09-16-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 August 19, 1998 An 80-foot-long driveway would be part of the improvement and would be constructed of concrete. As a condition of granting the CUP, it was stated that the driveway improvement take place within a three-month-time period. An additional requirement imposed by ap. : 'ng this CUP would be to further screen the proposed garage by m� • the we'eans of erecti• . pri fence parallel garage to Pinewood Drive between the and the property line , _> Staffs concern was that the garage(1,008 s . ft.)was ou �� 'iro ortio• =Y _# �� - of the ho ( , q P (682 sq. ft.). The width of the garage from the street vi,o, howeve e sty + Si" 'igg to that of the house. "The bulk of the garage will not b f n fro R¢ .fi,a street. u° `' om a community perspective to have property owners impr• I roperties with g• ce the properties are then usually kept in better order," Ericson " f , It was staffs recommendation to have the Planning Co ' ssio 1!,i to prepare a resolution recommending to the City Council appro a„ denial o "t� � ;'tional Use Permit application, requested by Tammy Bellamy, 218 9h , � �t. rive. Chairperson Peterson returned the floor te Co i # `• $$ •ns and comments of the • applicant. Tammy Bellamy, 2185 Pinewoo•4 =, tote`e Co on she had let her 1997 CUP application expire because she hg #-come of fig #: with her neighbor over the matter, and she was not ble to take the k(,Q• 'd time • -.4 t attend meetings in regards to the applicatio« neighb e put up � � "pence to screen their property from the Bellam • • g * The : 8 A e also guaranteed to their neighbors that there will be no work been• $ fir.::-',ON ce car €• 8 on their own, stored in the garage. Stevenson ex. -; inTcern • ds to what would happen to the property if its current owner dec.. Tf o seal ; };'e gara:e, if allowed, would be attractive for somebody wanting to open a z 'smess and opL ,2$ ` };:= the garage. This use would not be a permitted use for the neig a$ rhood. ellamy stated if could get the garage approved, she would be staying in Mounds View ellamy statedK ad future remodeling plans for the house, too. s; •••=.4,`3. iii<;." e would like to include as part of the Resolution that privacy fencing be in <. . •equately screen the building. Obert stated if the property was in such a condition that a privacy fence was required to hide it from view that he would be opposed to this type development. He stated his concern that the • City would be setting a dangerous precedent for the development of other oversized and out of proportion garages in the community.