01-02-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission January 2, 2002 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Planner Atkinson indicated that there were seven criteria that needed to be met in order for the Planning Commission to grant the variance and indicated that those criteria were listed in the Staff report. He indicated that Staff was seeking direction from the Planning Commission as to whether a Resolution for approval or denial should be drafted. He then provided pictures of the applicant’s backyard to the Commission for review. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Chair Stevenson inquired as to the size of the lot. Mr. Winiecki indicated that his lot was 132 feet wide by 208 feet deep making it approximately 27,000 square feet. Planner Atkinson indicated that the property immediately behind the applicant’s property is owned by the City and is wetland that should not be developed in the foreseeable future. Commissioner Johnson asked when the Code was revised to allow 1,400 square feet of storage rather than 1,264 square feet. Community Development Director Ericson indicated the Code was revised in either 1999 or 2000. Commissioner Johnson commented that he feels that raising the amount of storage allowed by 136 square feet was not adequate compared to other cities. He further commented that the City was attempting to limit accessory structure size to prevent at home automobile repair operations and that is no longer a problem because the computer required to fix vehicles is too expensive for the at home mechanic. He also indicated that there are some garages in Mounds View that are 1700 or 1800 square feet and the yards are spotless because the resident has enough inside storage. Chair Stevenson commented that the code was written for situations where granting a larger square footage accessory structure would not be in the best interest of Mounds View. He commented that this situation is different because the applicant has a large yard that could comfortably accommodate a larger accessory structure. He then commented that he does not feel the City needs to address the Code at this time. He also commented that Mr. Winiecki provides yard work assistance for the widows in his neighborhood. Commissioner Zwirn asked how tall the building would be. Mr. Winiecki indicated that the peak would be no taller than 15 feet. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he did not have a problem with the application and noted that Mr. Winiecki had done his homework by providing plenty of information for the Commission’s review.