My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2012/04/23
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
Agenda Packets - 2012/04/23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:47:33 PM
Creation date
6/26/2018 2:46:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
4/23/2012
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
4/23/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council March 12, 2012 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br /> <br />several neighbors did not object to the garage itself, the feeling was the rules should have been 1 <br />followed. The Commission could not find the practical difficulty in this case and, therefore, 2 <br />denied the variance request. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Planning Associate Heller stated at this time, the applicant was appealing the variance denial by 5 <br />the Planning Commission. Staff posted another public hearing for this case, and an email was 6 <br />received from the property owners at 2508 Sherwood stating they did not object to the garage. 7 <br />Mayor Flaherty also received a phone call stating a neighbor did not object to the garage. Staff 8 <br />understood that the garage was well built, but found no reason for the variance to be approved. 9 <br />She presented several photos of the garage at 8027 Woodlawn for the Council to review. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Planning Associate Heller requested the Council hold a public hearing, allow the applicant to 12 <br />speak, and then take action on the Resolution. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Mayor Flaherty opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. 15 <br /> 16 <br />Christy Downing, 8027 Woodlawn Drive, reviewed a written statement with the Council. She 17 <br />requested the Council reconsider the variance request denied by the Planning Commission. Mrs. 18 <br />Downing believed the situation was a big misunderstanding and requested the Council keep their 19 <br />minds open while reviewing the information this evening. She stated the City has been 20 <br />concerned with the height of the garage. It was noted the garage was built according to plans, 21 <br />with the exception of a five inch difference in height and the added dormers. 22 <br /> 23 <br />Mrs. Downing stated the report from the City states the initial plan submitted showed a height of 24 <br />11 feet at the midway point, this was inaccurate. The original plans had a height of 15 feet at the 25 <br />midway point. She reported the City changed their code regarding garage heights, since the 26 <br />original plans were approved. Their garage was being held to the new limit. A change to the 27 <br />trusses brought about the increase in garage height. 28 <br /> 29 <br />Tim Downing, 8027 Woodlawn Drive, stated the garage was constructed between August of 30 <br />2010 and March of 2011. He had received permission from the City to build a garage that had a 31 <br />15 foot mid-way height which resulted in an overall height of 21 feet at the peak. This was 32 <br />changed to 15½ feet at the mid-way point which resulted in an overall height of 22½ feet. He 33 <br />understood he did not have permission to add dormers to the garage. 34 <br /> 35 <br />Mr. Downing stated the staff report claims the garage that was built was different from the plans 36 <br />submitted in 2007. He explained the plans are almost the same, with the exception of the 37 <br />dormers. The original plans were for a single story garage with attic trusses, to allow for storage. 38 <br />The garage that was built was a single story garage with attic trusses with a dormer on each side 39 <br />of the roof. He clarified that the garage was not a two story. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Mrs. Downing requested the Council to consider the negative impact the community would feel 42 <br />by denying the variance request. She understood the need for Zoning Codes within the City, 43 <br />however, there was some flexibility built into this system through the variance process. She felt 44 <br />her garage was not causing harm to her neighbors and was in line with the character of the 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.