06-21-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 Commissioner Thomas stated they could keep the requirements based upon a percentage of the lot size. She indicated that the property owner could have 1,400 square feet of accessory storage space if the lot is large enough to support that amount of coverage, and if it is not, they could be allowed to construct up to a certain percentage. Planning Associate Ericson suggested the Commission determine whether they would utilize total lot size or rear yard area for the coverage percentage requirement. Commissioner Johnson stated he believed they would have to utilize the lot size, in light of the new design configurations in which the garages are located in front of the houses. He explained that if they stipulate rear yard only, a garage in the front yard would not be permitted, and this would affect the entire design of the house. Commissioner Thomas added that these properties already have an attached garage in the front, and the question would arise in terms of expanding this garage. Planning Associate Ericson advised that if the house is setback further back on the lot than others, the Code does not allow for a garage in the front yard of the property. He explained that if the property owner is limited in terms of the back yard area, the garage could not be constructed in the front yard, and he would be limited regardless. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the Code allows for the expansion of an attached garage in the front yard. Planning Associate Ericson stated yes, as long as the appropriate setback or the setback on that block is maintained. Commissioner Miller stated in conjunction with requests for sheds by Conditional Use Permit, there is currently much discussion regarding the fact that improved driveways and the storage of vehicles are not permitted, however, if they allow garages to be constructed in the back yard, this concept would change entirely. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Commission was contemplating a radical change from what has been done in the past. Commissioner Johnson stated these requirements were made at a time when many people worked on cars, and he was aware of one case where the property owner had installed an improved surface back to his garage, and had to remove four feet of the pavement from the front of the garage in order to meet this stipulation. He explained that there was an asphalt driveway to the garage, with a four-foot strip of rock in the front of it. Commissioner Hegland stated the purpose of this discussion was to update the Code, and he feels that the City must be competitive with other communities in order to encourage residents to improve their properties. Commissioner Johnson stated he would prefer to see an improved surface to these structures as opposed to a rut going into the back yard. Commissioner Hegland stated he believed property