Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-21-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting June 21, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., June 21, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Laube, Miller, and Thomas. Members Absent: Commissioners Kaden and Stevenson, with prior notice. Also Present: Planning Associate Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Rick Jopke, Council Liaison Rob Marty, and Recorder Trish Pearson. Index to Minutes Page Discussion Regarding Anticipated Changes to the Zoning Code Pertaining to Sheds, Garages and Accessory Structures. 2 Staff Reports / Items of Information 26 Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports 27 3. Citizens’ Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes A. May 3, 2000 MOTION/SECOND: Laube/Berke to approve the May 3, 2000 meeting minutes as corrected. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 The motion carried. 5. Discussion Regarding Anticipated Changes to the Zoning Code Pertaining to Sheds, Garages, and Accessory Structures. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: Staff and the Planning Commission have been directed by the City Council to review the City Code with regard to Conditional Use Permits for accessory structures, sheds, and garages. The Planning Commission initiated discussion on this issue on June 7, 2000, and requested information as to what surrounding communities require, as well as what the City of Mounds View has approved up to the present for oversized garages and sheds. Planning Associate Ericson provided the Commission with a survey of the neighboring municipalities, which outlines their respective Code treatment of oversized accessory buildings and their application of the Conditional Use Permit process for the larger sized structures. He indicated the range varies significantly in that some cities only allow up to 1,000 square feet for accessory structures, however, other cities, such as the city of Maplewood, allow for accessory structures as large as 2,500 square feet, depending upon the size of the lot. He advised that the majority of cities do not differentiate between a shed and a garage, which are both considered accessory structures. Some cities require that accessory structures do not exceed a certain percentage of coverage of the rear or total yard area, whether that ratio be based upon impervious surface or accessory building coverage. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Mounds View City Code requires that an accessory structure shall not cover more than 20 percent of the rear yard area. He explained that there is no restriction with regard to the maximum building coverage on the lot based upon the total lot area, and at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, this was discussed in terms of a potential revision to the Code. The Commission also discussed whether or not they would desire to reconsider the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit for a garage, which is proposed to be larger than the house, regardless of the size of the house. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has identified a number of issues related to the zoning requirements for accessory structures, and has prepared a list of questions for consideration in this regard. They are as follows: * The maximum area for a shed without a CUP is 216 square feet. Should this limit be increased? If so, at what point should a CUP be required. * Should the maximum shed area with a CUP be increased from 400 square feet? * Should larger sheds be permitted uses in larger yards rather than by CUP. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 * Should more than one shed be allowed? On larger lots? * Garages up to 952 square feet are allowed without a CUP. Garages up to 1,400 are conditionally allowed. Should the 952 be increased? Should the 1,400 be increased? * By CUP, garages may not provide access for more than three vehicles. Should this limitation be removed? Planning Associate Ericson advised that the intent of this requirement is to address such situations as a five stall wide garage facing the street. He explained that there is a point at which the accessory structure tends to dominate the lot, and the principal structure becomes somewhat accessory to the garage. * Should there be a maximum garage width? Planning Associate Ericson explained that there is no maximum garage width requirement for a garage up to 952 square feet, however, at the point at which a Conditional Use Permit is required (953 square feet or larger) there is a 35-foot maximum width provision. * How should the Code address multi-level garages? Footprint only? Planning Associate Ericson stated the Planning Commission, at a previous meeting, felt that this should be addressed through the footprint of the structure rather than the total square-footage of both levels. * The Code allows for a 400 square-foot shed, but not a second garage. Should the Code be amended to allow for a second garage, as long as the 1,400 square-foot maximum is observed? Planning Associate Ericson stated a 400 square-foot shed is very close to the size of a single stall garage. He indicated he had gone to a property on Spring Lake Road on that date, which has a tuck-under single stall garage that could not be expanded, and therefore, the property owner would like to build a second garage. He stated typically, when a property owner desires to construct a second garage, the City Code requires that the original garage be converted to living space or demolished, however in this case, it would not be practical to convert the original garage to living space because it is located at such a level that it is not connected to the house, and there is no access from the garage to the house. He pointed out that the garage could not be demolished and yet the property owner requires additional space in which to park her vehicles, therefore, he had explained that the Planning Commission was currently examining this very issue, and that this would be a good opportunity to attempt to take such situations into consideration. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 * Eliminate the requirement that no garage—except by conditional use permit—shall exceed the footprint of the home? Planning Associate Ericson stated some cities require that the garage does not exceed the footprint of the house, and others do not. He advised that Mounds View requires that a garage shall not be larger than the house except by conditional use permit, and one of the cities staff had surveyed simply does not allow for the garage to be larger than the house under any circumstances, therefore, there are cities which are more restrictive than Mounds View in this regard * Institute a maximum accessory building coverage percentage of lot or rear yard? Planning Associate Ericson requested the Commission discuss these issues and provide its feedback at this time. He stated it was hoped that staff could come before the Commission at the July 5th meeting of the Planning Commission with an ordinance which reflects that language, and possibly forward this matter on to the City Council for first and second reading in July. Planning Associate Ericson provided the Commission with research material pertaining to the average square-footages of Conditional Use Permits granted for sheds and garages over the last six years. He pointed out that there does not appear to be a trend toward larger structures, with the exception of sheds, which are increasing in size. He stated garages appear to be maintaining an average of 1,050 to 1,200 square feet in 2000, however, the City increased this maximum square footage in 1998. He advised that prior to 1998, the maximum was 1,284 square feet, and even less in previous years, therefore, that amount has been increasing over the years as the trend toward larger garages continues. Chairperson Peterson stated the research does not appear to indicate that there have been a great number of requests that have required a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Thomas noted that the average size of the sheds requiring a Conditional Use Permit was 400 square feet. She inquired if all three applicants had requested 400 square foot sheds. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. He inquired if 216 square feet was an appropriate maximum square footage for sheds, or if this should be increased Commissioner Johnson stated he believed it should be increased to 400 square feet without a Conditional Use Permit, as this appears to be the average request. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that the research did not take into account the number of sheds that did not require a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Miller stated they did not know the number of sheds that were constructed at 216 square feet or less. