|
_:. _ _ .. ..
<br />_ _. _` . As — � -
<br />—• - - � —
<br />,. - - -: - = l:- � - -- - =-- ._.- --
<br />,.. . _ . _ _�.��.._•.«.�..._ _ _
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission
<br />Regular Mceting
<br />Apri15, 2000
<br />Page 9
<br />the house so that the back portion of the garage has a setback that exceeds the s�
<br />front of the garage. He indicated the applicant is requesting a third stall addition,
<br />create a setback of 18 feet at the front of the garage, and a setback of 24 f�ca� ai. ��
<br />garage. ,,'
<br />.. i.: �.f.:(R
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated at the previous meetia
<br />discussed the basis for the 30 foot setback on corner lots, ay�
<br />should allow for vehicles travelling along the street to see tt'�
<br />He stated the Commission discussed that given the irregu��?�
<br />end of the garage setback that is 24 feet from the properi�{
<br />present sight lines. He indicated it was also mentioned tha� �
<br />Hodges Lane also allows for greater driver visibility. ,
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated another issue bfl ou�,�a;
<br />with regard to maintaining the uniform setback �� ����� ��e
<br />particular subdivision, there is no uniform setb�ca�� ���� `
<br />shape of the lots and the configurations of t�+�;�u1-de ��'��
<br />.��
<br />location of the houses. ,�;:� 6�,%
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated
<br />612-00, which would approve the
<br />indicated the resolution contains �
<br />pursuant toMinnesota Stat� aA;a����
<br />�
<br />obstacles t�s ��������"���������
<br />would have �� f�d�: ,�����s=d:e"a
<br />would make �� r;�� �� �r��$�'
<br />of
<br />of
<br />the
<br />at the
<br />of the
<br />51_ al$0 t ��
<br />¢:>;y
<br />•:a:::;,
<br />�.-
<br />$iihic;h ,�
<br />f
<br />�42�,°t<
<br />��� ��`-�he properiy a.c�� a,��� 3<.�;r:
<br />�i�s���lc� a�ot significan�ly «�x� 9 a:k1c
<br />?;�. � �>�,,;; �;etback of the house �r�om
<br />ard �?� ��aX`% ,�� ����� meeting was
<br />orhooc�. � ���! ��i�ised that in this
<br />��c;� th�� t�e�:ause of the irregular
<br />� ,.:; �,,, „�,if�rmitv in terms of the
<br />hese disc��ions, staff has drafted Resolution
<br />for the r�d'uced corner lot front setback. He
<br />.,�-;
<br />t addr�ss` the criteria required to be reviewe
<br />,� �����;,c� �the firs� "�F������aa�� pertains to exceptional or e�raordinary
<br />��;�, ����� ���raus� �he lot is of an irregular shape, it presents some
<br />��� ���£,,��J�a,c;c�. ��ia� in order to maintain a uniform setback, the house
<br />�� ��� a�,a.>���, �:����� would not make sense for this lot. He stated staff
<br />�,r; �,�„Icl i�� �¢�c�;�reted to be one of the extraordinary circumstances.
<br />, ,, ,,
<br />/`�,y �•
<br />�lann�ng Associate ��iE,��.n ��'�¢�'�%the second criteria indicates "The literal interpretation of t e
<br />_'�<�� ����; �_i,�,7 de rive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other
<br />>rca�tsions of this T�.�1., p
<br />/� s �Y
<br />����erties in the same c�� ���-����"' �e stated the rational ck re u rement�s.l He po nt d out that this
<br />.�
<br />`�� proposed garage ad�ition would have vary►ng set a q
<br />�E y�c.�t a normal situa#�#in, and the literal interpretation may cause some issues for the property
<br />5/K ' f
<br />,�.n,.��s� in t�rms of ��.'�eloping the lot.
<br />;:�,
<br />�,��;a ��r; i, F;�,�,, �ate Ericson stated the third criteria indicates "The variance request is the result of
<br />�� ;<,�p� v,�°�rc;r �����ich the applicant has no control." He explained that the applicant did not plat the
<br />lot, and did not cause the oddly shaped configuration of th� sult ofhhe appl cant s ct onsntha the
<br />the location where it needed to be, therefore, it is not as a
<br />hardship was created.
<br />
|