|
Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999
<br /> Regular Meeting Page 4
<br /> Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: •
<br /> The applicants, Alan and Tammy Doroff, have applied for a conditional use permit to construct a
<br /> 384 square-foot shed in the backyard of their home located at 8270 Eastwood Road. The
<br /> proposed shed would be located behind and in-ground swimming pool on the subject property.
<br /> Planning Associate Ericson explained that staff does not typically see requests flPh a large
<br /> shed, and it was clear that the matter would require very clos!escrutiny?*otod staff has
<br /> examined the matter very closely both in terms of the general,; teria f Tonal use permit
<br /> for an oversized shed, as well as the adverse effects. "``
<br /> Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has been to the . <�..erty, Mich ..is a lare' �.:,...a tlialf
<br /> an acre, and the majority of the lots in the surrounding • :: ' < ;re:::: .` same size. He <>'..•that
<br /> because the applicant's have an in-ground swimming poo -s�. :a erty is enclosed by an eight-
<br /> foot wood privacy fence, which offers complete screeninµ. z :..;;,:.y.+ and area from the adjacent
<br /> neighbors, and staff had taken this into consideration u ® revs i pecific and general
<br /> criteria. He noted that all of the dimensional require - s for this 't< : quest are met, in
<br /> terms of setbacks and rear yard coverage for acc,- f "y.0. :''.ctures. ftixe dined, although the
<br /> proposed shed is to be 384 square feet, it wo,,ireAs ,� , percento f the backyard area, and
<br /> the Code requires that accessory buildings ° er noe x: :,:',Rel scent of the backyard area.
<br /> He added that the total area of all access buildin4s on the< y is 864 square feet, which
<br /> includes the existing 480 square-foot t '-carg• ``ge. or',„,, •
<br /> Planning Associate Ericson state e etie speci quirem,.g ' for this type of use, and the general
<br /> requirements I resented for any k :ditional < rk:-R, `.equest appear to be met. The adverse
<br /> affects of tk ' z : e were ex,,a;: in ;n terms a, :=::`lie <'A-Hing that is provided with the fence, and the
<br /> fact that.the ,' dosed sh` `' t be visit lex'o the neighboring properties. He added that this
<br /> 'C . (S.• i ip/
<br /> use would`f of - the ccrtoS14,4f the propertyor the neighborhood, and would only serve
<br /> to create addition,A >.ge spas`, .oft .perty, which currently only utilizes a very small metal
<br /> shed, and a sma '�•ra e. `�"
<br /> Planninm ° sociate Erir °.Nt does not appear that there are any adverse impacts presented
<br /> with proposal, other;. ,_.16 size of the structure. He explained, however, the shed would
<br /> not', utilized for vehicl .°t• •ge, or any type of business, but strictly as a storage shed of similar
<br /> and constructio : . a shed which presently exists on a neighboring property.
<br /> q5i4 4 Associae::Ericson stated staff has drafted Resolution 595-99, a resolution recommending
<br /> - .: ditional use permit to the City Council.
<br /> WDOSPREEry
<br /> Commissioner Miller inquired if the shed would be the same size as the shed located immediately to
<br /> the north of the applicant's property.
<br /> Alan Doroff, the applicant stated the shed would be a slightly larger than his neighbor's, however, •
<br /> it would be the same height.
<br />
|