|
Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999
<br /> Regular Meeting Page 6
<br /> Consideration of Resolution 594-99, a resolution recommending approval of a conditional use permit
<br /> for an oversized garage.
<br /> Applicant: Donald Mackeben
<br /> The applicant was present.
<br /> Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: ...
<br /> Thea applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to c. ::struct an ad:.> tionwt:'h 4
<br /> Pp q g � � rage at �::e< 1
<br /> Sunnyside Road. The existinggarage is 720 square feet a 3equire= :.
<br /> Y q y �"' ' ����.�i anal
<br /> n ;:Floes nottesentl ret4�3 �
<br /> Use permit, however, the applicant proposes to construct a 3 0�square foot additio1 ; o rear of
<br /> the garage, to be used for a workshop/hobby area. He statectill4V09.1d create a garage1;`040 square
<br /> feet in size, and would therefore require a Conditional Use" ' t `
<br /> 4" AITMA—
<br /> Planning Associate Ericson stated the exiting house, at ap roximate y `r quare feet, is larger than
<br /> the garage, even after the proposed expansion. He i a * proposedii 'n would be located to
<br /> the rear of the garage, and would not be v' ifrom :,.;. treet, or rom two of the adjoining
<br /> properties. He noted it would be visible fro e'prope t ,,:,ig th,where it would be seven feet
<br /> from the property line. He stated there is" 2 5-foiSpspace. t the addition, and the property
<br /> located to the rear, and 100 feet or more to the.:::roperty line4 the north. He stated in terms of
<br /> screening and spacing, the proposal me t4:the re.uirements..£ le added the size of the garage is well
<br /> _ � :
<br /> within the Code requirements, wouldnot be Wier than *house,`house, and does not create extra stalls,
<br /> Amt-
<br /> so there would not be any additional traffic:; o in an out of the structure.
<br /> Plannin. A:t i.c1 k Ericsc '' ' ff has e :eowe
<br /> �,,t.. �.�t� the general Conditional Use criteria, and these
<br /> have all .' g:°a rssed an atse ;> He explained, in light of this, staff has drafted a resolution,
<br /> 'wooResolution
<br /> e ;-:o the City Council the approval of this Conditional Use
<br /> Permit request. >" a
<br /> Commis • : r Miller stat . • driven by the property, and was not able to determine the aspects
<br /> of the, ° posal based up : :.: ;s e had seen. She requested clarification.
<br /> -
<br /> Dona d Mackeben, the a pplicant explained he was in the process of demolishing the existing garage.
<br /> git,ted three to fuyears prior, snow had caused the garage roof to cave somewhat. He
<br /> erfriL ted the gar.ge needed new siding and garage doors, and when he obtained estimates to
<br /> . 1 '�' `,doors and roof, he determined it would be less expensive to take down the old
<br /> g• :k :,:-:;ulld. He explained the garage would be constructed on the same slab, exactly as it
<br /> had � , with the exception of a 6-12 pitch, rather than a 4-12 pitch on the roof, to prevent the
<br /> previous problem from reoccurring.
<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 />
|