11-17-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission November 17, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 5 • Planning Associate Ericson stated this was in error and should indicate a 75-foot setback. He explained that on Page 2,Item A of the Staff Report indicates the existing front yard setback for the Church to be 90 feet along Long Lake Road. He noted with the expansion of the worship area, that setback would decrease to 75 feet,which is well within the minimum setback requirement of 35 feet. He pointed out that the proposed setback of 35 feet on County Road I was also in error, and should indicate 47 feet,which is the existing setback, and will not be altered. He advised these items would be corrected within the Staff Report. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the seating capacity would increase from 275 to 368, and if these calculations were used to formulate the parking requirements. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. Chairperson Peterson stated he did not believe it was necessary to indicate proof of parking with this proposal. He explained it has been the practice of the Planning Commission to avoid requiring pavement, in speculation of a future need. He stated in this case there appears to be sufficient room to add parking in the future, if necessary. Commission Stevenson stated he concurred with this statement. Commissioner Kaden stated he also agreed. He added that any Church or business would likely desire to provide sufficient parking for their customers or congregation, therefore, if it is necessary, • it will be provided. r PaChairpersonrk Peterson inquired if the Church had made arrangements with a bus route a a rk and Ride type of service, and if a portion of the lot would be reserved for this purpose. Carey Lyons, representative of Sunrise United Methodist Church stated several years prior, the Church had a tentative agreement for this service, however, they were not presently providing this. Commissioner Kaden stated the parsonage building was located 20 feet from the property line, and inquired if the 30-foot setback requirement was not relevant because this structure was not being altered. Planning Associate Ericson explained that staff interprets this setback requirement to be applicable to principle structure. He advised that setbacks for accessory structures are typically less than the setback for the principle structure, and the small house is considered by staff to be an accessory structure to the principle use, which is the Church. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to direct staff to draft a resolution of approval for consideration at the next meeting. Chairperson Peterson stated it appeared this proposal was well prepared, and there were no issues that require changes or corrections. He added that the proposal appears to be a benefit to the Church congregation, as well as the community.