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Planning Associate Ericson stated he was not personally aware of the number, and it would require some effort to pull all of the building permits and make queries into the databases, however, this information was available. Chairperson Peterson explained that it might be the case that the average shed size 10 years ago was 100 square feet, and now that average is increasing, yet this is not reflected in the information before the Commission. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct, adding that this information only takes into consideration those sheds that required a Conditional Use Permit. Chairperson Peterson stated it appears as if the garages are a more important consideration in terms of the purpose of the Conditional Use Permits, and it would probably be less of an issue with regard to a shed, however, a 400 square foot shed is a large structure. Commissioner Hegland stated he viewed this examination in the context of what the City was attempting to accomplish. What would it like to control, and how flexible it could be, because this was a situation which involved redevelopment rather than new development. Redevelopment makes it much more difficult for property owners to find solutions for their needs. He advised that it would be beneficial to the property owners to make the requirements flexible, and he would tend to favor a maximum square footage based upon lot size, as this would appear to be reasonable in that the larger lots would generally require more storage area. He added that he was uncertain whether or not the number of structures should be limited to two, however, he did not wish to be excessively lenient. He indicated there were a wide variety of lot sizes in the City to consider, in addition to the siting of the existing structures. Commissioner Johnson stated he had seen some of the properties that have been granted Conditional Use Permits for garages with footprints, which were larger than the houses, and he could not find one that appeared to be out of place. Commissioner Laube agreed, adding that it was very difficult to differentiate recent garage expansions from the newer design configurations, which have a three-stall garage in the front, a small window, and the remainder of the house is located behind the garage. He stated this is currently the predominant style of building. Commissioner Johnson indicated he was referring to a property that had a detached garage. Commissioner Laube stated all of the newer structures are similar in that the garage is more visible than the house, and for the most part, a Conditional Use Permit request for a larger garage than the footprint of the house would be considered in comparison to this newer design. He stated the City has become accustomed to seeing the larger garages with smaller houses, whether attached or detached. Planning Associate Ericson stated one of the things the City is attempting to accomplish with this process is more flexibility. He explained that this year, there have already been five Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Conditional Use Permit requests for oversized sheds and garages, and the intent of the Code revision is to be more flexible and less restrictive. He pointed out that it might be possible to achieve this by examining the total square footage of accessory structures allowed on a lot, and allowing this amount to be divided up at the property owner’s discretion. He explained that this might be a means to address the current multiple car family redevelopment situations where the property owner is unable to expand off of the side of the garage, and is unable to demolish the garage because the older house is not structurally sound. He suggested that the City might allow 1,400 square feet of accessory storage area, and limit that to three structures, and in the event that the accessory structures are larger than the house, maintain the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit to protect against a small principal structure being dominated by a 1,400 square foot garage. Commissioner Laube added that they could keep the 20 percent rear yard coverage requirement, which would then restrict the smaller lots, but allow them some opportunity to improve their property, and if this was not possible, the property owner could still apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Thomas stated she would be much more comfortable basing the coverage requirement upon the total lot area, as opposed to the rear yard, in light of the placement of some of the houses which are set back a significant distance from the street, and might only have a third of an acre in the back yard, and a half an acre in the front. She suggested they allow 25 percent of the total lot area to be accessory structure, and define the structures as accessory buildings, regardless of whether or not they are a single car garage in the front, and a two car garage in the back. She added that structures proposed to be significantly larger than the house could still require a Conditional Use Permit. Chairperson Peterson stated he believed that every sized lot in town should be entitled to have a standard sized garage, even if the house is much smaller, however, the questions would be in terms of defining a standard sized garage. Commissioner Johnson stated these cases have primarily come forward in relationship to properties with a 700 or 800 square foot house, where the property owner desires a 900 to 1,000 square foot garage. He indicated there are many smaller houses in the City, and if nothing else, the footprint should be increased to 1,000, possibly 1,100 square feet, to allow for the storage of vehicles that would otherwise be parked in the front yard. Chairperson Peterson stated that limiting the size of the garage in relationship to the size of the property or the house size is appropriate in terms of extremely large garages, however, they must determine an upper limit, whether that be 864 square feet or 952 square feet. He pointed out that there is a size to which everyone should be entitled, and beyond that point, rules could be applied to prevent the potential for abuse. Commissioner Hegland stated they should attempt to control the abuse issue, while attempting to be as flexible as possible so that people are more likely to improve their property. He advised Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 that if the City is inflexible and difficult, property owners would simply move to another city that allows for such improvements, and it is very important that the City encourage the improvement of property. Chairperson Peterson suggested they could state that a structure less than 864 (952?) square feet would simply require a building permit, and above that point, it would be examined in terms of the footprint of the house. He stated the 20 percent rear yard coverage limitation is currently in effect for all homes, and if this was just applied above the threshold, it would eliminate many of the nuisance cases which require calculating the size of the house, which would save significant staff time. Planning Associate Ericson stated he would have concerns with regard to the administration of this, as is always the case when there are revisions to the Code or alterations in the handling of building permits. It appears that other cities utilize such provisions, and although he was not certain they worked well, much of that would relate to communication. He pointed out that the City could utilize the Mounds View Matters newsletter, the Website, E-mail, and Cable Television, to inform the residents in this regard. He explained that if they were very clear with regard to these requirements, and communicate that the City has changed the Code, residents could be made aware that when they come in for a building permit they would be required to submit their proposal with a site plan, lot dimensions, and the footprint of the house, and if all of that information is available, they might obtain the garage they desire without a Conditional Use Permit. Planning Associate Ericson stated the property owner would have to spend some time gathering additional information, however, the advantage would be that they might not be required to go through the entire Conditional Use Permit process, and hopefully, this would be flexible enough that it would ultimately result in an improvement to the property, whereas they might have previously done something less pleasing, for example, instead of demolishing the garage and building new, simply expanding out the back with a shanty addition in attempts to avoid the Conditional Use Permit process. He explained that this might assist in eliminating those situations. Chairperson Peterson stated the Conditional Use Permit process does contain a deterrence factor in that the property owner must come before the City and present their case, and many individuals are uncomfortable doing this. Planning Associate Ericson added that another problem occurs when the property owner comes in with a building permit and submits his plans to construct a garage over the weekend, only to discover that the process will take two to three months. He stated it was hoped that the Code revision could result in a win/win situation for the City and the residents, as long as they craft the language in consideration of all the angles and ensure that there are no loopholes or means for abuse. