Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 7 <br /> Mr. Mackeben stated the addition to the back of the garage would not be noticeable from the street, <br /> or from the neighbor's house at the rear of the property. He commented that, other than the storage <br /> of lawn mowers, he was not certain how he would utilize the addition, however, he was scheduled <br /> to retire soon, and may use that area for miscellaneous hobbies. He stated he was not interested in <br /> mechanic or heavy carpentry work, and this would not turn into a situation that might become a part- <br /> time job in his yard, or anything of that nature. He stated he believed the addition would be a definite <br /> asset to the neighborhood and to his property. <br /> Mr. Mackeben stated the proposed addition would be an area approximately four feet wide by twenty <br /> feet long, and would not be much larger than that allowed by the Code. He explained the rooflines <br /> would match the rest of the house. <br /> Commissioner Laube inquired if the applicant would have to remove a tree located in back of the <br /> garage. Mr. Mackeben stated he would, adding that he would prefer not to do this, however, there <br /> were many more oak trees on the property. He expressed his appreciation to the Commissioners for <br /> taking the time to drive by the property and view the site, adding that this showed interest on their <br /> part. <br /> Chairperson Peterson noted a two-foot jog in the proposed placement of this addition, which <br /> indicates the garage setback five feet from the property line, angling back two feet. Mr. Mackeben <br /> stated this was in consideration of aesthetics. He explained this would prevent the appearance of one <br /> • long line, and there was no other reason for doing this. He explained, the addition would be 20 feet <br /> long, and the existing garage is 24 feet, therefore, the entire line would go back 44 feet into the <br /> property as a straight line. He stated he felt if this line was indented, the structure would be more <br /> attractive. <br /> Chairperson Peterson inquired if the roofline of the addition would match the roofline of the garage. <br /> Mr. Mackeben stated he believed it would, however, they may lower it a foot, depending upon the <br /> contractor's recommendation, in terms of what would look best. <br /> Chairperson Peterson commented he had also driven by the property. He inquired if the applicant <br /> would be adding on to the slab at the same grade. Mr. Mackebcn stated this was correct. <br /> Commissioner Miller inquired if there would be doors on the addition. Mr. Mackeben stated there <br /> would be doors on the front and back of the addition, to provide a drive through in the backyard, to <br /> allow for access of his boat and lawnmowers. <br /> Chairperson Peterson stated the proposal appeared to be very good, and he could not see any <br /> problems with it. Commissioner Kaden stated he could see no reason the proposal should not go <br /> forward. He stated he had driven by the property and thought it would be attractive. He added he <br /> did not think it would be visible at all from the street, particularly with the proposed jog. <br /> Mr. Mackeben stated this was correct, adding it would not be visible to the neighboring properties <br /> either. He reiterated he believed it would improve the property. He commented he had personally <br />