07-06-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission July 6, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson stated the Planning Commission has never thought a zero-foot setback was acceptable. He explained if a neighbor sells their property and has it surveyed by professionals and when all is said and done your building is over the property line, that neighbor could make you tear it down. He reiterated the Commission would not ever agree to a zero-foot setback, although the Commission has approved a one or two-foot setback from the property line. Mr. Vasilakes stated he was not aware that zero-foot setbacks were not allowed. Commissioner Hegland asked if there would be overhang on the building addition. He stated with a zero-foot setback the overhang would be in the neighbor’s property, noting that the foundation line counts. Mr. Vasilakes replied the addition would have overhang to match the rest of the building but stated he would not want the overhang to be in the neighbor’s yard. Commissioner Zwirn stated in looking at the house layout and lot size parameters it offers some confines to deal with. He asked if the applicant was open to placing a garage in the back. He also asked if the reason for expanding to the lot line is for positioning of another car. He concluded he could appreciate the request due to very restrictive confines. Mr. Vasilakes responded that he has a park-like backyard and if he put up a building there he would have a large wall, which would materially devalue the house. He noted he has three cars and two cycles and that the daily car is outside and ugly. He stated putting the third car in the back yard is not worth it because to park it he would have to drive around the side or the back of the house. Chair Stevenson asked if there was 10 feet to the property line. He noted the property has a 24- foot double garage, and asked if a triple garage would be adequate. He stated he can buy a seven-foot garage door, and one more foot on the side would give him eight feet, which he would be happy with. Commissioner Zwirn stated it is not practical to get a car in that small footage. He noted fitting the car in would be tight. Mr. Vasilakes replied he measured his third vehicle and it is less than eight feet. He noted if he moved the extra would probably be considered a boat garage because it is big enough for that. Commissioner Scotch asked if the addition extended the garage to 32 feet would it be sufficient for three cars and approved by the Commission as a two-foot setback. Mr. Vasilakes replied he was okay with that. Char Stevenson stated a two-foot setback is not before the Commission and asked if the applicant has time to revise the request. Commissioner Hegland asked if the applicant is offering to revise the project to a two-foot setback. Director Ericson stated the revision could be done as long as they were making progress quickly. He noted the issue is that the Commission would still need to address all of the hardship criteria.