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 Chairperson Peterson suggested the Commission discuss the garage related items and determine if all of the points have been covered. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the Commission desired to base the multi-level garage requirement on the footprint. . The Commission concurred. Chairperson Peterson stated a multi-level garage was no different than a single car garage, in terms of visual appearance, rainwater runoff, or the criteria used for evaluation. Planning Associate Ericson asked the Commission if the multi-level garage would count as one structure if they were to allow for two garages, and if the multi-level garage would count as two structures or one, if they were to limit the property owner to three accessory structures rather than two. Commissioner Miller stated this should be considered one structure. Commissioner Laube agreed, adding that the expense associated with the construction of multi-level garages should be taken into consideration. Planning Associate Ericson stated very few multi-level garages were currently being constructed, however, there were a few in existence. Commissioner Hegland inquired if the Commission was proposing to count the multi level garage footprint square footage as one structure. The Commission concurred. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the maximum limit on the garage structure, which is currently 952 square feet, without a Conditional Use Permit. Planning Associate Ericson stated they were proposing to allow each resident 1,400 square feet, and as long as certain conditions are met, i.e., the 20 percent coverage and footprint requirement, allow them to build what they desire. Commissioner Hegland inquired if this would be 1,400 square feet for the total structures. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was simply a suggestion, and staff did not necessarily advocate this position. Commissioner Miller inquired if this was the current requirement. Planning Associate Ericson stated currently the requirement is 1,400 square feet total, however, anything above 952 square feet would require a Conditional Use Permit. 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. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 Planning Associate Ericson stated there are Code requirements pertaining to Home Occupations, and the City has historically allowed people to work out of their home, so long as they meet certain conditions. He explained that such a venture must not create a nuisance or generate traffic, no outdoor storage is permitted, no employees can come to the premises to work, and there are other similar restrictions. He advised that some cities do not allow for Home Occupations in a garage or accessory structures, however, Mounds View does not make that distinction at this point. He pointed out that if the City allows residents free reign over 1,400 square feet of accessory space to do with as they will, they may desire to institute a requirement that the space not be utilized as a business, however, they might wish to consider if they would desire to prevent someone from setting up a woodshop to make decorative wood carvings. He indicated the City has not received many complaints with regard to this at this point, and therefore, staff was not extremely concerned. Commissioner Johnson stated he believed the City’s Nuisance Code effectively addresses this issue at present. Commissioner Thomas indicated she would be very uncomfortable with creating further regulations in this regard, simply for the sake of those property owners who make small crafts and so forth. She stated these types of projects are typically done in accessory buildings, as opposed to inside the home. Commissioner Johnson stated that whether these pursuits related to small crafts or computer repair, they would not be a significant concern. He pointed out that in the past, the trend was more toward auto repair and restoration, however this was no longer commonplace. Chairperson Peterson commented that in light of the economy, fewer teenagers are working on their vehicles, as they can probably afford better cars and there is less need to learn how to repair them. He stated he believed that the Conditional Use Permit was necessary at the upper limit of the garage requirements, particularly if the definition of a garage is expanded and a secondary structure could be utilized in the same manner. He advised that there were issues with regard to expansion of the preexisting structure, as well as the appropriate threshold. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if Chairperson Peterson would be uncomfortable allowing 1,400 square feet accessory storage space without any restrictions. Chairperson Peterson stated he would be, adding that up to a certain point, those property owners who do not have a garage, or would like to replace their existing garage with a larger garage should be allowed to obtain their building permit and proceed, however, beyond this, there is still a point at which review is necessary. Commissioner Hegland requested clarification regarding what the City would desire to control beyond this point. Chairperson Peterson stated these would be the same issues that the current Code safeguards against. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 11 Commissioner Thomas stated they could keep the requirements based upon a percentage of the lot size. She indicated that the property owner could have 1,400 square feet of accessory storage space if the lot is large enough to support that amount of coverage, and if it is not, they could be allowed to construct up to a certain percentage. Planning Associate Ericson suggested the Commission determine whether they would utilize total lot size or rear yard area for the coverage percentage requirement. Commissioner Johnson stated he believed they would have to utilize the lot size, in light of the new design configurations in which the garages are located in front of the houses. He explained that if they stipulate rear yard only, a garage in the front yard would not be permitted, and this would affect the entire design of the house. Commissioner Thomas added that these properties already have an attached garage in the front, and the question would arise in terms of expanding this garage. Planning Associate Ericson advised that if the house is setback further back on the lot than others, the Code does not allow for a garage in the front yard of the property. He explained that if the property owner is limited in terms of the back yard area, the garage could not be constructed in the front yard, and he would be limited regardless. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the Code allows for the expansion of an attached garage in the front yard. Planning Associate Ericson stated yes, as long as the appropriate setback or the setback on that block is maintained. Commissioner Miller stated in conjunction with requests for sheds by Conditional Use Permit, there is currently much discussion regarding the fact that improved driveways and the storage of vehicles are not permitted, however, if they allow garages to be constructed in the back yard, this concept would change entirely. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Commission was contemplating a radical change from what has been done in the past. Commissioner Johnson stated these requirements were made at a time when many people worked on cars, and he was aware of one case where the property owner had installed an improved surface back to his garage, and had to remove four feet of the pavement from the front of the garage in order to meet this stipulation. He explained that there was an asphalt driveway to the garage, with a four-foot strip of rock in the front of it. Commissioner Hegland stated the purpose of this discussion was to update the Code, and he feels that the City must be competitive with other communities in order to encourage residents to improve their properties. Commissioner Johnson stated he would prefer to see an improved surface to these structures as opposed to a rut going into the back yard. Commissioner Hegland stated he believed property Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 owners would desire to install an improved surface in order to be able to utilize the driveway under any conditions. Chairperson Peterson stated the current Code indicates there must be an improved surface to the garage. He inquired if the Commission would like to make a distinction between a primary garage that requires an improved surface, and a secondary garage for which an improved surface is optional. Planning Associate Ericson suggested they might wish to retain the garage/shed distinction, however, attach no square-footage limitations. Chairperson Peterson stated they could retain the garage/shed designation and drop any pretense of the prohibition of the storage of vehicles in the secondary structure, as the Code currently states. Planning Associate Ericson noted a recent situation involving a property on Long Lake Road, which has a 400 square foot shed, and the property owners intend to store their motorcycles and snowmobiles in that structure. He explained that they would take the motorcycles out a couple times during the year, and move them to the primary garage in the wintertime. He stated he would feel very uncomfortable requiring that they make this their driveway. