My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-07-2009
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
10-07-2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/30/2018 9:07:28 AM
Creation date
8/30/2018 9:03:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
10/7/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View Planning Commission August 19, 2009 <br />Regular Meeting Page 3 <br />____________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Commissioner Lang stated the purpose of the section is to not allow those specific things, and <br />then at the end, the exception of the greenhouse is tagged on. He added this section made sense <br />to him. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson stated the exception for green houses was originally put in to the code to <br />eliminate the building of these temporary carports. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller questioned subdivision 12 and that it goes right into building height. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Heller stated this is referring to all buildings and how the height is measured. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Miller/Commissioner Cramblit. Resolution 909-09 An <br />ordinance amending Chapters 1102, 1104 and 1006 of the Mounds View Zoning Code about the <br />Definition of Building Height and About Various Code Provisions about Accessory Buildings <br />including Height, Required Accessory Building Separation Distance, Materials and Exterior <br />Design as amended. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. <br /> <br /> <br />B. Review Code Amendment – Day care centers in public and semi-public <br />buildings <br /> <br />Planning Associate Heller stated that when the Planning Commission originally amended the city <br />code to allow day care centers as a conditional use in the public and semi-public buildings such <br />as churches, we didn’t take into account that churches already require a conditional use permit to <br />be in an R-1 zoning district. When this was presented to the City Council, they felt the daycare <br />center shouldn’t have to get a conditional use permit when the building use already had one, so <br />staff changed the language to address this. She added staff felt that it would probably not be a <br />problem if an adult daycare program operated in one of these public buildings also, so staff <br />added adult daycare to the zoning code definitions and included it as an allowed accessory use. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller questioned the minimum lot size stated in the city code. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Heller stated all language in black is the current language and when the <br />primary building use was going through the conditional use process, the requirements are <br />addressed at that time. Many of the requirements for daycare centers are similar to the public or <br />semi-public building requirements, such as lot size, setbacks, parking, traffic flow and <br />accessibility. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller questioned the adult day care language and wondered if there couldn’t be <br />care for adults in their own home. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Heller indicated the new adult day care language does not apply to that <br />because home care is a smaller scale operation that the city does not regulate.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.