Laserfiche WebLink
Page 5 <br />July 27, 1998 <br />Mounds View City Council <br />11. R-1 and R-2 districts can have 300 square feet of gravel parking area for RV storage. <br />12. Proof of parking will be allowed as a conditional use with the meeting of the City's <br />criteria for that proof of parking. <br />13. A distinction between temporary and permanent surfaces would be eliminated with <br />regard to setback of a driveway to the side property line. <br />Mayor McGarry questioned Section 2: Section 902.05, Subd 1, Item b. Drainage Provisions: <br />The driveway or parking area shall be constructed so as to provide drainage from the garage to <br />the street unless a variance is granted by the Building Inspector. Mayor McCarty stated, "it was <br />his own personal experience that if surface water drains through a persons back yard, and is <br />filtered through a natural assimilation why the City would encourage that rather than require that <br />water be drained through the street and eventually through the storm sewer system." <br />Attorney Long stated issues such as this fall under the City's Building Code and not the City's <br />• Zoning Code, so the Building Inspector and not the Planning Commission would have the charge <br />of determining what should be done in issues such as this. <br />McGarry suggested that the Council pass Ordinance No. 620 in its present form but he asked <br />staff to "reassess and polish" Ordinance No. 620 with future amendments that would make the <br />Ordinance apply equally to everybody. <br />Mayor McCarty told Ericson the reference to Section 1104, Subd. 4(la) is not in the City's code <br />book. He asked Ericson to research the issue and bring it to resolution. <br />Mayor McCarty asked staff to reconsider the maximum size of allowable accessory buildings; <br />currently stated as 216 square feet. This figure amounts to 2 percent of the allowable minimum <br />lot size of 11,000 square feet. He stated that the larger lots in Mounds View need a proportional <br />formula that would allow a percentage of the lot as an acceptable accessory building size in stead <br />of the 216 square foot accessory building as the maximum size. <br />Quick expressed his concern that the formula wouldn't work if an individual decided to have a lot <br />split. <br />Dan Coughlin, 8468 Spring Lake Road, spoke in opposition of not issuing permits until another <br />portion of the property is upgraded. Example: If a person lives on a lake and wants to build a <br />new fence, he would have to update his septic system before the fence could be built. He <br />• suggested allowing the home owner aone-year period of time to complete the required upgrades. <br />This would make it financially more reasonable to achieve more expensive types of upgrades. <br />