Laserfiche WebLink
Item #8 <br /> PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> MEMO <br /> To: Mounds View Planning Commission <br /> From: Pamela Sheldon, Community Development Director <br /> Subject: Setbacks for Parking Lots for Non-Residential Uses <br /> Planning Case No. SP-008-96 <br /> Date: October 1, 1996 <br /> Meeting on October 2, 1996 <br /> Issue <br /> • <br /> Mr. Danny D. Moon, a property owner in Mounds View, has requested the Zoning Code be <br /> amended to require a minimum 15 foot setback between parking lots and property lines, when the <br /> parking lots are for churches or any commercial uses, when these uses abut residential uses. At <br /> your last meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposed ordinance on this issue. The <br /> • proposed ordinance also included a minimum lot size requirement for churches and commercial <br /> uses, and a number of clean-up items. <br /> The City Attorney has advised that it is best to proceed as if the 60-day rule applies to this <br /> request. Staff has notified Mr. Moon that the City is extending the time period for review of his <br /> request for an additional 60 days, or a total of 120 days from the date of submittal. The Planning <br /> Commission needs to act on Mr. Moon's request by October 9 in order for staff to have enough <br /> time to place this request before City Council for action. <br /> At your last meeting, the Planning Commission requested an ordinance be drafted which <br /> addressed Mr. Moon's specific reque : •e •= : . •:. e ••••••••11111. lot size requirement for <br /> churches and commercial uses. <br /> • <br /> Discussion <br /> Staff has prepared two ordinances for the Planning Commission's review. Draft#4 is a barebones <br /> proposal which adds Mr. Moon's request to our existing Code, and a one acre minimum lot size <br /> for churches and any commercial uses in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts. Draft#4 includes no <br /> cleanup items, and more or less relies on the way the existing Code is organized. Staff feels that <br /> there are some problems with this approach and would urge the Planning Commission to consider <br /> . Draft #3. <br />