|
_ -
<br />_ r �; _ ; _ - ,
<br />4 .
<br />._._ � - - .' .. . -�_. - - -_ - -� til � .� -_ : � ' __ �
<br />- ::. - �.. .._- '_",: -- . - .
<br />._ . .. _'. --- .. . � : I.��. .�.�:_ . ._�_:^ �. _ -_ �
<br />_... . . .. . .. . _. _' -'._ _ . i . __ _ -
<br />_ .:. ..:.- .-. •' . ., .�. . .._ _ ' _' -___-� __. ._..__ _ _ . .___ .
<br />� . . ;:. ..: :, . .- � ,. . .. '-�•..� �..::':'"...�_.�._ .. � "'
<br />April 5, 2000
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission page 11
<br />Regular Mect►ng
<br />Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to see some comments pertainin� to the �i,":yg�' lines
<br />included in the granting of this item, as this was a major consideration.���-�����xcat��'�he would
<br />point of much discussion at the previous meeting, and had the s�ght 1
<br />�'��� �;=z�
<br />not be leaning toward approving this request. �h,
<br />,; �.
<br />.�„r�
<br />Commissioner Berke concurred. He stated he was leaning� tE��srard approv��, �� w��?., a�� �aY,���< of the
<br />sight lines and the manner in wk►ich the block curves rF���� 3�a �n the��r�'�i`nt yaYC� �Yk��������� '��
<br />indicated this creates a hardship on the applicant, addin� ����^3 ��?�-L1�,������'Yy in light of thr �s1��1�,����'��
<br />siting of the garage, he did not see a problem.
<br />Commissioner Laube stated he believed that the Commis�3���. "�f°�-=�,�
<br />should also examine the extension of the drive extens oh� � pl� d� i
<br />recently been amended to allow for a 12-foot
<br />garage. % � � ..
<br />Chairperson Peterson stated he did not belie�t�>tni:
<br />advised that corner lots were not specifi���y adc
<br />Ericson stated there is no requirement for �nveway
<br />Commissioner Johnson pointed
<br />Planning Associate Ericson
<br />«�E�]E1�S" clause b� �c�€��
<br />review�c� ���� . �ight liz��, 7;,r����
<br />C�11uiRn FD��kA n! � SS A.➢ b11f� L�-� zr ��A��.
<br />this va.Y ��.���;w;,',�
<br />Resolution �I�. � �`:�°-�f��
<br />;,
<br />Mounds����w �or�t�g-,
<br />lot 5,���`�ck for a Gara.
<br />,y%.,
<br />OO;�s��f�s Amended.
<br />fi,�,�
<br />' Ayes — t
<br />the request, and
<br />as the Code has
<br />?� ,`r.�e side of the
<br />`' Commissioner Laube
<br />;. Planning Associate
<br />property line.
<br />y;
<br />��' hical errq , within the body of the resolution.
<br />wsr�s�al tYPo�p �
<br />ted the ''�i`�'ors woulCi�`�be corrected. He suggested a
<br />,;, .;
<br />the rP.vc���,�a��x� �c� ��dlcate "The Planning Commission as
<br />�nd a��'' ����a�� '���ing of fact to indicate "The Planning
<br />� and ��i�e;� ���u�s would not be impaired by the granting of
<br />���-,�-� ;�,� �'o Approve Mounds View Planning Commission
<br />.tL�„�,F�'� ��,x�xc�ving a Variance from Section 1104.01, Subd. 4, of the
<br />_,�:,.aining io Setbacks to Allows for a Reduced Front Yard, Corner-
<br />��g:�ii�n at 2741 Hodges Lane, Mounds View Planning Case VR00-
<br />Nays — 1(Peterson) The motion carried.
<br />:�;;�
<br />��i,,;;�;�
<br />'�t�r;�q� stated his reason for opposing this motion is that he does not believe t e
<br />� �=,��ent is met.
<br /><<ii��� Case CU00-002
<br />Property Involved: 2159 Terrace Drive.
<br />Discussion and Consideration of Resolution 614-00, a Ra 256ts uare foo Overs zed Shed al of a
<br />Conditional Use Permit to Allow for the Construction o q
<br />Applicant: Robert Kleinschmidt
<br />
|