07-05-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 Planner Ericson advised there are other minor changes contemplated by this ordinance, most of which are housekeeping and reorganizing language in a more logical fashion. Some sections of the code were put under a different subdivision, where it discusses single-family dwellings, and they have cleaned up some previous errors. He noted the changes are evident in the Commission's copy of the ordinance, deletions are struck out and additions are underlined. Commissioner Kaden inquired if 952 square feet is currently the maximum size of a garage without a CUP. Planner Ericson responded affirmatively, subject to the footprint of the house and the 20 percent rear yard coverage ratio. Commissioner Kaden questioned if this code change would strike the “footprint” requirement. Planner Ericson stated that is correct. Acting Chairperson Stevenson inquired if the Commission had any more input on changes made from the last meeting. Commissioner Miller asked for clarification on the first page, item C, beginning at the fourth line. Planner Ericson explained that the language was taken from a different part of the code under 1106.02 subdivision 1C. He explained that it was added in 1998 so as to allow a property owner building a house a little bit of flexibility. If the Code did not include this language, it would almost imply that before a house could be built, the driveway would already have to be there. This language indicates that there are ways to build a house and not be required to put the driveway in at the same time, as cement trucks and other heavy vehicles would be coming in and out. He said this could be amended to state more clearly what they would like it to say. He suggested the Commission could think about revising this section and if they find language that makes more sense, it can be revised up until the second reading. Planner Ericson also advised that there are a couple other changes in between substantive and housekeeping to the ordinance. He read from Page 3, item I, stating the change would make it clear that the accessory building shall have weather resistant treated or finished exterior. He explained the existing code was silent on material and they have had problems with some very shoddy looking sheds and structures. Commissioner Miller asked about the lettering on Page 2, which was not corrected when items b and c were deleted. Planner Ericson noted the lettering would be corrected and advised of the addition of item j, which will be corrected to be item h. Commissioner Kaden questioned what is meant by “frequently used vehicle.” He expressed concern that if there are any complaints, the meaning of this could change depending on the inspector at the time. Planner Ericson explained that when this was looked at, they attempted to come up with language that shows the intent but leaves room for some interpretation. He noted they do not want to require every accessory building to have an improved driveway. Commissioner Miller inquired if the building is considered a garage if a car is put in it. Acting Chairperson Stevenson said it is for a vehicle that is going to be frequently used. He explained