Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council May 28, 2013 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br /> <br />container after having to replace two other steel storage sheds. She stated in November of 2012 <br />she received a removal order for her cargo container from the City. She then sent emails to <br />Planning Associate Heller and to City Administrator Ericson on November 20, 2012 with <br />pictures of her cargo container to City Staff. She received no verbal or written response from <br />either Staff member and considered the matter settled until receiving the public hearing notice for <br />this evenings meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Simkins stated she received an estimate to replace the steel cargo container and it was <br />between $5,000-6,000. She explained her cargo container served as a garage and has done so for <br />the past 15 years. She indicated she has had no objections from her neighbors and suggested the <br />cargo container remain in place and be repainted to match the principal structure. She <br />respectfully requested that her container be grandfathered in. <br /> <br />Hearing no further public input, Mayor Flaherty closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. <br /> <br />Council Member Meehlhause asked if the City was contacted prior to the cargo container <br />purchase. Ms. Simkins stated she did not contact Staff, as the unit was sold to her as a solid steel <br />storage container. <br /> <br />Council Member Meehlhause questioned if the City Code would have allowed a cargo container <br />in 1997. City Administrator Ericson explained a cargo container did not meet the definition of <br />an accessory building and would not have been allowed to proceed in 1997. He commented <br />while the language does not discuss “cargo containers,” the language does speak to typical uses <br />within a residential district. <br /> <br />Council Member Meehlhause inquired if the proposed language revisions would protect the City <br />from a resident using a boxcar or semi-trailer as a shed. He was in favor of the language being <br />more specific. Planning Associate Heller commented this was addressed in Subdivision 14. <br /> <br />Council Member Hull asked how many properties had a cargo container at this time. Planning <br />Associate Heller indicated she was aware of two cargo containers in the City within the <br />residential zoning district. <br /> <br />Mayor Flaherty questioned how the Council should address the two residential properties with <br />cargo containers. He indicated the container could be grandfathered in, be removed or the <br />Council could allow her more time to replace the unit. <br /> <br />Council Member Gunn stated she was in favor of grandfathering the container in with conditions <br />that if the garage were replaced, the container be removed; that if the property were sold, the <br />container be removed; and that the container surround be repainted and improved to match the <br />principal structure. <br /> <br />Council Member Mueller indicated she was not in favor of allowing the cargo container to <br />remain on this property. It was her understanding cargo containers were never allowed in <br />residential zoning district. She supported the Ordinance amendments as written.