Laserfiche WebLink
� � �- c �' �>� <br />. � . . . - � � �.t! �� .-?� x ::� -1 , h ' . r - <br />_ - - -. - . . _ . . - - - _ -- � �-.— _ . _ . � . .... <br />�,� __ -- --.. - = -- - - il� �%i.%„�'✓i/iis'f. r � 'iifiy,, . ".�rriiii/%�i; <br />i � x <br />- %����� ; - � — -- - <br />Mounds View Ptanning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />April 5, 2000 <br />Page 10 <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated with regard to the fourth criteria, the granting of a <br />allow for the 1 S-foot corner lot front setback would allow the applicant to better <br />property, yet, in staf�s opinion, would not confer upon the property owner ;�����;; ci�ni� <br />in the same district, due to the unique configuration of the lot. ,_ <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated the fifth finding of fact i <br />finds that the requested 18-foot setback is the minimum vari� <br />applicant's hardship, yet would still result in a 24-foot ��;cts� <br />garage." He advised that the sixth finding indicates th� ��� �� <br />yard, corner-lot setback for the proposed garage additi���. fxJ� <br />the purpose of the Title or to other property in the same zon� <br />Planning Associate Ericson indicated the last finding sta� <br />a supply of light or increase congestion, nor woui� i'r i�� <br />public safety or diminish property values." He ,;a�s;�;� <br />requirements for hardship, and staff has drafted t}aF: __ �:,� � <br />the Planning Commission feels the findmg����e no� �r <br />manner, staffis open to suggestions in tlus r���ard. <br />Chairperson Peterson stated he did <br />the Title would deprive the appliG, <br />there is an existing two car-garag� i <br />within the City, this is c��-��i,�ly g���' <br />garag�� a�� �;�� �'ity thar� a:�;4�;���; ��i�� <br />Chairp� <br />subject <br />other p�Q'p�iiy o <br />"The <br />nce to <br />ze the <br />others <br />rn��sion <br />�:.�;:� th� <br />�:. <br />�_ to the,.sfx�et fi-oYr� ��<� ,:�,��� ���.��A�, <br />+;lf> � ��riance for a ��rEi�r���� ������� <br />�f�' ��f�> ���e materially decri,x��; flzr:+� i:�o <br />i ��-���������d���F,�� vvould not impair <br />�-��`� �����;�� �'�� "+�� ��: or endanger the <br />: findii�ps da�r; �; ���'s view of the <br />� reflect Q����;, ':�_ �� indicated that if <br />�d�i� �rr shc�uld be altered in any <br />,�t�t;�'�lieve th�t'`"the liteial ��teYprretation of the provisions of <br />�lt;::t�i n�}l�� �,��y�oyed by;a�her properties. He explained that <br />;�i the pro���;y, and al��ugh there are many three car garages <br />the norr�_ �� ;�tt��a���'d there were probably more single car <br />: three ���� �;�x�;�f���;`therefore, he did not believe this would <br />�r��y en�oy`e>� ��r �c��ers. <br />�3�� ��r���� ��,��r �'� �� to exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, the <br />;�,�a��y ����.s���i ����;��however, a trapezoid lot on a corner property is not <br />rr� y���y���� ����'� �hat approval of this request would create a potential for <br />��s���.��� �he same consideration. <br />(,o�[hissioner Johnsor� �f�; ��� ��� was of the same opinion at the previous meeting, however, given <br />���� �raffic visibility and ���t� ��,�cors, and in light ofthe fact that the setback is 18 feet in the front <br />��`��� 24 feet in the bac��e was leaning in the opposite direction. Commissioner Miller added that <br />, �. <br />E�a' ��ct that the setba��from the street is 40 feet rather than the typica130-foot setback is another <br />_ , . �::;��:> <br />�terson stated the argument pertaining to a uniform setback is compelling, however, <br />a hardship. <br />Commissioner Stevenson stated he could see no reason for denying this request. He indicated <br />there were quite a few three-car garages within the City, and the Planning Cotnmission would be <br />seeing more requests for these in the future. He stated it was fairly common for the Planning <br />Commission to approve third-stall garage expansions. <br />