08-04-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 4 Ayes– 8 Nays – 0 The motion carried. III 6. Planning Case No. 563-99 Property Involved: 8059 Red Oak Drive :, Consideration of Resolution 588-99, a resolution recommending approval of a cond' oral use permit for an oversized garage. r:`.f-..:.:r`: s. Applicant: Allen and Joy Dick ti The applicant was present. ' > .Met, Ninow ow .. .<><l _k= II_•` :mac :'' �;� egfr Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows ;ad :l : The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to constru` ` `` >sized garage at 8059 Red »ate �;.;<:� >. <r;<.�<,. Oak Drive,which is located north of Highway 10, between Hillview Shei ood Roads. The area '' `�'' 142 s ar '` The house is set back of the subject property—an interior lot—is approxi � �.:' � q ,. �: approximate l 68 feet from the street, with the< t" ``:`ti e situated behind the house. The house, at approximately 960 square feet, is presently la = ek.e ting two-stall garage, which is 480 square feet. The applicant proposed l construct a X20 sq foot addition to the rear of the garage, maintaining the same width ofthe existin __�garage.„ire roofline of the addition will tie in `z <> • perpendicularly to the existing garag��l >will ever be of tl� 'same height or a foot or so lower. In addition to the garage, there is alta 130 sgae-foot shed in the backyard, which will be moved further back to allow for t4.,,g„ar. e expansio v rie.. _: ;stated that the size of the proposed garage would be 1,000M square feet, h e;gas comparable to th size of the home. While it would be larger, there w n ist an F3 ' c e between o e and garage. '1041,116„ '4.011119tu, o + `�� ba1 � Ericson stated t t sta had reviewed` e,adverse affects, the criteria present with any conditional use permit application, 0lad deters <>�that the proposed expansion would not adversely impact n '`4 "' `x era` ' ate that the property is well screened from the neighbors bythe neighbors g� �;�per � e st ed" p P Y g garage itself'as well asshrubs iid a fence. He added that this is a deep lot, and the property to the rear d':: not even see the g r>which is set back from the street a significant distance. He stated tha.:=°n terms of screening; the criteria were met. He added that in consideration of multi-vehicle f. es, boats, and recreational vehicles, the need for additional space is clearly demonstrated. He s <`A that the general teria of the conditional use permit all appear to be met, and provided the >: i :° : sion withoverview of the stipulations. He stated that the use is not in conflict with the Oilialglio: :::r, atr and is in keeping with the City Code. Chair'`"Peterson requested clarification in regard to the staff report, which indicated the addition was perpendicular to the roofline. Ericson explained that the roof of the garage sloped forward instead of peaking at the front, and that the expansion would tie into the existing garage, with a gable end on the back. He stated that this would not be apparent from the frontal view of the property. 0