06-21-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 owners would desire to install an improved surface in order to be able to utilize the driveway under any conditions. Chairperson Peterson stated the current Code indicates there must be an improved surface to the garage. He inquired if the Commission would like to make a distinction between a primary garage that requires an improved surface, and a secondary garage for which an improved surface is optional. Planning Associate Ericson suggested they might wish to retain the garage/shed distinction, however, attach no square-footage limitations. Chairperson Peterson stated they could retain the garage/shed designation and drop any pretense of the prohibition of the storage of vehicles in the secondary structure, as the Code currently states. Planning Associate Ericson noted a recent situation involving a property on Long Lake Road, which has a 400 square foot shed, and the property owners intend to store their motorcycles and snowmobiles in that structure. He explained that they would take the motorcycles out a couple times during the year, and move them to the primary garage in the wintertime. He stated he would feel very uncomfortable requiring that they make this their driveway. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that there would also be property owners with a single car attached garage who would desire to construct a 20 by 20 or 20 by 30 foot structure in the back yard, and would desire an improved surface, and the City should not restrict them from doing this. Planning Associate Ericson inquired at what point they should be required to put in an improved surface. Commissioner Laube suggested this could be determined by the foundation of the structure. He explained that if the foundation was being constructed to support the building, that building would be considered a garage. Commissioner Hegland inquired why the City would desire to control this. He stated he believed people would do what makes sense. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was a logical assumption, however, it is not always the case. Chairperson Peterson stated the current requirement to have the improved surface to the garage is good, and the Commission may wish to eliminate the restriction against pavement to the accessory structure, which is currently prohibited, and simply allow this in the event that a property owner desires to proceed in this manner. Commissioner Johnson agreed. He stated he did not believe it would be appropriate to demand that a property owner install an improved surface to the secondary structure.