08-04-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission August 4, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 • with a one-story addition and a flat roof, and connected to that house, was a three-story addition with a garage on the first floor, a full basement, and a high pitched roof. Commissioner Kaden stated the other property, located on the same block as the applicant's, was an older one-story stucco rambler, with a 1 '/2-story addition. He stated the addition was sided, and did not match the stucco. He stated that the garage had a pitched roof, unlike the other structures on that property, and it was very noticeable. He inquired, in light of these structures, what the logic was in denying this request. He suggested the Commissioners drive by and examine these properties, adding that he did not know if this would apply in terms of disallowing further construction of this type, or in terms of approving the applicant's request. Commissioner Miller stated that she had driven by the subject property, however, she did not drive through the neighborhood. She stated, as she drove down Silver Lake Road, she noticed the existing garage is already much larger than the house, and she was not in favor of allowing the proposal to construct it further out of proportion. Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the calls received by staff and the specific objections they raised. Ericson stated that one caller expressed concern regarding a business occurring in the garage, and the other caller was concerned in regard to the disproportionate size of the garage. Commissioner Hegland stated that the business operation issue had been addressed, and was not allowed. He stated that one of the problems with the interpretation of the City Code is that they only consider the square footage of the foundation. He explained that most of the homes in the City of Mounds View are 1'/2 stories or more. He stated that the applicant's is a smaller home, and it appears that the home itself could be expanded at some point in the future. He stated, from his perspective, he did not see the property as something that could not be improved beyond the garage, and that this could provide a different ratio in the future. He stated he did not feel this was a great problem. Commissioner Hegland noted the City was attempting to encourage people to clean up their lots through ordinances, and added, anyone with a large lot would probably require additional storage space for lawn equipment and vehicles. He stated he was in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Laube inquired how large a secondary building could be constructed on the property, according to the Code. Ericson stated that the maximum size would be 1400 square feet, with a conditional use permit. Commissioner Laube stated, in his opinion, the City had Codes in place, and although they are not always right or proper, they take into consideration the square footage of the house versus the square footage of the garage. He stated this garage would be considerably larger than the house, in terms of foundation size, and does not meet the criteria. He stated he was not in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Berke agreed, stating that the Codes were in place for a reason, and should not be consistently changed. He stated that if the applicant was expanding the house and requesting to increase the garage size in conjunction with that, he could envision some leniency. He stated, however,the garage would overwhelm the house with this proposal. Acting Chair Stevenson stated . that it would be 54 feet deep, large enough to garage a greyhound bus.