Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission December 18, 2002 <br />Regular Meeting Page 10 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated the City cannot do that. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland said he thinks the City should change its requirements so that it can do <br />so. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson indicated the use of the building, not the ownership, can be controlled by <br />the City. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland indicated he feels there should be a requirement for a special use permit <br />for rental. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated he respected the opinion but does not think the City can legally <br />differentiate between owner occupied and rental units. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated the request is to finish the lower level to make two more apartments <br />and the zoning code would permit it but it does necessitate a conditional use permit. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated the property does not have four garage stalls but has more parking <br />than needed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Scotch asked whether there was room for the additional garage requirement. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated there would not be. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated the third issue is “does this require a development review?” <br />According to the Code, expansion is defined as adding to the building footprint so it is Staff’s <br />interpretation that this is NOT an expansion and would not necessitate a development review. <br /> <br />The Commission agreed that the request should come before the Commission through the <br />variance process to resolve the parking situation which would then require a public notification <br />regarding the expansion. <br />______________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />8. Review Memo Regarding Variance Denials and Appeals <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that the Code currently does not specify how much time a person has <br />to appeal the denial of a variance. He further indicated that Staff could put something together <br />for the Commission to review and then asked for a recommendation on a timeframe for the <br />appeal. <br /> <br />Commissioner Scotch suggested 20 days. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson suggested 60 days. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson recommended 30 days. <br />