04-21-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 11 The Planning Commission agreed that the improvement would be a benefit to the home and would serve to make the property more habitable and to increase the value of the property, as well as possibly prompting others nearby to invest in their own properties. Because of the narrow lot width and the fact that the lot supports two dwellings, building expansion becomes difficult. Staff has examined the criteria upon which variance applications are to be judged and found that in all instances, a case can be made which supports the granting of a variance in this circumstance. There do not appear to be any negative impacts resulting from this addition, the living space would be located behind a planned garage addition, and would be buffered from the property to the north by an attached garage. The dwelling unit to the south, attached to Mr. Norris' unit, would not be impacted by this addition as it is separated by a common addition on the back side of the building. Ericson stated that given the supporting criteria, lack of negative impacts, and the resulting increased livability of the property, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 574-99, a resolution approving a variance to allow a building expansion with a five- foot setback from the north property line of 5302 Raymond Avenue, as requested by Don Norris. 11111 Ericson advised that the applicant was unable to attend but did call him this morning to ask if there were any unresolved issues. He stated there are no outstanding issues nor negative comments received since the last meeting. Commissioner Miller stated that she has been agonizing over this decision She stated she sees this can be an improvement to the property but there are seven criteria that must be followed to grant a variance and she is bothered by two. Specifically, the criteria indicates that by the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title, it would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. Miller noted that the applicant could build a different configuration and still maintain a ten-foot separation. She stated the criteria also requires that the special conditions or circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. Miller stated she understands the good intent but the variance says to grant the circumstances cannot be the result of actions of the applicant. Ericson stated staff, in reviewing the application, felt the actions are not the result of the property owner since the properties were platted many years ago and the way the twinhomes were configured on the lot did not lend to further expansion. He stated he understands Commissioner Miller's concerns but feels the hardship goes back further than the ownership of this applicant. Commissioner Hegland stated the Codes the City now follows are based on new construction techniques and requirements and the City is imposing those on existing properties that were built long ago, which is the function of redevelopment. He stated he believes this has created a • hardship for this particular property so he supports approval.