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that there would also be property owners with a single car attached garage who would desire to construct a 20 by 20 or 20 by 30 foot structure in the back yard, and would desire an improved surface, and the City should not restrict them from doing this. Planning Associate Ericson inquired at what point they should be required to put in an improved surface. Commissioner Laube suggested this could be determined by the foundation of the structure. He explained that if the foundation was being constructed to support the building, that building would be considered a garage. Commissioner Hegland inquired why the City would desire to control this. He stated he believed people would do what makes sense. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was a logical assumption, however, it is not always the case. Chairperson Peterson stated the current requirement to have the improved surface to the garage is good, and the Commission may wish to eliminate the restriction against pavement to the accessory structure, which is currently prohibited, and simply allow this in the event that a property owner desires to proceed in this manner. Commissioner Johnson agreed. He stated he did not believe it would be appropriate to demand that a property owner install an improved surface to the secondary structure. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 Commissioner Thomas stated that if the garage is utilized to store more than one vehicle, it was likely that the property owner would want an improved surface. Commissioner Johnson agreed. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that they might initially utilize gravel, however, they might improve the driveway in the future, if the need arises. Commissioner Thomas stated an improved driveway might not be necessary if the structure is being utilized for the seasonal storage of a vehicle and the issues related to appearance would not be applicable, however, if there is a vehicle coming in and out of the structure on a daily basis, the property owner would desire an improved surface. She added that it might take some time after the construction of the garage before the property owner could do this. Chairperson Peterson stated an improved surface would be more convenient from a snow removal standpoint as well. Commissioner Thomas added that the very few situations that are problematic could be addressed. Planning Associate Ericson stated there were more than a few of these situations. Commissioner Thomas inquired how the current Code addresses these issues, if they exist. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the Code indicates that if you expand your garage, you must have a driveway. Commissioner Thomas stated that if the current Code is not resolving the issues related to properties that already have an unimproved driveway to the back, this would not be resolved in this examination. Planning Associate Ericson advised that they could prevent these situations from occurring in the future. Commissioner Thomas inquired why they were attempting to resolve this issue in conjunction with the consideration of sheds and garages. Planning Associate Ericson explained that oftentimes, when there is a change, there are so many interconnected issues and different Codes which reference specific Chapters that it is difficult to attempt to make one revision without affecting everything else. Commissioner Johnson stated the City Code requires that vehicles be parked on an improved surface. He pointed out that if a property owner constructs a garage in the back yard, and enters and exits that structure around another structure, the driveway would eventually become a rutted path, at which point, the property owner would be liable for a ticket. Planning Associate Ericson stated he had concerns with regard to the potential for possible abuse, such as an individual who decides to drag race through his back yard because he is not required to have a driveway, and eventually the driveway is dirt. He indicated that for three years he performed the function of going out to properties in response to complaints from neighboring property owners that their neighbor has no regard for the appearance of his property in that he parks indiscriminately, and has no defined driveway. He explained that from a code enforcement standpoint, it is difficult to inform such an individual that he must be parked on the driveway, when its exact location is unclear. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 14 Commissioner Johnson suggested they could expand the definition of an improved surface to include rock or similar materials, and not simply limit this to asphalt and concrete. He stated that since the ordinance restricting residents from parking on the grass went into effect, he was aware of many instances in which driveways have been expanded to the sides with rock. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that even if they do not require an improved surface to these structures, the fact that residents are not allowed to park in those areas would not change, and they could still be ticketed if they do this. He stated that the property owner would have an improved surface from the street to the storage building of their choice, and that would be the only surface they could park a vehicle on. He stated they would not be required to have an improved surface to the secondary building, which he would assume would be utilized for storage. Planning Associate Ericson stated it would likely be obvious which is the principal accessory structure. He stated another issue is that the Code only allows for one curb cut. He explained that if there is a driveway on one side of the property because that is where the single car attached garage is located, and there are large trees or a retaining wall along that driveway, they could have another garage in back, however, the only way to access that structure would be through another curb cut. Commissioner Hegland stated this would be an uncommon situation that would require special permission. Planning Associate Ericson advised that if two garages were allowed on a property, this situation would certainly come forward, and must be anticipated. Commissioner Miller inquired at what point the City determined there have been too many Conditional Use Permit requests and that the current Code must be revised. Chairperson Peterson stated this occurred in consideration of the recent numerous requests for Conditional Use Permits that were made simultaneously. He advised that if they could eliminate some of the Conditional Use Permit requests for sheds by simply increasing the square footage requirement, the Commissions’ efforts could be concentrated on the Conditional Use Permits for garages, which are a more substantial issue. He explained that during the last six years, the City has seen an average of three Conditional Use Permit requests a year for garages, and with the exception of the last two years, fewer requests for sheds. Commissioner Miller suggested they allow 300 square feet for a shed without a Conditional Use Permit, and require a Conditional Use Permit for 400 square foot sheds. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff was concerned in that the Code is examined every couple of years, and this requirement appears to be revised incrementally, and would simply be increased another 50 square feet during the next revision. He explained that this was an opportunity to completely revise their approach in this matter, and be very flexible. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 Chairperson Peterson stated the 400 square foot maximum shed size has remained constant, however, the total size of the garage and accessory structures was increased from 1,264 to 1,400 square feet. He stated accommodation for the larger buildings was made in terms of the garage, which is logical in that this is likely more usable space. Commissioner Thomas stated the changing usage of sheds has generated all of the recent requests, and this structure is not a shed anymore, but rather, accessory storage. Planning Associate Ericson stated one of the issues at the Council level is that the City is simply rubberstamping all of the Conditional Use Permits. He explained that if there are criteria in the Code, which specify that sheds shall not exceed 20 percent of the rear yard coverage or be larger than a specific square footage, and these conditions can be met and approved by the City, the City might wish to simply permit these sheds. Commissioner Miller inquired if this would be appropriate for a 400 square foot shed. