Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 19 <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland pointed out that people add on to the back of the house, and this would <br />be considered the back yard. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated he was concerned that if they proceed with straight lot <br />coverage for building on a lot, they would reach a point where someone would be unable to <br />expand their house. He explained that this would not only apply to accessory storage but also to <br />the buildings on the lot. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson pointed out that there are a few homes in the City where this would be a <br />problem. Planning Associate Ericson indicated that if you have a 11,000 square foot lot, a 2,000 <br />square foot house, and a 1,000 square foot garage, you would not be able to expand the house. <br />He stated he would not desire to have a situation arise in the future where a property owner <br />would not be able to expand. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thomas stated the Commission had discussed the property on Spring Lake Road <br />that raised the issue regarding which was the front and which was the back yard. She stated they <br />could make some recommendations pertaining to lot coverage, and that anything in excess of 20 <br />percent of the total lot area would require a Conditional Use Permit, so that the City could go <br />examine the situation and determine if there is sufficient need for the extra addition. She stated <br />the purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to address exceptions. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller stated this would require a variance, and there are criteria which must be <br />met in order to obtain a variance. Commissioner Laube stated the City would be creating the <br />hardship by allowing the accessory structures on these properties. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated for this reason, he would be more comfortable tying this to the <br />back yard area, and overall, this would still be tied to the back yard area because they could not <br />build in the front yard. He pointed out however, if you tied it to the total building coverage, <br />problems might arise in terms of expanding the house. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson stated he could not think of any situation where the City would wish to <br />restrict the property owner’s ability to expand the house. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated this would be a unique situation that might be appropriate for <br />a variance. Chairperson Peterson agreed, adding that in most cases the variance process could <br />address this. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thomas stated this would decrease the number of Conditional Use Permit <br />requests. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated it appeared as if there was a consensus to proceed with a 1,400 <br />square foot maximum, and eliminate the 400 square foot requirement, because if two garages are <br />allowed it would not be sensible to have a 400 square foot limitation on the shed. He stated the <br />1,400 square feet would be conditioned on the fact that it could not exceed 20 percent of the