Laserfiche WebLink
• Mounds View Planning Commission March 18, 1992 <br /> Special Meeting Page 2 <br /> would not confer special privileges on <br /> this applicant that are not enjoyed by <br /> other owners in the City. <br /> Commissioner Miller stated that the <br /> hardship in this case appears to be an <br /> economic hardship. <br /> Commissioner Nelson said that since the <br /> 1986 Planning Commission granted a <br /> variance based on the fact that the <br /> applicant did not create the situation, <br /> he would be in favor of granting this <br /> variance. <br /> Commissioner Stevenson felt that, if the <br /> variance went through, the proposed <br /> addition would look better aesthetically <br /> than if Mr. Herbst built in another part <br /> of the property. <br /> • Commissioner Ruggles felt that a <br /> hardship existed for the applicant in <br /> that it would be difficult to configure <br /> the building in a way that would meet <br /> setback requirements. <br /> Motion/Second: Stevenson/Peterson to <br /> approve Resolution No. 333-92, approving <br /> a fifteen foot variance from side yard <br /> setback requirements, Herbst and Sons, <br /> 2299 County Road H. <br /> 4 ayes 2 nays Motion Carried <br /> Commissioner Miller voted against <br /> granting the variance because she felt <br /> that the applicant had not met all of <br /> the criteria with regard to hardship. <br /> Chair Mountin voted against granting the <br /> variance because she didn't feel that <br /> the variance implied in the 1986 <br /> Resolution should be automatically <br /> conferred to this new case. In <br /> addition, Chair Mountin stated that she <br /> • felt that the applicant had only proven <br /> "practical difficulty' rather than <br />