07-05-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission July 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 when they originally discussed this they did not want someone storing an antique vehicle, an ATV, or something not often used to have to have to have a driveway. Commissioner Johnson said he thinks they agreed that if they end up plowing the driveway and making ruts they would probably do something to improve it. Planner Ericson said he thinks the property owner is going to dictate what will happen. He stated the City has to leave some common sense option and allow the resident to do what makes sense and appropriate. Planner Ericson stated staff was not quite sure how else to address this other than by stating specific requirements for a certain size. If after a year they have ruts, he think that would constitute “frequent use.” Commissioner Johnson said if they are going to plow the driveway they will probably park in front of it, which is not allowed without an improved surface. That is where enforcement by the City Inspector comes in for people that do not understand it is an eyesore and needs to be taken care of. Commissioner Miller requested clarification on page 4, item c, beginning at “Any sign existing prior to December 29, 1972, shall not be enlarged …” Planner Ericson responded he could strike that beginning language as they would not know when the sign was originally put up. Commissioner Miller inquired if a sign were only six square inches, could it not be enlarged to one square foot. Planner Ericson explained yes, but he does not think that section is appropriate anymore, as this was drafted in 1983. Commissioner Miller suggested when they amend the sign ordinance they may want to consider if one square foot is appropriate. Upon inquiry, Planner Ericson stated they need item c to be included, as it addresses home occupations, and they need to have the allowances for signage for home occupations. They could strike language from “any sign existing” and say a home occupation can simply have one square foot of signage. Commissioner Miller inquired if playhouses are considered an accessory building. Planner Ericson responded they are listed as an accessory use but not an accessory building. Council Member Stigney asked regarding the home occupation signage if it is supposed to be located on either the principal structure or the garage. He noted many times daycare center signs are out on the street or mailbox. Planner Ericson said that is how the code reads. The home occupation ordinance was put in place in 1983 and has been in place for 17 years. Commissioner Hegland clarified they are requiring a Conditional Use Permit to create an accessory building more than 952 square feet, however, there is not a Conditional Use Permit to go up to 1,400 square feet, if you have a 952 square foot garage you can put another building up. Planner Ericson stated the accessory buildings are allowed to a maximum combined square footage of 1,400 square feet. He said staff would draft a resolution for the Commission's action