06-21-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 Chairperson Peterson pointed out that if they were to proceed in this manner, they must consider the definition of a shed versus a garage. Commissioner Thomas indicated this was the reason she had suggested they approach this in the same manner as the city of Arden Hills, and consider total accessory buildings. She explained that if a property owner only has a single car garage, and expansion is not feasible, he should be allowed to construct a two-car garage in the back yard. She suggested they discard the concept of what constitutes a second garage, and consider all of these structures to be accessory buildings, based upon a total lot area coverage percentage. Commissioner Laube stated a 400 square foot shed is the size of a two-car garage without a foundation. Commissioner Thomas proposed that they define this an accessory building and allow the property owner to construct a two-car garage in the back yard, which is correctly developed, rather than a two-car garage without a foundation. Chairperson Peterson stated he believed the history of these requirements pertain to the pavement to the second garage, in that if the structure is located deep in the rear yard, and pavement is extended to that structure, there would be a significant amount of pavement on the lot. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was a concern, however, it was unlikely that anyone would install more pavement than necessary, in light of the expense involved. Commissioner Thomas added that there was already a problem in terms of vehicles being parked in the driveway because there is no garage space for them, and since parking on the grass is not permitted, the driveway must be expanded, which results in a significant amount of impervious surface. Commissioner Johnson added that residents are not permitted to park their vehicles on City streets. Commissioner Thomas commented that driveways would have to be expanded, regardless. Planning Associate Ericson stated there is a provision that a garage could not be constructed without an improved driveway, which provides a tie in to address the concern that vehicles would be parked in the back yard on the way to a garage that is not connected by a driveway. He advised that with the addition of that much pavement, they would be losing something in terms of runoff and recharge area, and it would probably not be as good from an environmental standpoint, however, the vehicles would be parked on an improved surface rather than haphazardly parked in the backyard. Commissioner Berke inquired if there were any provisions in the Code that address the potential for business pursuits on the property, to protect against auto repair and similar types of businesses in these larger structures, if they are allowed in the back yard.