06-21-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 that if the City is inflexible and difficult, property owners would simply move to another city that allows for such improvements, and it is very important that the City encourage the improvement of property. Chairperson Peterson suggested they could state that a structure less than 864 (952?) square feet would simply require a building permit, and above that point, it would be examined in terms of the footprint of the house. He stated the 20 percent rear yard coverage limitation is currently in effect for all homes, and if this was just applied above the threshold, it would eliminate many of the nuisance cases which require calculating the size of the house, which would save significant staff time. Planning Associate Ericson stated he would have concerns with regard to the administration of this, as is always the case when there are revisions to the Code or alterations in the handling of building permits. It appears that other cities utilize such provisions, and although he was not certain they worked well, much of that would relate to communication. He pointed out that the City could utilize the Mounds View Matters newsletter, the Website, E-mail, and Cable Television, to inform the residents in this regard. He explained that if they were very clear with regard to these requirements, and communicate that the City has changed the Code, residents could be made aware that when they come in for a building permit they would be required to submit their proposal with a site plan, lot dimensions, and the footprint of the house, and if all of that information is available, they might obtain the garage they desire without a Conditional Use Permit. Planning Associate Ericson stated the property owner would have to spend some time gathering additional information, however, the advantage would be that they might not be required to go through the entire Conditional Use Permit process, and hopefully, this would be flexible enough that it would ultimately result in an improvement to the property, whereas they might have previously done something less pleasing, for example, instead of demolishing the garage and building new, simply expanding out the back with a shanty addition in attempts to avoid the Conditional Use Permit process. He explained that this might assist in eliminating those situations. Chairperson Peterson stated the Conditional Use Permit process does contain a deterrence factor in that the property owner must come before the City and present their case, and many individuals are uncomfortable doing this. Planning Associate Ericson added that another problem occurs when the property owner comes in with a building permit and submits his plans to construct a garage over the weekend, only to discover that the process will take two to three months. He stated it was hoped that the Code revision could result in a win/win situation for the City and the residents, as long as they craft the language in consideration of all the angles and ensure that there are no loopholes or means for abuse.