03-15-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has provided the Fire Marshall with a copy of the site plans, in order to obtain her response with regard to the internal circulation on the lot and the drive aisle specifications. He indicated the Fire Marshall had questions regarding whether or not the building would be sprinklered, which would also impact the location of fire hydrants, and other items of this nature. He explained that these are all issues yet unresolved, however, staff feels very confident that prior to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, they will be addressed. Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant proposed to construct an accessory structure of approximately 400 square feet at the most southerly point of the site, on Knollwood Drive, for the purpose of housing lawn mowers and equipment, and as a utility building for the Church facility. He stated staff is recommending this structure be relocated to the rear of the lot, adjacent to the volleyball court. He explained that the City Code requires that accessory structures be located to the rear of the property, behind the primary structure. Planning Associate Ericson stated the demolition or removal of the homes would proceed immediately to make room for the parking lot expansion, which is incorporated into the first phase of the development. He indicated permits from the City would be required for the demolition project, as well as notification to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which is indicated as a possible stipulation in the Staff Report. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Staff Report lists the specific conditional use permit requirements as they apply to Churches, and similar uses in the R-1 Zoning District. He indicated that all of the specific requirements are met as proposed. He stated in terms of the general conditional use permit requirements, staff feels very comfortable that the use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, streets, schools, and other public facilities. He pointed out however, there is some question with regard to the use being sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used lands. He explained that this is the area in which he has addressed the fact that additional landscaping and screening on the site is necessary. He advised that whether this is accomplished through berming, fencing, or evergreen trees, this is an item that must be addressed, and until that time, staff feels that those particular requirements are not specifically met. He also indicated, that in Staff’s opinion, all of the adverse affects criteria – other that the screening issue – are satisfied. Planning Associate Ericson stated there is no resolution before the Planning Commission at this time. He explained that this matter was strictly the discussion of this item, in terms of resolving all of the issues and directing the applicant to come back before the Commission at the next meeting with changes that will satisfy the requirements. Planning Associate Ericson stated that staff has received a couple of telephone calls from neighbors who have indicated concerns regarding the expansion, and the potential change in the character of the area, in terms of removal of two homes and the additional impervious surface. He noted one telephone call from a resident to the north of County Road H2 who lives across the