Laserfiche WebLink
.- ,- � � k <br />'_ - -- -=--- � .` ---- - — - ;-- _,_._ - . - --�. = ��::� . .. �------ -_- -- _� � --- : <br />i - <br />� <br />Mounds View Planning Commission February 2, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 3 <br />Chairperson Peterson inquired if there was any further inforrr <br />delineation. Community Development Director Jopke stated <br />remain with regard to the proposal, and it would be appropn <br />deny this particular request. <br />He pointed out that the applicant was examining the possi�; <br />property, which could eliminate the need for a variance, t�� <br />where the house would be located. <br />�e indica4�'�a����r � <br />Dt`the Planni�;; �;:��A�� <br />of some'rt�inor sul�c�:�� <br />dang t�pon how ttiis � <br />Commissioner Johnson stated this was a situation where the �Y���;�r(. <br />considering subdividing and building houses in this are�i, He ; <br />approved, it would affect the potential improvement of Faber Str <br />houses could be constructed. <br />Community Development Director Jopke stat�d- this w�W res� ���;�:�,' ° <br />to the adjacent property owner's ability to t�btain prop�r �.c,c,��� �r� <br />Johnson explained that if Faber Street �vas ever; irriprovec�, � <br /><.;,: <br />approved, the proposed home would .}�� Iocated in �oo close a��i-o <br />for proper access. ; 4-��` <br />� <br />Commissioner Miller poin�:�� <br />the worc� "�€" should b�; ��; <br />Chaij-��c;d�c�,{i 9����rson st�ie� <br />«Adopte�l 2� „�3' ,�`�� t��:y of � e� <br />iew Zonin� �;��c�� � <br />House at 2��� �_t���� <br />: <br />�on <br />estions <br />;E��;aon to <br />erty owner was also <br />:x if this item were <br />h�i:her or not those <br />�?ddii�g that much of this related <br />ic.> x�e �roperty. Commissioner <br />,��� �his variance request was <br />,iif��i�y to Faber Street to allow <br />in the �i �f, "�%T�l:�".�AS" of the resolution, the letter "T" in <br />z�d page of the resolution should be amended to indicate, <br />}�,�� <br />t.' To Approve Mounds View Planning Commission <br />I�eriying a Variance from Section 1104.01, Subd. 4, of the <br />to Setbacks to Allow for a Reduced Sideyard Setback for a <br />; Planning Case No. 578-99, as corrected. <br />Nays — 0 Motion carried. <br />, <:, <br />�'���missioner Steu�+ei��on pointed out that although the resolution is approved, this action denies <br />����� �,�;a ^r�x� �eterson stated this was correct. He indicated that this denial was not based so much <br />upoY� ^a lack of inerit in this case, but rather, because there was not sufficient information available <br />with which to proceed, and by State Statute, if action is not taken within a certain time period, the <br />matter is automatically approved. <br />6e Annual Review of Planning Commission Bylaws. <br />