04-21-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission April 21, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 • Commissioner Kaden asked if the hardship was created by whoever platted the lot and constructed the twinhome. Ericson stated the original design of this subdivision may not have been fully thought out to allow for the construction of garages or any future expansion. He noted the Codes at the time of construction may have been different. From staffs perspective, they felt the situation and circumstance was not created by the property owner himself but, rather, the person who platted and designed the twinhomes. Ericson noted the design of new twinhomes utilize the land much better and provide for living space and building area. Commissioner Miller asked if there will be future problems with requests for five-foot setbacks. Ericson stated this is one of the criteria that needs to be considered, how many properties this would apply to. He stated this row of twinhomes face a similar situation but staff weighed that consideration being raised and felt whether a precedent was being set or not, a similar variance request would be looked at in the same way. Commissioner Braathen asked if this is creating a hardship for the adjacent property should they want a mirror development. Ericson stated he does not think it would impact or limit the adjoining property's ability to expand. He noted the unit to the north does have a garage on the south side of the lot. Chair Peterson reviewed the configuration of the unit on the lot and noted the great limitation presented. He agreed with Ericson that the hardship occurred with the original platting and design of the units. Chair Peterson stated the Commission must consider whether this request will result in a benefit to the City and the neighborhood. Commissioner Berke stated he believes this will be an improvement to the property and, as a Planning Commission, they should support the redevelopment of older buildings. He commented they may need to be more sensitive to this type of situation arising in the future. He stated his support for approval. Commissioner Miller noted the variance criteria were not developed by the City. Commissioner Berke noted that this property was planned in the 1950s and 1960s and the City is trying to impose today's standards. He stated you need to make some allowances and not place a hardship on owners who want to improve their property. Chair Peterson noted that a variance, by it's very definition, addresses unique situations so he weights that issue as well. He stated he agrees with comments made that with a redevelopment situation of less than ideal conditions, it needs to be considered while assuring a precedent is not set that will cause future problems. He suggested that the proposed resolution mention the uniqueness of this particular lot. . Ericson stated if a similar application is made and it becomes an issue where more variance requests are being made, then maybe the Code should be reviewed to see if it should be changed