|
. . .. . - ' " _ " I .. '"
<br />Mounds View Planning Comm�ssion
<br />Regular Meeting
<br />Applicant: Cathy Magoris
<br />The applicant was present.
<br />Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows:
<br />The applicant, Cathy Magoris, who lives at 2741 Hodges
<br />corner of Hodges Lane and Park View Drive, is request
<br />foot corner front yard setback. She would like to e��
<br />square-foot garage into an 864 square-foot three-car gar�,
<br />Planning Associate Ericson indicated the existing garage is
<br />line, on the corner of the property, and the applicant is p�
<br />18 feet at the front corner of the garage. He explai��d �:�
<br />garage would be more than 18 feet, as Park Vi��r1 !��'A�i
<br />provided the Commission with a photograph of ���, ::�����r��%�
<br />�`��
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated, as with��y `
<br />to act favorably, there must be a demonsY.rated'
<br />property that makes a literal interpx��a,tton of
<br />property owner. He indicated ��€��.� �tatutes,
<br />specified criteria for each applic���on anc� sri�:
<br />which are set forth in Sect�otz-112 s:02, Su�rJ��r�
<br />that a ha�-���-�3? exists whe� ��1 �� i�x� ��teri�; :;a���;
<br />Plannir��, '� � ���°����� �r�rson
<br />f '
<br />presenis s�.�a��>����k��'��� ��� �.�rm,
<br />and similat � �E��_� ��' ���1-a�z����o
<br />opinion, wc�,u��� ��s�Y ����r�t� s�;T��
<br />, ,
<br />1 distnc�,�� ��e inc�����.c� � ���
<br />�,.
<br />this �r,��est, the config� ti'� �_
<br />f ><
<br />ap��`val of the request��r.�
<br />�.�i�1e granting a vananc�;, �
<br />�:.
<br />�„�d°c?mental to the Code; �if
<br />,„
<br />S.t���'���z�ce should not bet;�pp
<br />March 15, 2000
<br />Page 15
<br />which is
<br />. ,
<br />�h� setba�;;�.
<br />,���,les away
<br />im the a:
<br />attached
<br />��_n_ the side property
<br />��:b�cic be reduced to
<br />�� �,��:1c corner of the
<br />���� �;�ac; property. He
<br />ianc�.a��,�����4:�:cr�.y, ��3�'��ie Planning Commission
<br />.:;:.
<br />�d�p or pra�����;�� �+ii�iculty associated with the
<br />s`, :.
<br />�yCode ov��1y i�uic�ensome or restrictive to a
<br />�uire that ��Iii� governing body review a set of
<br />��,:� .
<br />its deci�,€�€ii m accordance with these criteria,
<br />�5 �, ��' �'he City Code. The Code clearly states
<br />;���� ���a�;, )/� 7 kIodges Lane is an odd-shaped corner lot which
<br />oA°�����;�s���zk��;���;, yet there are numerous other corner lots in the City
<br />,�. ��� ���ra �,,��;t the literal interpretation of the Code, in staf�s
<br />�� ��pli���� o�� �ights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the R-
<br />��,������ siaff' does not feel there are any special circumstances regarding
<br />>r� �i,� �kte lot is certainly not the doing of the applicant. He stated that
<br />.,�°���� would in effect confer upon the applicant a special privilege.
<br />� ailovv for the third garage stall would not necessarily be materially
<br />indicated that based upon the other criteria, it would appear that the
<br />oved as not all of the criteria are satisfied.
<br />�-;<;�,�;�
<br />i��,;,,
<br />���pR�ka ��r., ��,���,����"Ericson indicated staffhas not prepared a resolution for action at this time.
<br />�� �;E 3��,x��,�_.�� �:�iat there is some gray area with regard to the criteria, and the requirement is that
<br />��� fiy�,,,���,; c�.iii�;i7a must be met in order to grant a variance. He indicated staff has attempted to
<br />address the criteria, however, the Planning Commission might not be in agreement with these
<br />findings. He stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a
<br />resolution either approving or denying the variance request, for their consideration at the next
<br />meeting. He explained that if staff is directed to draft a resolution of approval, the Commission
<br />should discuss this item, and detertnine clear findings of fact in support of that. He indicated this
<br />
|