08-18-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 16, 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 '/z-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,. ' it was very noticeable. He inquired, in light of these structures, what the logic was inythis request. He suggested the Commissioners drive byand examine thin : ese ro .,erties, adc 'i t` e did not know if this would apply in terms of disallowing further construction ": is°type,44tifrias.of approving the applicant's request. '""600606..:.:.:. .: .. Commissioner Miller stated that she had driven by the subject pro,: rty, however, h id;n t_ drive through the neighborhood. She stated, as she drove downs ilver ke Road, she noticedtth a existing garage is already much larger than the house, and she was: €:o in fti ur of allowing the proposal to construct it further out of proportion. Neggalm Atilt Commissioner Hegland inquired regarding the calls recei_ ed by staigiiilikpecific objections they raised. Ericson stated that one caller expressed concerni' : iing a business occurring in the garage, and the other caller was concerned in regard to the dtspi'orte size c the garage. Commissioner Hegland stated that the business operation issue had been-a 1 d, and was not allowed. He stated that one of the problems with the interpretation of the City Code at they only consider the square footage of the foundation. He explained that mo .t f the homesA in the City of Mounds View are 1'/2 _:> • stories or more. He stated that the.: � �=cant s:ts�a smaller_i�ime, and it appears that the home itself could be expanded at some pointtin the futu Hes stater, from his perspective, he did not see the property as something that could' of be improved is :nd the garage, and that this could provide a different r=ti. i the fut A :' =Mated he` � d o` feel this was a great problem. Commissioner Heglantede ity encourage people to clean up their lots through ordinances, and adde•�: % `w_rth ali � t wuld probably require additional storage. space for lawn equipment arMialia,. He staff::klyg410 favor of the proposal. Commissiolar *a secondary building could be constructed on the property, a ¢:' fated that the maximum size would be 1400 square feet, with a cond'ti r'nal use permit. Commissioner Laube stated, in his opinion, the City had Codes in place, and alt �: ,:<''. ` gh they are not al�?sys�right or proper, they take into consideration the square footage of the opt' versus the square f�'otage of the garage. He stated this garage would be considerably larger than l •.use, in terms of foundation size, and does not meet the criteria. He stated he was not in favor 4,.. & �• oposa.l. : f ' . . r•:erke 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.c.ould 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. •