Laserfiche WebLink
• Mounds View Planning Commission November 4, 1992 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 4 <br /> shot grade elevations from Jackson <br /> Street and from County Road I to the <br /> spot where a garage could be built at a <br /> proper setback. These elevations showed <br /> a one and a half foot drop if the garage <br /> were detached from the house with a <br /> connecting breezeway. The applicant <br /> would need to install footings in order <br /> to construct either an attached or a <br /> detached garage. <br /> Planner Harrington reported that he had <br /> consulted City Engineer Minetor about <br /> this case. Mr. Minetor was concerned <br /> about possible drainage problems that <br /> might occur if the variance were <br /> approved and the garage built as <br /> presented by the applicant. Also, if <br /> the driveway is built as proposed, the <br /> driveway parking stalls would be shorter <br /> than a standard 9 x 20 parking space. <br /> • The applicant, Al Matheson, said that he <br /> has had some minor problems with water <br /> in the past. He also stated that he <br /> would prefer to build an attached garage <br /> rather than a detached garage with a <br /> breezeway. The cost of the footings <br /> would not be worth it to him if the <br /> garage were detached. <br /> Chair Mountin said that while there may <br /> be some hardship aspects to this case <br /> (road on 3 sides of the home, water <br /> detention holding area in backyard, <br /> etc. ) the applicant's preference for an <br /> attached garage over a detached garage <br /> cannot be considered a hardship. <br /> Mr. Matheson indicated his other <br /> concerns about building a detached <br /> garage behind his house. The main <br /> reason he's against the idea is that if <br /> the garage were built detached behind <br /> the house, the roof line would be all <br /> that could be seen from the dining room <br /> • window. He was also concerned about <br />