06-07-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 31 or garage, they are required to establish a need for the structure, and they typically indicate a very general reason. Chairperson Peterson stated that this ultimately amounts to “stuff,” and the need to store it. He pointed out that it was generally better to store “stuff” inside a building rather than out in the yard, however, the property could be overbuilt at some point, and perhaps the Commission should consider a clause pertaining to the percentage of the yard coverage. He inquired regarding the current percentage of coverage allowed. Planning Associate Ericson stated that no more than 20 percent of the backyard can be covered by accessory storage space. He indicated this was previously 25 percent, however, during the last Code revision, the City had desired to allow a greater amount of coverage. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that this was a minimal requirement. Planning Associate Ericson stated that this was correct, adding that 20 percent of the backyard of an acre lot could allow for another house. Commissioner Hegland stated that the intent was to avoid pole buildings and structures of this nature. Planning Associate Ericson stated that since the Commission has not had the opportunity to review the questions presented by staff, this item could be placed on the agenda for the meeting on June 21st. He indicated by that time, everyone would have had an opportunity to review the questions staff has compiled. He reiterated that this would be a very extensive process, and the Commission may wish to take time between this meeting and the next to consider some of the answers. Commissioner Hegland requested staff could research adjoining communities to determine what they allow, as this would likely impact the discussions. Planning Associate Ericson stated that the Code does not address the size of the garage in the case of a walkout rambler with a lower level two-car garage in the back. He advised that the Code simply states that a specific amount of square-footage is allowed, however, it does not specify whether this is based upon the footprint or the actual area. Chairperson Peterson stated that he would tend to think that the impact to the surrounding properties would be addressed with the footprint rather than the total square-footage. He noted a previous application where a resident had desired to construct a garage on the back of the house, however, it was unclear as to which side of the property was the front, and the Commission may wish to consider this as well. He advised that regardless of the type of revisions that are made, there would be some oddball cases, however, the attempt would be to address the majority of the situations. Planning Associate Ericson stated that Item 6 on the second page of the staff report pertains to whether or not the Planning Commission is interested in considering some type of performance zoning criteria that would perhaps allow the larger sized garage if it were located behind the