05-08-2000 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 staff does not believe this would be overly burdensome, although it would certainly impact the lighting, however, the possible trade off would be that much of that light could be kept closer to the facility rather than being visible to the surrounding area. He advised that the resolution before the Council stipulates that the 30-foot light standards be lowered to 25 feet. Planning Associate Ericson stated there is a 400 square-foot accessory storage shed located at the south end of the site. He indicated the City Code does not allow for accessory structures greater than 216 square feet without a conditional use permit, however, since the Council was currently considering a conditional use permit, staff and the Planning Commission recommend that express allowance for the shed be consistent with this conditional use permit, to avoid duplication and the necessity of two conditional use permits. He advised that allowance for the shed has been drafted into the resolution before the Council. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Fire Marshall has reviewed the plans and has determined that the turning radius, locations of the fire hydrants, and all of the requirements for circulation and access on the site are met. He indicated the Fire Marshall is satisfied with what has been proposed. Planning Associate Ericson stated it was not known at this point if the two homes proposed for removal would be demolished or relocated, however, in either case, a demolition or relocation permit would be required, and that has been drafted into the resolution. He indicated that with regard to the drainage and utility easements, the site has been examined by the City Engineer and Rice Creek Watershed District, and it is believed that the drainage plan, in conjunction with the stormwater holding pond, would suit the needs of the site. He added that the stormwater holding pond is sized accordingly for the full buildout of the facility, although it was uncertain at this point whether or not that would occur. Planning Associate Ericson advised that a conditional use permit is required for churches and religious institutions, schools and other uses of this nature in the residential district. He indicated the Planning Commission reviewed the general and specific conditional use permit criteria and all of the requirements regard to the zoning, setbacks, and the fact that the expansion match the character of the existing building appear to be met. He stated the only issues pertain to the buffering and the extent of the landscaping provided. He indicated a number of trees would be added in the 31 to 35-foot buffer on the south side of the property, and a number of existing trees would remain on the site. He explained that the primary question is whether or not there would be adequate landscaping in the area on the eastern side of the site, between the adjoining property and the parking lot, to provide adequate screening and buffering, which goes to whether or not the Council would desire to stipulate that some form of privacy fence be installed in this location. He advised that with this exception, staff believes the proposal meets the general conditional use permit requirements. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission examined the adverse affects criteria in relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that this site is designated for an institutional use such as a church, and the fact that the congregation has desired to proceed with this project for a number of years and that there is a demonstrated need for the expansion attests to the fact that this is not being done unnecessarily.