1998 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

F .'�i � . . . . . .. _ . . . �� _ ' . _ _—,_ �. _ k,_�"c_.=4=:= ___`___"— _ _1 L ��— � .. . ." ' '_ ' „_ . .__ -__' . . , ._ . �_ —_ . ^_ "_�.�'_ _. y "�.. � Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1998 Regular Meeting Page 3 Four Chair Peterson returned the floor to the Commission for questions and comments. Commissioner Miller asked what the encroachment had been of the home tli� previously occupied the lot. � Inspector porgan told the Commission the previou� h�i:� e ha� ��pn•it i� �,,feet from the property line. �",�'�`� � �rt.. _ : � Commissioner Brasaemle thanked Prefened Bualck��s �'or ��time and e�c>��rh�t;was�`put in to researching, at his request, other home plan� ��i� �s4�; �ite. ,>J"`� Commissioner Obert suggested building an overs� E�:t� �,�.vc� �� ;a.rage, to comply with the ri%.% building foot print requirements, as opposed to �i"under:�sz�r� P�tr�;� c�z• garage. Mr. Westerlund answered by saying an a�x�z's�xed two car gara;�� .��ii�ld be very close in size to an undersized three car �arage ;�>' Commissioner Brasaemle problem because the house has to be 5' from the side p� the width of the house. T�+ ��44' wid� house �s��',�, �vvo car garage stiil has a as to b�y1�0' from tfze side property line, the garage only line ;�`o the prol��em is not the garage, the problem is w�ih �o garage�a all would still require a four foot �oxr�mr�a��r��r ��t��,r�.RY,r ��.ted h� was i�lclined to vote in favor of the variance because �he �tt� l�n��,r.i��e lot �ir�+�� v��g�sized when they bought it. It was also known that a variane� �t��alc3 i�c r��c�u.i��c� i�+ �xaa.Id;f� the property workable within the EDA requirement that a 1900 �r��x�� o� llo�� I�iailt on the property. S„ya :, � l e� nd• Petersc��1l.'a�C�I��aa°'Y,o approve the version of Resolution No. 532-98, Approving a r�it Variance to tk�c� ��.�r�tazr�d 30-foot Front Yard Setback. Commission 01i;ei�t sta.ted his agreement with Commissioners Brasaemle and Stevenson, <:�. except for one;point; that point being this particular development does not fall under the �'ity's Hous�ng Replacement Projects. tt.;�L�� eterson suggested as part of the Whereas statements, on Page 2, language should l�� added to the second Whereas that says, "No new corner lots would be platted with this substandard size." The only situations that would not apply would be already existing properties that are substandard and the home on the property was going to be tota.11y replaced. The Commissioners agreed.