Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 21 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />property. He explained that this neighbor raised the concern that the larger garage would allow <br />for some type of commercial business or an auto repair shop, however, he had explained to the <br />caller that an auto repair shop is not allowed in the R-1 Zoning District, as it is considered a <br />commercial use, and this would violate the Home Occupation Code. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated in any situation involving a larger garage, there is an element <br />of concern in this regard, and this has been addressed in Stipulation 2 of the resolution, which <br />indicates “The garage shall not be used for any commercial purposes, living space, or other use <br />not allowed within the R-1 Single Family Zoning District or by the Zoning Code. Should the use <br />change from which the permit was granted, the conditional use permit may be considered null <br />and void.” <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller inquired if this language should indicate “the conditional use permit shall <br />be considered null and void.” <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated in this case, staff believed the word “may” would be more <br />appropriate, as this provides the City Council the opportunity to examine the situation and <br />determine whether or not the conditional use permit should be voided. He indicated this wording <br />could be amended if the Planning Commission so desires. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller stated in other cases, the word “shall” has been utilized. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stevenson stated the staff report mentions the removal of the shed, however, the <br />resolution does not contain a condition for the removal of the shed. Planning Associate Ericson <br />stated there was mention that the shed would be removed, however, it was not required to be <br />removed. He indicated that requiring the removal of the shed was within the Planning <br />Commission’s purview. He added that this was a smaller lot, and the Commission could <br />stipulate that the shed would be removed in conjunction with this project. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stevenson stated the Commission often requires the removal of existing sheds on <br />smaller lots. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that there were two sheds located on the <br />property. He inquired which of these sheds would be required to be removed. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson advised that there is an accessory storage attached to the garage, and <br />an 8-foot by 8-foot shed behind the garage, both of which would be removed. He explained that <br />staff did not include a stipulation in the resolution that would preclude the applicant from having <br />a shed, however, it is the Planning Commission’s prerogative to impose such a condition. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson pointed out that since the removal of the shed has been mentioned, it <br />would be appropriate to stipulate this in the resolution. He advised that the plot plan indicates <br />the existing shed is located two inches from the property line, which is not in conformance with <br />the Code, however the diagram, if to scale, implies that the garage and its adjacent shed is <br />located a fair distance from the property line.