked if Staff could prepare at <br /> least one version of the ordinance that <br /> narrowed it back down to the original request <br /> and then a version that had the other items so <br /> that if the Planning Commission felt that the <br /> longer ordinance needed more review, the <br /> Planning Commission would be able to take the <br /> original request and move it forward. She <br /> noted that the City attorney had decided the <br /> sixty-day rule which limits the length of time a <br /> case can wait for decision, applies to this <br /> request. She indicated that she had notified <br />