|
_ _
<br />.� � _ s�-- �, � -�. �; ,r •' ' -
<br />_ - � � = -;{��� - ��y�j� - • r °�_
<br />�� �..zz_.V. . _�. _—" __. .._.. _ � _. . . ' . -- _"_ ..._ .. . .. -- .. � _'_. _ " //!f l��Jft�i.+�i�,%: JfI r. � � .__
<br />. . � � ��'- `�i�k49'��/F/!.k �( � . 1 � � . .�iF% i%%%
<br />' 1
<br />��
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission Apri15, 2000
<br />Regular Meeting Page 22
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated staff visited the property. He explained that in texrns of
<br />proportion, it appears that the shed, which would be 20' by 20' feet, would fit in uite,a���t. He
<br />9 y ;�
<br />stated there was not a significant amount of physical screening between th� ���s������ �nperties,
<br />and there are no fences to obstruct the view, however, thereff;are a nu�z����a �F ,,r�ry mature
<br />evergreen trees in the back yard that create a good buffer in this��r�a.
<br />Planning Associate Ericson provided an overview of th�
<br />addressed in the staff report, and indicated that staff beli�{
<br />stated this again, was a situation were the applicants woul�
<br />the yard, and store snowmobiles, motorcycles, and pe�-ha;
<br />stored outside, in the shed. He stated the only drawbac�c
<br />would not be allowed to keep the two sheds that cunently e;
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted
<br />action at this time. He explained that this resolut�o�
<br />the two existing sheds shall be removed upon th�: �i
<br />shall be recorded with Ramsey County. He ,�dicat�
<br />or other uses not allowed by the district� ���d the
<br />designed and maintained to be aestheticadl��pleasing
<br />the garage. �:
<br />;:x�
<br />•m,.�.. v�1VyLa"t•>l.�dALCiAi6IIa �1ul8at;A �t��^,1-�
<br />�:h�se c�t�r�a are al1 ��� ��� e� �a����, �' ���
<br />�.f�l� r �'
<br />�rremove sorri� � � +,i��,� n, -��;:
<br />f ��l � �r,. which might oYhcr;�f, ;_, ��
<br />���F ,�s'���tf�s�l is that the applicants
<br />�!���.�c�n 61b-0C� a��, �51���g���g Commission
<br />�a��';�'<t�al �ont�.�r�� ��;����€Jf:�ons that indicate
<br />'�R:a��� ��` ����; new � �r�.�_+;�`� and the resolution
<br />r;>fl��s�� �;��,�� r�ot��e used for living space
<br />y���� �� � �;�rriianent structure and be
<br />corr����ar�����y�; to the e�ting dwelling in
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stat�� stafC ��v��.y��1��� �}�1� req��st in the context of how this shed
<br />would fit ,m, not only �« s,c., 4:��` of th� k������{,a ����y��y, but also with the surrounding
<br />neighbc�rh����. fiIe stated ��y E�� ���� ;onal op��,��;��., ���; ��,�� t}lls would fit in well, and in addition, the
<br />preseza�r� ���` �:�� a�ri���re ��,,4�p�s��t;����: ���,� �,�,o�l� �,������ �� irom view and provide a good buffer. He
<br />pointe� ����� ��a.��� �; �.�, � s��r�„�4{;r���p �,���a,����t of screening to the property to the south, However,
<br />after his �r� -a��r�a��,� �F� �y�,=; 7 �Y�,�; ��x�� �zot believe this would be an issue in this particular
<br />situation. I�� s�z�c� �;� �d R t�,r ��, h,,,������� s�;<3����va1 of Resolution 616-00.
<br />,. .:«
<br />n�g Associate
<br />:��ied in the ne
<br />ang of the City
<br />issioner
<br />if noti�ication was provided to the neighboring properties.
<br />us again, was one of the public hearing notices that was not
<br />er, it would be published in the newspaper for the April 24
<br />inyuired if the neighbor to the south was aware of this proposal.
<br />i stated he was not aware if the applicants have discussed their plans
<br />����<''?'+.. �- i�id��, �he applicant stated this neighbor's son had inquired regarding why they were
<br />cleaning up that back corner of their lot, and she had indicated something would be going in,
<br />however, she was not certain if the request would be approved, and therefore, did not elaborate.
<br />She stated these would be the orily neighbors who would have a good view of the shed. She
<br />explained that all the other surrounding properties along the back of their lot have full grown 40-
<br />
|