02-22-1999 CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Maki CUP Request 8100 Long Lake Road February 22, 1999 Page 3 (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities have been or will be provided. Adding an addition to the garage, even one as large as is being requested, would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities,parks, schools or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increare in traffic on adjacent streets. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. Because this is a small lot, the expanded garage would have little visual screening. In terms of its relationship with the two adjoining properties, the garage is separated from the property to the north by another garage, so the expansion would have little impact upon that property. The property to the west would not be separated by much distance or any physical screening. (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. (5) The use is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. (6) The use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Garages and detached accessory outbuildings are typical uses in residential areas, and allow for the storage of vehicles and yard and garden equipment. Having this expanded shed would allow the property owner to store vehicles currently left outside within a secure and protected structure. Staff believes that the adverse affects of this development proposal are minimal and are far out- weighed by the benefits. However, depending upon one's interpretation of the request in terms of the "intensity" of the proposed garage expansion in comparison to the existing home, the proposal may be in conflict with the"appearance" criteria. Staffs only concern with this proposal is the proportional imbalance of the proposed garage (980 sf) in comparison to the house (576 sf). Staff also believes that it is desirable from a community perspective to have property owners improve their properties with building expansions since the properties are then usually kept in better order. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission, at their meeting on February 17, 1999, voted to recommend approval of this conditional use permit request, with stipulations as noted in Resolution 5312.