Planning Commission Resolution 595-99

Home Browse Search

. . . Planning Conunission Resolution 595-99 October 6, 1999 Page 2 4. The Character of the Surrounding Area Almost every lot in this area of Mounds View is the same size as the subject property. Many of the homes in the immediate area have a similar split-entry design and have attached two-car garages. Many of the homes have sheds in addition to their garages. 3. Whether such use wil/ tend to or actually depreciate the area inl1!hich it is proposed It is not believed that the construction of the shed, even one so large as is proposed by the applicants, would depreciate the neighborhood. The shed would be completely screened except for the peak, which might be visible from the adjacent properties. The shed would allow the applicants to store all of their pool equipment, yard equipment and other common items in one structure without taking away any room in the garage. 5. the demonstrated needfor such a use. The existing garage is a small, two-car garage of only 480 square feet. While expanding the garage to the rear is feasible, this option would take up well-utilized backyard space next to the home. The applicants desire to construct the shed behind the pool in a less-used part of the yard to minimize the impact of adding 384 square-feet of accessory building space. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings regarding the general criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, as required by Section 1125.0 I Subd. 3. b.: (1) the use wil/not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other publicfacilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (7) The use wil/not cause Irq/fic hazards' or congestion. (8) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and necessaryfacilities have heen or \1Jill he provided The addition of a storage shed, even one as large as that proposed, would not create a greater impact on existing public facilities or services, on utilities or access roads, nor would it create an increase in traffic on adjacent streets. (2) The use will he sufficiently compatihle or separated hy distance or screeningji'om adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes wil/not he depreciated in value and there wil/ he no deterrence to development qfvacant land (3) the structure and site shall have an appearance that wil/not hal'e all adverse effecl upon adjacent residential properties. The location of the shed behind the home and garage would hide it from general public view. Because of the tall fence surrounding the backyard area, the shed itself would be screened even from the adjoining properties as well. The shed would have a barn-like design, similar to one on an adjacent property, and would neither be incompatible with nor detrimental to this district.