06-21-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 Commissioner Johnson suggested they could expand the definition of an improved surface to include rock or similar materials, and not simply limit this to asphalt and concrete. He stated that since the ordinance restricting residents from parking on the grass went into effect, he was aware of many instances in which driveways have been expanded to the sides with rock. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that even if they do not require an improved surface to these structures, the fact that residents are not allowed to park in those areas would not change, and they could still be ticketed if they do this. He stated that the property owner would have an improved surface from the street to the storage building of their choice, and that would be the only surface they could park a vehicle on. He stated they would not be required to have an improved surface to the secondary building, which he would assume would be utilized for storage. Planning Associate Ericson stated it would likely be obvious which is the principal accessory structure. He stated another issue is that the Code only allows for one curb cut. He explained that if there is a driveway on one side of the property because that is where the single car attached garage is located, and there are large trees or a retaining wall along that driveway, they could have another garage in back, however, the only way to access that structure would be through another curb cut. Commissioner Hegland stated this would be an uncommon situation that would require special permission. Planning Associate Ericson advised that if two garages were allowed on a property, this situation would certainly come forward, and must be anticipated. Commissioner Miller inquired at what point the City determined there have been too many Conditional Use Permit requests and that the current Code must be revised. Chairperson Peterson stated this occurred in consideration of the recent numerous requests for Conditional Use Permits that were made simultaneously. He advised that if they could eliminate some of the Conditional Use Permit requests for sheds by simply increasing the square footage requirement, the Commissions’ efforts could be concentrated on the Conditional Use Permits for garages, which are a more substantial issue. He explained that during the last six years, the City has seen an average of three Conditional Use Permit requests a year for garages, and with the exception of the last two years, fewer requests for sheds. Commissioner Miller suggested they allow 300 square feet for a shed without a Conditional Use Permit, and require a Conditional Use Permit for 400 square foot sheds. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff was concerned in that the Code is examined every couple of years, and this requirement appears to be revised incrementally, and would simply be increased another 50 square feet during the next revision. He explained that this was an opportunity to completely revise their approach in this matter, and be very flexible.