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the Commission could build in some qualifications to provide that they do not allow a 400-square foot shed that might be excessive on a specific property, and he believed it was possible to build in safeguards to accomplish this. Commissioner Hegland stated they were attempting to limit this by restricting the total amount of storage area available, and how that is divided and utilized is up to the individual property owner. Planning Associate Ericson stated he is comfortable with the proposal to have a maximum number of accessory buildings. Commissioner Thomas stated that if the property owner is allowed the total storage square footage, whether this is limited to two structures, although three would probably be more workable, they could always require that the property owner obtain a Conditional Use Permit for the third structure. She stated she did not believe that limiting the number of sheds was appropriate, and was uncertain as to why this was a restriction. Planning Associate Ericson stated the reason he suggests three accessory structures be allowed is because of properties such as that on Long Lake Road which is a very large 18,000 square foot lot. He explained that the property owner would like to construct a 400 square foot shed, and there is an attached garage, however, there is also a small 8 foot by 10 foot shed with a porch on the front and a small window, and this is used for gardening projects and so forth. He explained that if three structures were allowed, a small shed such as this, possibly 200 feet from the other structures, would be permitted. He stated the Commission might wish to require that a Conditional Use Permit be obtained for anything beyond three structures. Commissioner Thomas inquired why the size of the accessory structure is limited to the footprint of the house. She stated she did not understand why storage space should be tied to the footprint of the house, as it did not appear to have any relationship to the size of the structure whatsoever. Commissioner Johnson indicated this has been the major issue with regard to the most recent requests. He stated the Commission had discussed that there could be three or more people Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 16 living in a small house, for example an 800 square foot house, and if they are limited to the footprint of the house, there would not be sufficient room to park two vehicles, leaving any remaining vehicles parked outside. Planning Associate Ericson stated the history of this requirement pertains to the principal structure on the property and aesthetics, in terms of whether it is a residential community or a community of garages. He explained that they would not desire a 1,400 square foot garage to dominate a lot, with a small 800 square foot house off to the side. Commissioner Thomas stated this would depend upon whether the appearance of a large garage would be considered more important, or three vehicles sitting out in the driveway. She stated this was a restriction that did not suit their purposes. Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that there would be three vehicles in the driveway, regardless. Commissioner Hegland stated the new house designs do not provide much more than a view of the garage, and in the majority of the new developments, the three-car garage is visible, while very little of the house is exposed. Chairperson Peterson stated he did not believe that the maximum of 1,400 square foot should be changed. He stated everyone should be allowed, no matter what the house or lot size, 864 square feet, which would translate to a 24 by 36 foot garage. He indicated this would provide sufficient room for two vehicles, a workshop in the back, boat storage, etc., and a garage of this size should be large enough for any reasonable minimum use. He stated 864 square feet should be permitted. He indicated that if there is a storage shed, the size of the two structures could be added together and allowed up to a certain point without a Conditional Use Permit. He explained that this would entirely eliminate the issue of the shed Conditional Use Permit, and sheds up to 400 square feet would be acceptable, however, that amount would be added to the size of the garage to determine the total square footage within the maximum requirement. Commissioner Hegland suggested the requirement be 1,400 square feet maximum, and garages less than 864 square feet be allowed without Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the maximum garage size without a Conditional Use Permit has been changed to 952 square feet. Planning Associate Ericson stated the current Code indicates that any garage larger than the house requires a Conditional Use Permit, and Chairperson Peterson was proposing every property owner be allowed 864 square feet. Commissioner Johnson stated the total square footage could not exceed 1,400 square feet. He pointed out that if they allow 952 on an attached garage, the shed in the rear yard would be limited to 400 square feet. Planning Associate Ericson added that if the 952 square foot garage were larger than the house, a shed would not be allowed without a Conditional Use Permit. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 17 Chairperson Peterson stated three numbers have been considered for garage sizes in the past three years, including 864, 952 and 1,000 square feet. He inquired which size the Commission was considering at this point. Planning Associate Ericson stated a 952 square foot garage would be allowed, as long as the footprint of the house is 952 square feet, and if the footprint were less than this, a Conditional Use Permit would be required. He explained that a 600 square foot house could not have a 952 square foot garage, therefore, Chairperson Peterson has suggested everyone be allowed 864 square feet without a Conditional Use Permit. He added that if a property owner desired 1,400 square feet, he would be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit because this would exceed the footprint of the house. He stated this would provide a safeguard against accessory structures that appear out of place and do not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Hegland inquired how a property owner could obtain 1,400 square feet if he could not exceed 400 square feet. Commissioner Laube explained that they would not state that they could exceed 400 square feet, however, anything over that amount would require a Conditional Use Permit. Community Development Director Jopke pointed out that by allowing additional structures, the property owner could obtain 1,400 square feet. Commissioner Thomas stated that if the current limit is 952 square feet, and a Conditional Use Permit would be required after that point, they should just leave the maximum at 952 square feet for all property owners. She inquired why we would desire to revert to the previous 864 square foot requirement when they have already stated that everyone could have 952 square feet. Planning Associate Ericson advised that some properties would not accommodate 952 square feet. Commissioner Thomas stated she was aware of this. She indicated she was not in favor of basing the square footage on the footprint of the house, and this provision should be eliminated. She stated all property owners should be allowed 952 square feet, and the City should not revert to 864 square feet. She indicated a 600 square foot house was already experiencing a garage problem, and the property owner should be allowed to have 952 square feet. She added that the limit on the size of the shed should be eliminated, and there should be a maximum of 1,400 square feet of accessory structure. She stated the issues to be dealt with pertained to how to approach the amount between 952 square feet and 1,400 square feet, and this would depend upon the size of the lot and the number of accessory buildings, and would allow for much more flexibility. Commissioner Laube inquired regarding the dimensions of a 1,400 square foot building. He pointed out that a 952 square foot building would be almost as large as a three-car garage. Commissioner Hegland indicated that if the garage was 952 square feet, the accessory structure could be 448 square feet, which is essentially the size of a standard 24 by 24 foot garage. Planning Associate Ericson stated only a property with the lot area to support a 1,400 square foot structure would be able to obtain that size building. He explained that if there was a very large Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 18 house on the