Ordinance 1064 - 2026/05/26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ordinance 1064 Page 2 of 3 Accessory buildings 120 square feet or under shall be three feet or more from any other building or structure. Accessory buildings over 200 square feet shall meet the minimum fire separation distance as required by the state's Building Code." Section 3. Notice, decision, and findings. 3.01. Having received the request from the applicant to amend the ordinance as described in Section 2, the City published notice of the amendment request in the official newspaper on April 23, 2026, and mailed notice of a public hearing to surrounding property owners within 500 feet. 3.02. A public hearing was held on May 6, 2026, by the Mounds View Planning Commission, and all persons desiring to be heard with reference to the amendment were heard at said public hearing. The staff report from the City Planner dated 4/28/2026 is hereby incorporated by reference. 3.03. The Mounds View City Council finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the City to amend the ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING HEIGHT OF ATTACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. 3.04. The Mounds View City Council, after considering the reports of City staff and information at the public hearing, voted to amend the zoning ordinance as shown in Sections 2.02 and 2.03. 3.05. The Mounds View City Council makes the following findings regarding the amendment request: The 2040 Plan does not explicitly discuss accessory structures. The following goals and policies in the Plan would appear to support a change to the requirements or standards for accessory structures: Housing Policy Goal #2: Maintain the residential character of Mounds View. Housing Policy Goal #2, Policy #1: Preserve single-family neighborhoods. Housing Policy Goal #3: Support a mix of housing types reflective of the needs and desires of the community. 2. The proposed changes would apply to single-family residential zones of the city. This would include the R-1, R-2, R-3, as well as the R-4 zone. Such a change would give property owners more flexibility in designing additions and changes to their homes. 3. There is no evidence on how the proposed amendment would impact property values. 4. The city already has instances of tuck -under garages or split level homes, though few examples of an attached garage being taller than the house. The proposed amendment would give property owners more flexibility in designing additions and changes to their homes, while still limiting built form to the same height requirements of a house. 5. The city has received inquiries for development at heights taller than currently allowed, demonstrating a demand for the proposed amendment. The current zoning code already considers attached accessory structures `integral parts' of the principal structure, therefore supporting the proposed amendment.