Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 16 <br /> <br /> <br />living in a small house, for example an 800 square foot house, and if they are limited to the <br />footprint of the house, there would not be sufficient room to park two vehicles, leaving any <br />remaining vehicles parked outside. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated the history of this requirement pertains to the principal <br />structure on the property and aesthetics, in terms of whether it is a residential community or a <br />community of garages. He explained that they would not desire a 1,400 square foot garage to <br />dominate a lot, with a small 800 square foot house off to the side. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thomas stated this would depend upon whether the appearance of a large garage <br />would be considered more important, or three vehicles sitting out in the driveway. She stated <br />this was a restriction that did not suit their purposes. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that there would be three vehicles in the driveway, <br />regardless. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland stated the new house designs do not provide much more than a view of <br />the garage, and in the majority of the new developments, the three-car garage is visible, while <br />very little of the house is exposed. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson stated he did not believe that the maximum of 1,400 square foot should be <br />changed. He stated everyone should be allowed, no matter what the house or lot size, 864 square <br />feet, which would translate to a 24 by 36 foot garage. He indicated this would provide sufficient <br />room for two vehicles, a workshop in the back, boat storage, etc., and a garage of this size should <br />be large enough for any reasonable minimum use. He stated 864 square feet should be <br />permitted. He indicated that if there is a storage shed, the size of the two structures could be <br />added together and allowed up to a certain point without a Conditional Use Permit. He <br />explained that this would entirely eliminate the issue of the shed Conditional Use Permit, and <br />sheds up to 400 square feet would be acceptable, however, that amount would be added to the <br />size of the garage to determine the total square footage within the maximum requirement. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland suggested the requirement be 1,400 square feet maximum, and garages <br />less than 864 square feet be allowed without Conditional Use Permit. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller pointed out that the maximum garage size without a Conditional Use <br />Permit has been changed to 952 square feet. Planning Associate Ericson stated the current Code <br />indicates that any garage larger than the house requires a Conditional Use Permit, and <br />Chairperson Peterson was proposing every property owner be allowed 864 square feet. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated the total square footage could not exceed 1,400 square feet. He <br />pointed out that if they allow 952 on an attached garage, the shed in the rear yard would be <br />limited to 400 square feet. Planning Associate Ericson added that if the 952 square foot garage <br />were larger than the house, a shed would not be allowed without a Conditional Use Permit. <br />