property, it would be unlikely that anyone would notice the second garage in the back, however, the safeguard would be that each property owner would have 952 square feet, and they would be allowed 1,400 if they are able to maintain the 20 percent back yard coverage requirement, and so not exceed the footprint of the house. Commissioner Thomas reiterated that she was not in favor of a restriction based upon the square footage of the house. Commissioner Laube stated the Commission had considered an application for a 50-foot garage in the back of the property, which already had a single car garage in the front. He inquired how large the second garage could be in the back if the City does not apply any restrictions. Commissioner Thomas stated this is the point at which the 20 percent rear yard coverage requirement would be applicable. Commissioner Laube pointed out that this property owner had sufficient lot area to support a building of this size. Commissioner Thomas stated this was his house, his lot, in the back yard, and he should be allowed to do this. She stated the City was trampling on people’s toes, and that is the point at which they would move to different communities Commissioner Laube disagreed. He stated this property owner would now have that large garage in the back yard, and would then desire to add on to the house. He inquired at what point this would result in excessive lot coverage. Commissioner Hegland stated the property owner should be encouraged to add on to the house. Commissioner Laube stated this was correct, however, he would not desire that the yard be completely covered with a garage structure. Commissioner Thomas stated the lot coverage requirement is already in the Code, and the house would not be able to be expanded if the lot exceeds the coverage ratio. Planning Associate Ericson advised that this provision is not specified in the Code. Commissioner Laube stated language would have to be added to address this. Commissioner Thomas stated she would be very comfortable in tying the requirement to size of the lot. She explained that if they have sufficient lot area, they should have the freedom to build their accessory storage space up to a certain limit, and they could restrict this to three buildings, however, they should give the community the freedom to do this. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the Commission would consider the current ratio based upon 20 percent coverage of the back yard, or the total lot coverage ratio. Commissioner Laube stated they were not allowed to build in the front of the property, and the structure would have to be constructed in the back yard, therefore, the percentage should be set based upon the back yard area. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 19 Commissioner Hegland pointed out that people add on to the back of the house, and this would be considered the back yard. Planning Associate Ericson stated he was concerned that if they proceed with straight lot coverage for building on a lot, they would reach a point where someone would be unable to expand their house. He explained that this would not only apply to accessory storage but also to the buildings on the lot. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that there are a few homes in the City where this would be a problem. Planning Associate Ericson indicated that if you have a 11,000 square foot lot, a 2,000 square foot house, and a 1,000 square foot garage, you would not be able to expand the house. He stated he would not desire to have a situation arise in the future where a property owner would not be able to expand. Commissioner Thomas stated the Commission had discussed the property on Spring Lake Road that raised the issue regarding which was the front and which was the back yard. She stated they could make some recommendations pertaining to lot coverage, and that anything in excess of 20 percent of the total lot area would require a Conditional Use Permit, so that the City could go examine the situation and determine if there is sufficient need for the extra addition. She stated the purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to address exceptions. Commissioner Miller stated this would require a variance, and there are criteria which must be met in order to obtain a variance. Commissioner Laube stated the City would be creating the hardship by allowing the accessory structures on these properties. Planning Associate Ericson stated for this reason, he would be more comfortable tying this to the back yard area, and overall, this would still be tied to the back yard area because they could not build in the front yard. He pointed out however, if you tied it to the total building coverage, problems might arise in terms of expanding the house. Chairperson Peterson stated he could not think of any situation where the City would wish to restrict the property owner’s ability to expand the house. Planning Associate Ericson stated this would be a unique situation that might be appropriate for a variance. Chairperson Peterson agreed, adding that in most cases the variance process could address this. Commissioner Thomas stated this would decrease the number of Conditional Use Permit requests. Planning Associate Ericson stated it appeared as if there was a consensus to proceed with a 1,400 square foot maximum, and eliminate the 400 square foot requirement, because if two garages are allowed it would not be sensible to have a 400 square foot limitation on the shed. He stated the 1,400 square feet would be conditioned on the fact that it could not exceed 20 percent of the Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 20 back yard area, and could exceed the footprint of the house without a Conditional Use Permit. He indicated that each property owner would be allowed 952 square feet, however, beyond that, the amount of accessory storage space would be based upon the footprint of the house. Commissioner Hegland inquired if a Conditional Use Permit would be required if the house was 1,000 square feet, the property owner constructed a 1,000 square foot garage, and desired to construct a 400 square foot accessory building as well. He pointed out that there were not many homes in town that were 1,400 square feet, and he did not think this would be necessary. He proposed that there be a 1,400 square foot limit for all accessory buildings, with a total of three buildings. Chairperson Peterson stated the primary issue they were considering was the two buildings that would be greater than 952 square feet, and when they examine the shed and garage Conditional Use Permits, this is the case that has initiated this revision. He stated two buildings less than 1,400 square feet would not require a Conditional Use Permit. Planning Associate Ericson stated they could also add language that would allow for a second accessory structure up to a certain level, without triggering the need for a Conditional Use Permit. He stated he would be very hesitant to disregard the tie to the square footage of the house, and having the only safeguard the 20 percent lot coverage requirement in the back yard area. Commissioner Thomas requested clarification regarding the purpose for tying this to the square footage of the house. She inquired if they were attempting to limit the size of the garage so that it would not be larger than the house, and if so, why? Planning Associate Ericson stated this relates to the definition of the principal structure. Commissioner Hegland stated there were very few 1,400 square foot houses in the City. Planning Associate Ericson stated there were many. Commissioner Hegland stated the majority of houses in the City were less than 1,000 square feet in size. Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the required square footage of houses as set forth in the Code. Planning Associate Ericson stated the requirements were 960 square feet for a single-family home, and 860 square feet for a two level home. Chairperson Peterson stated they would already be approaching this limit with a rambler that has been expanded, and has a three-season porch in the back. Commissioner Laube stated his townhouse is 1,800 square feet, and this is one of the average size homes in the complex. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 21 Commissioner Hegland stated that is not representative of the majority of the homes in the community. He inquired if they would desire to limit all of them to having to obtain Conditional Use Permits to construct a second garage, the primary purpose of which would be boat and recreational vehicle storage. Commissioner Thomas inquired why the size of the house was a factor. She stated if this was simply an issue of appearance, the point has been raised that in light of the new design configurations, the City is already seeing the larger garages. Commissioner Hegland inquired how they would approach two story houses. Commissioner Johnson stated the Commission was able to approve a Conditional Use Permit request for a property on Long Lake Road by including the square footage of the second story of the home. Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that this property owner required a Conditional Use Permit regardless of this. He inquired if the Commission desired to retain the tie in to the footprint of the house, so as to prevent a 1,400 square foot garage from dominating a lot. He advised that presently, if a property owner desires to do this, a Conditional Use Permit is required. Planning Associate Ericson stated Commissioner Thomas was proposing a 1,400 square foot structure without a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Hegland and Johnson stated they also agreed with this. Commissioner Thomas inquired how the structure would dominate the lot it if it restricted to the rear yard. Planning Associate Ericson stated the structure must be located behind the front line of the house, and could not be in the front yard of the property. Commissioner Thomas stated the house would still be in front of the property, and it would still be the primary structure, because it would be the first structure in view. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has received significant feedback from residents who have been notified that the neighboring property owner desires to construct a 1,200 square foot garage, and their house is only 650 square feet. He stated this is an issue of significant concern to the neighbors, who indicate that such a proposal would be very displeasing and would depreciate the neighborhood, in addition to the fact that they would have to look at a garage instead of a house. Chairperson Peterson stated in some sense he would agree with this. He explained that looking back through the garage Conditional Use Permit requests that the Commission has considered over the last six years at an average of three per year, in most cases there was a neighbor who was concerned with regard to the size of the structure and what the property owner intended to utilize it for. He explained that simply allowing the construction of these larger garages would generate a significant amount of concern among the neighboring property owners. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 22 Planning Associate Ericson advised that this could give rise to a situation in which that large garage cuts off a supply of light and air to the neighboring properties, and these are criteria that the Commission is required to examine through the Conditional Use Permit process. Chairperson Peterson stated presently, the structure is allowed to be five feet from the property line, and a 1,400 square foot building with the appropriate roofline could very easily block the access to light to neighboring properties. He stated they would have to include some safeguards against negative impacts to the neighbors. Commissioner Miller requested clarification regard the height restriction on sheds. Planning Associate Ericson stated accessory structures that are not attached to a house have always been limited to 15 feet in height. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that this was not a peak height, but rather half way up the side of the structure. Commissioner Laube stated a large garage of 26 by 50 feet could have an extremely high roof. Planning Associate Ericson explained that if there was a steep pitch to the large garage, the roof could theoretically be 20 feet high. He indicated that if the structure is larger than 952 square feet, the City currently has the opportunity to review this, and ensure that there are no impacts to the neighbors and the community. Commissioner Thomas inquired how many Conditional Use Permit requests the Commission has denied. She pointed out that if the requests are not being denied, residents should not be required to go through the process. Commissioner Laube inquired if the current Code prohibits a property owner from having a garage larger than three stalls. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct. Commissioner Laube stated a structure 952 square feet in size would be as large as a three-car garage, and if they went any larger than that, they would be allowing four or five car garages. He stated you could easily construct a structure 20 feet deep by 47 feet on the property, and that would be 48 to 50 feet wide, and this would be possible if 1,400 square feet without a Conditional Use Permit were allowed. Commissioner Thomas suggested they allow the property owner 952 square feet, and as many accessory buildings as desired without a Conditional Use Permit, so long as the total accessory storage does not exceed 1,400 square feet, however, a single structure would not be allowed to exceed 952 square feet without a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Hegland stated although it would be likely, this would allow for a 50-foot long tunnel of a garage. Commissioner Laube stated he would want a five-car garage if he had three vehicles to store in the back, and two to drive, and he would wish to have the garage located next to the house and heated. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 23 Commissioner Thomas pointed out that if there was a demonstrated need and sufficient space on the lot, the property owner could obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Johnson clarified that the discussion was presently 952 square feet for all property owners, with 1,400 square feet total, and a maximum of three structures. He indicated that if a property owner desired to have one 1,400 square foot garage, he would be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the Commission was proposing that a property owner would not simply be allowed to have a 1,400 square foot garage, but would be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Thomas stated this was correct, however, this was not to imply that the request would be denied. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the Commission would eliminate the tie in to the footprint of the house. Chairperson Peterson stated this would only apply to structures that exceed 952 square feet, and therefore, he felt that this should be eliminated. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if the property owner on Woodale Drive with a 400 square foot house could have a 952 square foot garage, and then up to 1,400 square feet of accessory storage space, and simply max out the square footage without a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Johnson stated yes, if he has sufficient space in his backyard. Planning Associate Ericson advised that the smallest structure on the property would be the house. Commissioner Thomas stated if he has a 952 square foot garage, the largest structure he could add would be 448 square feet. Planning Associate Ericson stated many houses in the City were this size. Commissioner Thomas stated this was because Mounds View is an old City. She inquired why these property owners with older, smaller houses should be limited to less storage space than the rest of the community. She stated they should not be treated any differently than the rest of the community simply because the footprint of the house is small. Commissioner Hegland pointed out that many of these homes are one and a half stories as well, and the actual livable space could be taken into consideration, which is larger than the footprint. Chairperson Peterson stated a question was raised earlier with regard to the number of Conditional Use Permit requests that have been denied, however, a more significant question would be in terms of how many Conditional Use Permits were approved without conditions attached to address issues. Commissioner Thomas inquired how many Conditional Use Permit requests have required three months time to complete. Commissioner Laube stated he was only aware of two requests that involved an additional meeting, and these requests were not for garages or sheds. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 24 Commissioner Thomas stated in light of the many ideas the Commission was considering with this examination, the square footage of the house was becoming less and less important. She suggested that rather than having to review the Code again in two years because the City is attempting to micromanage the square footage issue, they should simply eliminate this restriction. Planning Associate Ericson stated he did not agree that the square footage of the house was becoming less important, and he did not believe the City has ever minimized the fact that there are principle and accessory structures. Commissioner Thomas stated they have already allowed the 952 square foot garage, regardless of the size of the house, and therefore, based upon a 600 square foot house, the principal structure would already be the garage. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct in relation to the current discussion, however, not from a historical standpoint. Commissioner Hegland stated it would be false to consider the footprint as the principal structure, in that there are many one and a half and two story homes in the community. