10-06-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission September 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Approval of MinutesII A. August 18, 1999 MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller to approve the August 18, 1999 meeting minutes as corrected. , 4/ ,;:, Ayes—8 Nays—0 f,2. The t carried. 3f E\t.Y.E glin, Id 5. Planning Case No. 570-99 oke Property Involved: 2075 & 2081 Hillview Road : Consideration of variance request to allow for a zero-foot y'`` '.0back. Applicant: JeffJohnson ,17-‘,..4:00„ < : ° The applicant was present. W Planning Associate Ericson gave the staeport as 6110 s:•;,Of > :0+ .k 5:kf The applicant, owner of two contiguo _ roper u>< on Hilly v Road, each improved with four-unit multi-family structures, had desired:: eonstruc a six-stall g t'age structure between the two buildings to service both buildings. The applicant, sin -'takin \.o er ownership of these two properties, has invested co ` : •erable expense =tn rehabbing< 1:. 1'> bgs and making upgrades and improvements. The ads adt.,;,,,ithA garage t re,would with' °ut question be beneficial to the property, to its residents` ta h ,immedi°a Planning Associa4:',,,:,0t;. xplain-,r:ift e variance request were to be approved, deed restrictions would need <itii fri ; ` t woul. : pply to the garage structures in the event of fire, or if one or Wi both of t <:: roperties - . . �n. .:old in the future. He noted, upon review of the City Attorney, this appro.0, although poss ; may not be the most appropriate in this situation. xi4 Pl. ng Associate EricOn stated another possible option for this type of structure would be to rs '- that the applicant join, or"combine" the two parcels into one parcel. He stated the applicant ,i'laitii.cated he wo;:< be willing to join the properties in lieu of requesting a variance, however, „� ;;i< ` i e mortgage holders for these properties, and from this standpoint, this approach `�"� M��a.t . . ` `ible. He explained, in light of this, the applicant has revised his request to allow a setba` • one-foot for both garage structures, which would result in two separate three-stall garage structures on each side, separated one-foot from the property line of each structure. He noted there would be two feet between the buildings to allow for mowing and access to the rear of the properties. Planning Associate Ericson commented that a five-foot setback would not be possible in this situation. He referred to the site plan, which indicated that a five-foot setback would push the garage