|
_
<br />_ _ _ . ._ < , � �h _
<br />' � ...:�:�_ _,_ .s_ _. _ _ _ - -- - -- _ — — ' l;
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission
<br />Regular Meeting
<br />March 15, 2000
<br />Page 17
<br />have come from one of the two people he had spoken with on the telephone, whose
<br />addresses were not provided. He explained that in the letter, which the applicant h�
<br />there is mention of a privacy fence to assist in screening the site. He ind�cat�d thxs.;
<br />such an expansion more palatable to certain people in the area, altha��;;�� ��������
<br />condition may be viewed as unreasonable and unrelated to the acxiif�l: requc �:. '
<br />s�, �. _s
<br />Cornrnissioner Stevenson inquired regarding the accessib�€���
<br />Magoris stated the pool was above ground, completely su�t�L
<br />deck on the side. She explained that in order to access `r.}��; ���,
<br />gate and up the ladder on the deck, and the pool has €��-� �� <
<br />board. She added that the yard is completely fenced at �l�a��'
<br />fence.
<br />%t�j''
<br />Gary Millhouse, 7400 Park View Drive stated h�: li
<br />applicant. He indicated he had no problem with i�.F ;�F
<br />be directly facing it. He stated he believed th.� �����v=
<br />with regard to the proposal are located to th��,��icie of
<br />the garage would not be across the street f���#'tii either`
<br />,.<::�. .�
<br />Mr. Millhouse stated he believed
<br />He indicated this is one of the a
<br />much concerned regarding the �
<br />they continue to rise. I�� �����
<br />expand�c' s,��ages help it��;�'��'���
<br />could ��:, ����.��
<br />pertaina��� �.�� �
<br />stated he wou
<br />trt���he street. H�
<br />�
<br />begin to encroach
<br />;ated he would be
<br />rder to grant a var
<br />h�orhood, he ha� a
<br />no c���a!
<br />�.r�d_ �.�
<br />of the
<br />[�
<br />who
<br />and
<br />t make
<br />such a
<br />10/I2"�.
<br />tust go tnr�u��A� E��R ,� e�.a,�.
<br />i�y her daycare ���; �z ��1�
<br />v�v�r, it is not a�rivacy
<br />� a� �;;�-i� north of the
<br />>t���l, and he would
<br />iave some concerns
<br />He pointed out that
<br />i�� �€��' ^�/�;��
<br />;���ee-car ,�a'age would�increase the value of the property.
<br />t��velopm�tts in the C��y of Mounds View, and he is very
<br />rty valu�s � that nea��orhood, and would like to see that
<br />, :;< .
<br />at nei�l�l�o�'s ��� ��est in their homes with additions an
<br />; valu�! ��` �,��' �h�j'tiomes, and make this a very desirable
<br />�� rJo,� �; ��°c�7;�mity to the applicant's garage as a neighbor
<br />�;,r,, this proposal. He indicated he understood the issues
<br />?�����g Commission must take these into consideration. He
<br />� h� �atYUmission provide the Magoris with a variance.
<br />,�,,,� ;c� he had some concerns regarding the expansion of a corner lot
<br />�s(�a���;�? ;�hat corner lots are more difficult to deal with, however, when
<br />�,;r:;b: -�;%,�n 30 feet, other issues come into play, such as sight lines. He
<br />�c�rned about this proposal independent of the criteria that must be met
<br />�e. He added that although this is probably a larger lot than most in the
<br />impression from looking at the photograph that it is already overbuilt.
<br />s !'.
<br />�~����;g�$ ���E�� �`;#�Venson advised that they must be very careful when considering corner lots,
<br />U�,���,� ,x���;��.�' iurn in both directions. He stated be setback 40Sfeet from the�oads which
<br />�;f��r'„�� E;�;��t �; �n place, however, the house appears to
<br />wc��ld probably provide a sufficient safety factor with the expansion.
<br />Mr. Murlowski stated he agreed there were reasons fncroach into�the str et and obstruct
<br />requirement, in that they would not want a structure to e
<br />traffic visibility. He stated the applicant's house is situated on the lot with a 40-foot front yard
<br />
|