Laserfiche WebLink
� - <br />Mounds View <br />Planuing Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />. .. . : <br />-.. . . . , , ; <br />August 1, 2001 <br />Page 3 <br />associated with this property to warrant approval of the variance requested. The Pianning <br />Commission, however, should discuss these cr�tenia and open the floor to pulilic commen# before <br />coming to any conclusions. <br />Planning Associate Atkinson agreed that the five-foot variarice requested is iriinimal .{representing <br />a five-percent reduction in ihe width of the lot), which is comparable to reducing a LO-foot,side <br />yard setback to 9.5 feet. Where Staff has the most concern; ,howeyer, 'is that once the variance ` <br />request becomes a function of the proposed rezoning arid uot the� location of the house; the <br />element of hardship is no longer apparent, Staff does belie'.ve that there would be just cause and <br />reasonable hardship to reduce #he side yard setback of the propased middle lot because it would <br />be based upon the location of the house and not solely on. economic •factors. This would result in <br />only ane of the lots (Lot 5) being ahle to be zoned R-2, however. <br />s���. <br />Planning Associate Atkinson advised that, based up'o� the findings as presenied and the lack of <br />demonstrated hardship, Staff recommends derii�al �of, ��e = proposed variance and has drafted <br />Resolution b68 for the Commission's action. ��If the applicant, w�uld consider scaling back his <br />rezoning request to only proposed Lot 5,: Staff wouTd be willin� to `recommend approval of a <br />reduced-side yard setback variance, associated with;tlie � <br />>�,:: <br />Chaarperson Stevenson suggested° that if Mr. �Gstafs� <br />- easement be provided on the <br />was not sufficient space on <br />extend intp :the adjacent lo�;�l <br />;, } , <br />Planning <br />Commissioner Miller:stat� <br />order -for the variance r`Eq <br />were met in this case and' <br />�de of t� <br />dIe lot. <br />were reduced as suggested, an <br />. He also suggested that if there <br />��vest side of=1Vlr' Gt���fson's property, the easement should <br />,:_ <br />�>;.� <br />gh a lease agreeme��` He stated that �e would prefer that Lot 3 <br />�b0 feet anc�¢'`"he��`��agreed that there is not sufficieni hardship <br />E'�a�'rant-approval of the variance request for Lot 3. <br />:;�� <br />ecI thaf au `'easement along the property line may be possible. <br />she read the criteria listed in the staff report that must be met in <br />be approved. She stated that she did not feel any of the criteria <br />would prefer a minimum lot width of 100 feet for Lot 3. <br />Cfiairperson Stevenson i�vited the applicant and the public in attendance io address the Planning <br />Gommission. ��� _ <br />'7 � <br />Ei�ue �G-ustafson, 2525 County Road I, stated that he was shocked by Staffls recommendation for <br />denial ,of;hi�s, variance request since he could see no reason to not be granted a small five-foot <br />varian�e .on a 95-foot wide lot. He noted in June the City Council had approved the rezoning of <br />the lots, providing the Planning Commission approved of the five-foot setback variance. <br />Mr. Gustafson stated earlier this summer he had begun advertising the sale of his property and <br />indicated that one interested party had wanted to conshuct townhouses, however, he was not <br />willing to agree to this type of development. He stated a young couple from Afton, Minnesota <br />had been interested in constructing a single-family home on Lot 3, however, because this process <br />