Laserfiche WebLink
_ , , <br />_ ; ; ,� t : f <br />- fi�� ,'r%i�r.ii,-..:r��-;j. }�/.�..�.1�!Ti!�t�l1lG_r�'�:'S` 3s <br />-. _ <br />- - (-' <br />' � . - -. ...__ .-_. . -_ - ---- i� <br />� <br />Mounds View Ptanning Commission March 15, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 19 <br />Commissioner Miller indicated they were not denying garages per se, as the applicant already has <br />a two-car garage. Commissioner Stevenson indicated they also could not deny the reque��"�in the <br />basis of requesting a third stall. He stated he did not believe the numb�x� `�af stal�s��'yunless it <br />exceeded three stalls, was relevant. �,, %- ' <br />Commissioner Hegland explained that in order to interpret t�,�;properly, <br />have to compare corner lots of the same shape, which woulc� �� very diffi� <br />intent of the 30-foot setback on corner lots is to address �x a:���f; ����ibility:� <br />_ �: �� <br />Chairperson Peterson stated the setback requirement was it� <br />explained that the front yard setback of all homes along the l� <br />to the corner, and is uniform all the way down the block. ; <br />structures located too close to the street in relationship`5:�o <br />stated the main argument £or the 30-foot setback is tlus ��tai�o <br />Commissioner Stevenson stated the 30-foot <br />structures would all be in alignment. Mr. :� <br />setback 37 feet from the street at one poin�,:s:� <br />oth� <br />rrm�ty <br />��� <br />would <br />��� the <br />other reasons �s �i�;�'. �-1e <br />�• ,,,. <br />r.�a,�, which carries throug <br />:s �r�ziance would result in <br />��;�.���-�;�' �r► tihat block, He <br />�€� cnaintain that the <br />located on Lot 5, is <br />� <br />Chai erson Peterson stated he had �t��erns wrtk� iregard to t�� second criteria, in that granting <br />� � <br />the variance might confer on th� ��;��icant s��,�ial privile��'s denied to the owners of other <br />��: <br />properties in the same district. H� +e�cplatn�r� e��� .�►e was,.�,�, iicerned that approval of this request <br />might set a, precedent, and tY�e ow3�ers of o �.��� ��;��a e a�� ���s would desire the same consideration. <br />He poinc�,�:1 s��;:� it could k��; ��������:� °�hat this A� �����. �a i����caY corner lot. <br />Connrna������'��;� h 3�:P,1a.�.c�. i_r <br />prop�rEy, a�4�� �x��4, �����a�r��?1.. <br />requests foo� ����,�����xA � a.€, �a:: <br />��;;;: , , '' ' <br />CommissY�ir�er l�/Iille� r�.��hf�� <br />xher>b'y State Lav�. <br />~.;; <br />itfii:;�nternretin� these <br />ved this proposal to be an improvement to the <br />tv was well built, and there have been a number of <br />the criteria for granting a variance were not set by the City, but <br />�er Hegland pointed out that Planning Commission is charged <br />�y . <br />issioner Miller iri�uired if the driveway width would increase at the structure. P anrung <br />_:<::: <br />ate Ericson st�;:"" this would not necessarily be the case. <br />inquired regarding the content of the letter staff received pertaining to the <br />lv���. 1�/�agoris indicated they would be willing to construct a privacy fence. She reiterated that <br />tlus proposal does not represent a significant difference in terms of the current view of the <br />adjacent properties, which would simply continue to see the side of a garage. <br />