Laserfiche WebLink
VEUNAPPRO <br /> D <br /> Mounds View Planning Commission April 1, 1992 • <br /> Regular Meeting Page 4 <br /> ruling on appeal. However, the devel- ' <br /> oper never built the house and now needs <br /> a new variance. <br /> Steven May, representing the applicant, <br /> showed the Commission pictures of the <br /> proposed house. He explained that the <br /> building would meet setback requirements <br /> for the garage, since garages can be <br /> five feet from the lot line, but that he <br /> would need variances for the front and <br /> side yard requirements in order to build <br /> on the lot. <br /> Chair Mountin asked Mr. May to explain <br /> his hardship, as in order to process a <br /> variance, the applicant must prove, <br /> among other things, that there would be <br /> "undue hardship" if asked to adhere to <br /> current building requirements . <br /> Mr. May stated that there is a 25 foot • <br /> drainage easement on the eastern edge of <br /> the property, making the buildable part <br /> of the lot only 40 feet wide. Mr. May <br /> stated that he has built many houses in <br /> this area and cannot remember being able <br /> to build a house on such a narrow lot. <br /> Commissioner Peterson felt that, unfor- <br /> tunately, this lot was probably over- <br /> looked when it was platted. However, <br /> the owner did accept the way that the <br /> property was platted and should have to <br /> build within the requirements stated at <br /> the time of platting. <br /> Mr. May stated that he has purchased the <br /> property, although Charles Cook is still <br /> the fee owner. Charles Cook was the <br /> person who accepted the platting, not <br /> Mac-May Homes. Mr. May said again that, <br /> if he built within current building <br /> requirements, no one would buy the home <br /> because it would be so small. <br /> Planner Harrington clarified that one of 111the reasons that the Planning Commission <br />