Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission April 19, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 3 <br />_______________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />5B. Planning Case CU2000-004. Consideration of an Expired Conditional Use Permit <br />for an Over-size Garage, 2832 Woodale Drive, Tom Stampfle. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson informed the Commission that the applicant is <br />requesting a re-approval of a conditional use permit to construct a 1,248 square foot garage. The <br />CUP expired after one year due to a lack of use. <br /> <br />Director Ericson stated the garage would be attached to the house by a breezeway. The backyard <br />is very wooded. The new garage would be attached to the existing garage and does not appear to <br />be out of place. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller wondered if the one-year expiration was after the Planning Commission or <br />City Council approval. Director Ericson indicated it would be after the City Council approved it. <br />He noted he could add this to the information for clarification. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Hegland/Meehlhause. To Approve Resolution 829-06, a Resolution <br />Reaffirming a Recommendation of Approval for a Conditional Use Permit for an Over-Sized <br />Garage at 2832 Woodale Drive. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />6. Other Planning Activity <br /> <br />A. Review City Code related to retaining walls and fences <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson stated the City Council would like the Planning <br />Commission to have some discussion related to retaining walls and fences. He noted the <br />Amundsens’ pointed this out to the Staff because they felt some wording in the code needed to <br />be clarified. The City Council thought this should be reviewed for proposed language if an <br />amendment was needed. <br /> <br />Director Ericson stated the only mention of retaining wall in the code is in Section 1103.08, <br />Subd. 1, where it addresses grade change or separations. He noted they contacted cities <br />adjoining Mounds View to find out how they deal with fences and retaining walls and that <br />information is included in the staff report. <br /> <br />Director Ericson stated the other issue related to fences is whether or not there should be a <br />setback for retaining walls and fences. Many of the cities they contacted did not have setback <br />requirements except for Vadnais Heights, who had a setback if it was a privacy fence, and <br />Blaine, who had a setback if they were six feet in height. The only problem with setbacks is if <br />there are fences back-to-back, there may be alleyways between them that may not be properly <br />maintained. <br /> <br />Director Ericson noted the City requires a five-foot fence surrounding swimming pools.