|
�,_- � -`�i
<br />�-
<br />� �;�- �` °i
<br />,I
<br />_
<br />r- = -
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission
<br />Regular Meeting
<br />The applicant was not present.
<br />Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows:
<br />The applicant, Robert Kleinschmidt, is requesting approval
<br />for the construction of a 256 square-foot oversized shed in t
<br />2159 Terrace Drive. This request is to replace small shed�
<br />larger shed to provide additional storage space for lawn �c�,;
<br />property is located in the northeast section of the City, a. b��
<br />border. The 13,125 square-foot well-maintained lot is irn�
<br />and two-car garage. There is an 8-foot tall privacy fence alc�
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated that, as is the ca��; �,v�� i� ;��r�y
<br />Commission is required to review a set of gen�x-�tl� ����.r-� �g�
<br />advised that in terms of the general conditional �z�,� �����,p�,���, �;
<br />possible adverse effects presented with thist'�`eques� r.°�f� �
<br />;�;�r
<br />relationship of the use to the Comprehensi,�v�;��lan, the ��;ogr��
<br />�.,,. � ;
<br />t e use would tend to or actually depreci�#e the area �n whicP�
<br />,� . k-���� ,�: �
<br />surrounding area, and the demonstrat��;;;;t�ed for s�t�h a use.
<br />Planning Associate Ericson
<br />properties, and a means oA �
<br />the cre�tR�a�� �� ,torage s�:�:;�r
<br />COmra�i�;ti,��3a�;� ,���t�� !�'aty Ce��a�k�
<br />outsid�:::����°,,.,� ,s ��,�;x�,�, a� ��
<br />Planning
<br />proposed
<br />the Cor�
<br />�ns of the hou���,''
<br />isting shed wou�
<br />g shed would bE ;
<br />,�-�
<br />�////.�sr..�i>: r.ftii�.
<br />April 5, 2000
<br />Page 12
<br />� �
<br />" r: , ,•��Yi. ��i3'.%ii,
<br />�- --- —
<br />o allow
<br />:'���i:�;c� at
<br />k�!<�eXlsts ox�� Y �a . �?a�_ Ttsa:��;:c�
<br />items of this ��� k,����k ����
<br />� City's easterri ,r�r:���a�,�A;�l
<br />� iypical 1 '/Z stoiy home
<br />�afr'���� property.
<br />dii�ors:��� ��;oE, �� ���it, the Planning
<br />c cc�r�dz�����;�� �se criteria. He
<br />�o��i�»���a .��►ust consider any
<br />��ed t��se criteria include the
<br />«:
<br />�� ��'��;`involved, whether or not
<br />?�x�;��osed, the character of the
<br />>°the CoY�����:;fa�nsive,:I��an encourages the development of
<br />shing th��� I��9 ���� ����� ��e expansion of a home or garage, and
<br />idicated i����; Y� �:a,�il'been a commonly held belief of Planning
<br />i��.e addi�i� a�t an attractive shed is an improvement over the
<br />�;:a �:l�aiter.
<br />sta1�-'E� �� r" ���� �inspected the property, and feels that the size of the
<br />��o���:������ �o the large backyard and the house itself. He provided
<br />���s,�-a.�h of ihe backyard area, and a site plan, which indicated the
<br />,��� �a���� the proposed shed. He stated the applicant has indicated that
<br />�;raoved upon completion of the new shed. The removal of the
<br />�ec� in the building permit.
<br />ing Associate ��i�son stated staff believes the construction of the shed would pose no
<br />�,�flFects fa ;�t�ie neighborhood or the adjoining properties. He indicated there was not a
<br />r ..: �:
<br />, y�� ���f3,; ,t;��`of screening from adjoining properties, however, the proposed shed would
<br />F���� �h����ing shed, and the 8-foot tall privacy fence in the backyard would provide some
<br />� -�����.��� �����:�ning to adjacent properties.
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has prepared Resolution 614-00 for Planning Commission
<br />action at this time. He advised that the resolution contains stipulations, which indicate that the
<br />resolution shall be recorded with Ramsey County, and the shed shall not be used for living space
<br />or other uses not allowed in the district. He stated the resolution further stipulates that no other
<br />
|