|
:
<br />,. �,.:; ..- . -.._ -{i r - -�< :-.-�-- : � - _ . -__ _ -- _ �-^il
<br />_ .. . _'. . �3.�==� � __ __'"_�� .. _ . . ' . _ . _ � _ -. . .. . . ___ I., "'_'_' " _ �...� . .- _ ,���._
<br />� .. . .. .: � ..'v ._- . r . .. _ . . ._ �
<br />Mounds View Planning Commission
<br />Regular Meeting
<br />Citizens' Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
<br />There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on
<br />4. Planning Case No. 578-99
<br />Property Involved: 2442 Laport Drive
<br />Consideration of a variance request for a reduced side-
<br />located at 2442 Laport Drive.
<br />Applicant: Spencer Mistelske
<br />The applicant was present.
<br />Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as
<br />;,.
<br />The applicant, Spencer Mistelske, is r�c�u�5ting a
<br />which on this lot is 30 feet, as it al�i.��� �. s��-eet r��
<br />takes the form of Faber Street, �w�t�I� was ori�;��2�11
<br />and at 30 feet in width, is ript su��;ient for a. ,�:��r��
<br />develop�c� "o� �mproved in �.k�� �'����ac�.
<br />January 5, 2000
<br />Page 2
<br />osed home to be
<br />variance from tiiie side-yard setback requirement,
<br />ht-of-way �e explained that this right-of-way
<br />y�olatted with the SMUDER Addition, in 1968,
<br />�, ;a��r� t� is the City's position that it will not be
<br />Plannir�� �� a���jE�,�,�; �.ricson �Y�c�a�y���c.� ther� rs one parcel that would take access from the right-of-
<br />way, an�l ti���; �� �e�z �, Blocic Y, ���?J���.;Addition. He advised that the City holds a Use Deed
<br />on this prope��y; ��:i�r��'�xe, there' �;, nt� �qr�cern that it would be landlocked, if in the future, the
<br />City decides �c� �r�c;�i:� �t�� ���ht-of-wa� ,<��
<br />Plann��'Associate Eric ��r�' ;�q���:��' ;R;he question that arises with this request pertains to whether or
<br />._.,��.�
<br />not`t}iere is a possibili� yt �g� �������tial development of this area at some point in the future. He
<br />, -,. ;
<br />a�ltised that if the Comz�,t`ssic�ii finds this to be the case, it would probably not be a good idea to
<br />y�,; � .
<br />�r�rnt a variance to the_��-foot setback requirement. He explained that they would not want to
<br />;.
<br />_:����,v for this house tc� 1�e located 10 feet from the side property line, if at some time in the future,
<br />F�, !�,�� �c;� �ould be ccilistructed directly in front of it. However, staff contends that this will not
<br />r.���� ���, ;{�r� i�, ��1t��td� probably not be unreasonable to grant a variance to allow for the 10-foot
<br />:h���<��,��a.' ��er ����r��d that a hardship is certainly present, in that the unimproved right-of-way exists,
<br /><� ; ��� � ��� �,i�y ��laa� no plans to improve it.
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated the site plan submitted by the applicant indicates a side-yard
<br />setback of 8 feet from the western property line, and additionally, an 8-foot setback from the
<br />eastern property line, which is the location of the proposed garages. He advised that this setback
<br />could be decreased to 5 feet, as the minimum setback requirement for a garage is 5 feet from the
<br />property line, and this would provide sufficient room on the west side of the lot for a 10 foot side-
<br />
|