Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br /> <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated he was not personally aware of the number, and it would <br />require some effort to pull all of the building permits and make queries into the databases, <br />however, this information was available. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson explained that it might be the case that the average shed size 10 years ago <br />was 100 square feet, and now that average is increasing, yet this is not reflected in the <br />information before the Commission. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct, adding <br />that this information only takes into consideration those sheds that required a Conditional Use <br />Permit. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson stated it appears as if the garages are a more important consideration in <br />terms of the purpose of the Conditional Use Permits, and it would probably be less of an issue <br />with regard to a shed, however, a 400 square foot shed is a large structure. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland stated he viewed this examination in the context of what the City was <br />attempting to accomplish. What would it like to control, and how flexible it could be, because <br />this was a situation which involved redevelopment rather than new development. <br />Redevelopment makes it much more difficult for property owners to find solutions for their <br />needs. He advised that it would be beneficial to the property owners to make the requirements <br />flexible, and he would tend to favor a maximum square footage based upon lot size, as this <br />would appear to be reasonable in that the larger lots would generally require more storage area. <br />He added that he was uncertain whether or not the number of structures should be limited to <br />two, however, he did not wish to be excessively lenient. He indicated there were a wide variety <br />of lot sizes in the City to consider, in addition to the siting of the existing structures. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated he had seen some of the properties that have been granted <br />Conditional Use Permits for garages with footprints, which were larger than the houses, and he <br />could not find one that appeared to be out of place. <br /> <br />Commissioner Laube agreed, adding that it was very difficult to differentiate recent garage <br />expansions from the newer design configurations, which have a three-stall garage in the front, a <br />small window, and the remainder of the house is located behind the garage. He stated this is <br />currently the predominant style of building. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson indicated he was referring to a property that had a detached garage. <br /> <br />Commissioner Laube stated all of the newer structures are similar in that the garage is more <br />visible than the house, and for the most part, a Conditional Use Permit request for a larger garage <br />than the footprint of the house would be considered in comparison to this newer design. He <br />stated the City has become accustomed to seeing the larger garages with smaller houses, whether <br />attached or detached. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated one of the things the City is attempting to accomplish with <br />this process is more flexibility. He explained that this year, there have already been five