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff’s role was to offer assistance and support, and would draft language to reflect whatever the Commission feels is appropriate. Chairperson Peterson stated he believed everyone was entitled to a standard sized garage, and part of the reason for this is that there are numerous lots on which the garages and possibly the houses as well, are substandard. He explained that if the property owners wish to improve these properties, the first sensible step would be to construct a standard sized garage, after which they might wish to expand their house. Commissioner Johnson agreed. He stated he was aware of an individual who had constructed a 1,248 square foot garage prior to building a large addition on his house, after which he constructed an addition on the back of the house. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has received sufficient information to draft language for consideration at the next meeting of the Planning Commission, and to continue the discussion regarding what is appropriate. Julie Olsen, 2663 Lake Court Circle stated she agreed with Commissioner Thomas. She stated the footprint of the house was totally irrelevant, because there are one and a half story homes, cape cods, two stories, and four level homes to consider. She stated the foundation size should not be a basis for how large a property owner is permitted to build another structure. She explained that people start improving their properties at some point, and it is much less expensive to improve the garage than the house, therefore, they begin with the garage and eventually add on to the house. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 25 Ms. Olsen stated the complaints that come forward to the Commission typically come from one or two neighbors requesting information regarding how the property owner intends to utilize a 1,100 or 1,200 square foot garage, when their house is only 600 square feet, and they are concerned that the property owner is going to set up some sort of shop or business, however, there are rules and regulations in place which restrict these things, therefore, this is not a significant concern in relation to the size of the garage. Ms. Olsen stated the majority of the current Code provisions for curb cuts are not necessarily correct. She explained that if you consider the new construction design, one of the primary issues of contention is that they have constructed a new house with a three car garage at great expense, and they are unable to access or exit the third stall of their because they can not have a sufficiently wide curb cut. She stated the size of the newer structures has not been taken into consideration in the new Code pertaining to curb cuts, and this was simply an example of the necessity to eliminate the foundation of the house as a basis for the size of the garage. Chairperson Peterson stated the Commission has discussed the driveway and curb cut issues at several meetings in previous years and has addressed the majority of these issues, however, some issues remain. He indicated that with regard to the current discussions, it appears that the Commission is in consensus to eliminate the footprint of the house as a basis for calculating the size of accessory structures, but to retain a lot size for garages that exceed a certain standard size. He pointed out that another issue before the Commission was the question pertaining to garages which are three stalls versus four stalls wide, and in particular, the Code discrepancy in this regard. Planning Associate Ericson stated it was not so much that there is a discrepancy in the Code but rather, that the Code is silent on the fact that for structures less than 952 square feet, or previously, less than 864 square feet, there was no requirement that they be limited to three stalls, because 864 square feet does not lend itself well to four stalls. He stated this issue needs to be addressed. He indicated that with the larger structures, the Conditional Use Permit requirements stipulate that a garage shall be no more than three car widths wide, or 35 feet. He inquired if the Commission would desire to retain this or eliminate this provision. Planning Associate Ericson stated the Commission should determine whether or not they would retain or eliminate this restriction. He pointed out that a property owner could apply for a Conditional Use Permit for a 1,300 square foot garage, and the current City Code states they are not allowed to have a garage more than three car widths wide, therefore, the structure would be deeper and longer than it is wide, and that seems to have worked well, because 95 percent of the lots in Mounds View are deep and narrow lots. He stated staff was not significantly concerned that maintaining this restriction would create a hardship, however, in the process of adjusting the Code to be more flexible, the Commission might wish to consider this as well. Commissioner Thomas stated she had no strong feelings in this regard, and suggested that if a property owner desires a 952 square foot garage that is wider than 35 feet, this be addressed in the Conditional Use Permit process. Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 26 Planning Associate Ericson stated this is how this matter is currently set forth in the Code. He explained that the Code states that a 952 square foot garage may be configured to the property owner’s specifications, and there is no restriction on the number of doors, however, once the structure exceeds 952 square feet, a Conditional Use Permit is required. Chairperson Peterson stated he was aware of at least one four-car garage, however, it is angled on the lot, does not face the street, and there is no wide driveway involved. He stated the property owner must make a very sharp turn to access the rear stall, however, this appears to be acceptable in the event that four stalls are needed. He stated Conditional Use Permit process would be an appropriate means to address this. Commissioner Miller inquired if the Commission was to consider the driveway widths and curb cut issues as well. Planning Associate Ericson stated the driveway issue has been addressed in the recent revision to the Code, which states that a property owner is allowed to have a driveway as wide as the garage. Commissioner Thomas inquired what types of issues would come forward in a case where there is a four-car garage that is only 952 square feet, and the property owner desired to increase the accessory storage space and construct a shed in the back yard. She inquired if there would be a problem as a result of a garage that exceeds 35 feet in width. Commissioner Johnson stated this could potentially limit access to the back yard. 6. Staff Reports / Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions Community Development Director Jopke stated staff has received a preliminary list of comments from the Metropolitan Council with regard to the Comprehensive Plan. He indicated this is part of the Metropolitan Council’s completeness review, which purpose is to determine if the City has developed a complete plan. He advised that in the area of aviation, the City is required to incorporate the current legislation and agreement that recently occurred, to ensure this language is reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the Local Water Surface Management Plan must also be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, and this particular item was scheduled to come back before the Planning Commission at their next meeting on July 5th, at which time, the City Engineer would present the latest version of the Plan. He indicated additional information pertaining to sanitary sewers is required to be included in the Comprehensive Plan as well, and staff is attempting to provide this information to the Metropolitan Council so that they may proceed with their review. Community Development Director Jopke stated the Highway 10 Steering Committee would hold a community meeting on July 11th, at 7:00 p.m., in Council Chambers. He indicated the Steering Committee would present the framework for an action plan and priorities that have been developed for issues concerning Highway 10, which range from safety and community identity Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 27 to environmental issues, as well as Economic Development issues. He requested members of the community attend this meeting and provide their input to ensure that the information forwarded to the City Council reflects the desires of the community. 7. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Report Chairperson Peterson stated he would be unable to attend the July 5th meeting of the Planning Commission. No further reports were considered. 8. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Rick Jopke Community Development Director Transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.