Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission May 1, 1991 <br /> Regular Meeting Page Two • <br /> It was agreed that a road easement is necessary to <br /> allow for future road construction. Chair Mountin <br /> indicated that in keeping with past practice, the <br /> City would not take any more easements than needed. <br /> It was noted that the 30 foot easement that Code <br /> requires would not be consistent with existing <br /> properties . The need for an 8 foot easement along <br /> Groveland Road was also questioned. <br /> The issue regarding the existing garage being on the <br /> property line was discussed. Ms . Pidel indicated <br /> that the park land was dedicated to the City 25 years <br /> ago and the garage was built 3 years ago. A permit <br /> had been obtained for the garage and it had been <br /> inspected. It was agreed by the Planning Commission <br /> that 10 feet should be dedicated back to the <br /> applicant in order to remedy the non-conforming <br /> structure. <br /> It was questioned whether or not a park dedication <br /> fee would be required since the applicant dedicated <br /> the park land. Planner Harrington stated that <br /> according to State Statutes a fee would be required. <br /> It was noted that the applicant would be scheduled at S <br /> the May 13th regular City Council meeting for action. <br /> Motion/Second: Zollner/Colleen to approve Resolution <br /> No. 312-91 with the amendment of the first <br /> contingency on the resolution to deed back 10 feet of <br /> land along the southern most line of Tract A to <br /> remedy the non-conforming structure and the second <br /> contingency that 15 feet be deeded over to the City <br /> by the applicant for road right-of-way. <br /> Motion Carried <br /> 5 ayes 0 nays <br /> 6 . Consideration <br /> It was noted that the applicant, John Engberg, was of Resolution <br /> not present. No. 313-91 <br /> Regarding <br /> Resolution No. 313-91 was discussed by the Planning Conditional Use <br /> Commission. Planner Harrington stated that the Permit Request <br /> request regarding the oversized garage could be by John <br /> considered a conditional use permit request according Engberg, 3030 <br /> to an ordinance that had recently been passed. County Road J, <br /> Planner Harrington noted that the Code Book he was Planning Case <br /> issued was not up-to-date and, therefore, did not No. 304-90 <br /> contain the ordinance change. . The ordinance change <br /> states that a garage is allowed up to 1,264 square 111 <br /> feet. However, if it exceeds 1,000 square no other <br /> accessory buildings on the lot are allowed. Planner - <br />