07-21-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting July 7, 1999 Page 9 that the applicant provide a landscaping plan which would satisfy the City Forester, staff, and the City Council. He stated that staff had enough information to proceed with the resolution, and that any additional changes or recommendations could be added prior to the final draft. 6. Planning Case No. 561-99 Property Involved: 2801 Woodale Drive Consideration of Resolution 587-99, a resolution appr setback. Applicant: Michael and Christine Gregori The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staffre The applicants, Michael and Christine Greori, whaI've at tdale Drive which is located at the northwest corner of Woodale D iy.And Silver Lake Road, are requesting a variance from the required thirty-foot setback establish'r accoltry build* from public streets. They would like to replace their old, single stall garage ith a t car, 6740quare-foot garage. The existing garage, which was builthu 11 ith the housein 192 sits 15 eet 100 close to Silver Lake Road. Its construction predates the it 's first Zonin.t code hich as adopted in 1960. He stated that, in consideration of the ex oposing the reduction of the present setback to eleven fee Ericson presente Commissiond with th9jroperty which to a Diiertv owner. Stat. or h application, and,. $e* p alysis notmg that, as with any variance application, for the Planning re must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated iteral interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive s require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria ak its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set n Section 1125.0' Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship hen all of the ria are met. Ericson outlined the seven criteria, and provided responses to at the applicant has some hardship presented in the lot, in that the house and garage were constructed prior to any zoning requirements. He stated that this was a single car garage, outdated by today's standards, and that there was no room or alternative for expansion without maintaining some encroachment into the setback. He stated that staff had examined the criteria for satisfying the hardship requirements, and found that all are met with the exception of one, which is that the variance requested is the minimum setback required to alleviate the hardship. He stated that