06-21-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 Chairperson Peterson stated the 400 square foot maximum shed size has remained constant, however, the total size of the garage and accessory structures was increased from 1,264 to 1,400 square feet. He stated accommodation for the larger buildings was made in terms of the garage, which is logical in that this is likely more usable space. Commissioner Thomas stated the changing usage of sheds has generated all of the recent requests, and this structure is not a shed anymore, but rather, accessory storage. Planning Associate Ericson stated one of the issues at the Council level is that the City is simply rubberstamping all of the Conditional Use Permits. He explained that if there are criteria in the Code, which specify that sheds shall not exceed 20 percent of the rear yard coverage or be larger than a specific square footage, and these conditions can be met and approved by the City, the City might wish to simply permit these sheds. Commissioner Miller inquired if this would be appropriate for a 400 square foot shed. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the Commission could build in some qualifications to provide that they do not allow a 400-square foot shed that might be excessive on a specific property, and he believed it was possible to build in safeguards to accomplish this. Commissioner Hegland stated they were attempting to limit this by restricting the total amount of storage area available, and how that is divided and utilized is up to the individual property owner. Planning Associate Ericson stated he is comfortable with the proposal to have a maximum number of accessory buildings. Commissioner Thomas stated that if the property owner is allowed the total storage square footage, whether this is limited to two structures, although three would probably be more workable, they could always require that the property owner obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the third structure. She stated she did not believe that limiting the number of sheds was appropriate, and was uncertain as to why this was a restriction. Planning Associate Ericson stated the reason he suggests three accessory structures be allowed is because of properties such as that on Long Lake Road which is a very large 18,000 square foot lot. He explained that the property owner would like to construct a 400 square foot shed, and there is an attached garage, however, there is also a small 8 foot by 10 foot shed with a porch on the front and a small window, and this is used for gardening projects and so forth. He explained that if three structures were allowed, a small shed such as this, possibly 200 feet from the other structures, would be permitted. He stated the Commission might wish to require that a Conditional Use Permit be obtained for anything beyond three structures. Commissioner Thomas inquired why the size of the accessory structure is limited to the footprint of the house. She stated she did not understand why storage space should be tied to the footprint of the house, as it did not appear to have any relationship to the size of the structure whatsoever. Commissioner Johnson indicated this has been the major issue with regard to the most recent requests. He stated the Commission had discussed that there could be three or more people