Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Resolution 590-99 <br />August 18, 1999 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />I. Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential <br />areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and <br />residential property in general. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property, 2809 <br />Woodale Drive, as high-density residential. The existing use is not compatihle with the <br />land use designation, yet this will he corrected with the updated comprehensive plan. <br />Garages and other types of accessory structures--like shedfj and tool huildings--are <br />allowed and even expected in this district, yet a garage that is triple the size of the house <br />would be inconsistent with the second residential goal. which states: "Preserve the identity <br />and improve the quality and appearance of residentialneighhorhoods. ,. A /lowing a <br />garage that is three times as large as the house would create an ohtrusive structural <br />lmhalance and could likely detract from the aesthetic appearances of the neighhorhood. <br />This proposal does cOJ!flict with the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />2. <br />4. <br /> <br />The Geographical Area Involved. <br />The Character of the Surrounding Area <br /> <br />/n this area of Mounds View, most of the lots are as large or larger than the suhject <br />property. There is a good mix of architecture present in the neighhorhood, ll'ith some qf <br />the houses heing older and some newer. The su~iect home, hOlvever, is sign?ficantly <br />smaller than those in the immediate area. While many homes in this area have large <br />garages, they do not appear out (~f place hecause the houses are larger as tl'e/l. While a <br />larger garage could he physically accommodated on the suhject property, it tt'ould not he <br />proportionally consistent with the house. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. <br /> <br />It can he generally assumed that adding to the existing garage ll/ould have a positive <br />impact on the value of the su~ject property. /t is not known whether a garage three times <br />larger than the home would have a negative monetary impact upon the neighborhood, even <br />though it may be physically ohtrusive. <br /> <br />5. The demonstrated need for such a use. <br /> <br />The eXisting garage--at 720 square feet-- is considered fairly typical hy todc~y 's standards. <br />While it does not have accessfor three vehicles, there is ample work area and supplemental <br />storage .~pace heyond that .~]Jace neededfor the vehicles. However with multi-carfamilies <br />heing the norm rather than the exception, demonstrating the needfor additional garage VJace <br />hecomes less of an issue. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the general criteria of <br />approval for conditional use permits, as stated in Section 1125.01 Subdivision 3.b. of the Mounds <br />View Zoning Code, can not fully be satisfied. These criteria and responses are as follows: <br /> <br />1. The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other <br />public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. <br />7. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. <br />