|
Mounds View Planning Commission October 6, 1999
<br /> Regular Meeting Page 3
<br /> IIIproperty creates a situation that makes development where setback requirements could be met
<br /> very difficult. In addition, the placement of the buildings on the lots does not allow enough room
<br /> for a five-foot separation, and the property owner did not create the situation, but is simply
<br /> attempting to improve the property.
<br /> Planning Associate Ericson stated that based upon the review of the criteria, the app ,pant's
<br /> presentation at the prior meeting, and the Planning Commission's directic` staff,`s s drafted
<br /> Resolution 591-99, which approves the one-foot sideyard setback for ts-.;;.':t..iq;: t. He explained
<br /> that the approval is contingent upon the applicant filing the. tions <": '`<: ssey County and
<br /> submitting a revised site plan, which indicates the locatio A g g ftd,,,,,pe;L�.�'t`e ara e,�htt, allowed ::��with the one-foot setback, r >
<br /> Planning Associate Ericson stated the applicant has indi • -0 •es not expect t nce
<br /> construction of the project during the current building se. ":. - - re, the item can •e tabled,
<br /> however, staff believes that there are no unresolved issu ° `a`sfo . He stated staff is
<br /> recommending approval of Resolution 591-99. " _ ..
<br /> Chair Peterson inquired if the existing asphalt w a ` ` -s.aced int `' _,a'� locations. Ericson
<br /> commented he would not expect this to be th 4. ., • ;- ';4j taff d.o` ��not yet have a site plan
<br /> that shows the dimensions and location of •ve ' ...;r � ,:tr j, �d that a problem does exist
<br /> at the site in that there is a telephone poli,,t • Ithe p<�.:�.- t,lfie, which makes the ingress
<br /> III .. Z
<br /> and egress of the property somewhat e �tcult. �.dvised . �`� ill review the revised site plan
<br /> and any proposal to redo the asph... ':,ensur- at it co les with the City Code. He added this
<br /> matter would be brought back bet:..%.- the Co ission i vz:ere were issues with the driveway and
<br /> parkingarea, and this would. e , sidered,,,:,,,s,',.:,>t-:J � sm the garage issue.
<br /> MOTI• :IsSE.; D: Jo t(.g :` ; e. To App‘ti a Planning Commission Resolution No. 591-99,
<br /> a Resoluti .. `.< g a 4,; • Section 1104.01, Subdivision 4, of the Mounds View
<br /> Zoning Code % - >.''0);*.,,to Seed.` , �,3<. •w For a Reduced Sideyard Setback for Garages at
<br /> 2075 and 2081 :' . 8 •s.d; Mo' ,.. :l iew Planning Case No. 570-99.
<br /> d ' Nays—0 Motion carried.
<br /> rod'
<br /> ,f
<br /> 6,1: Planning Case.,0,b. 571-99
<br /> 41'
<br /> k.s
<br /> .� v l.`; _Involves\ Q 0 Eastwood Road
<br /> �),`9,�. ®'esolution 595-99, a resolution recommending approval roval of a conditional use
<br /> p= • R §: • ersized shed.
<br /> Applicant: Alan& Tammy Doroff
<br /> IllThe applicant was present.
<br />
|