Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commie~ion Mny 5, 1982 <br />Regular Meeting Page 'Irao <br />-•-°--------------------------------------------------^-------------- <br />~ differencos in opinion being atated about whethez <br />the traffic increase ~:uuld be a unique situation, <br />ae well ae the suggestion that barriere could be <br />used, such as shruba and trees, or additional <br />inaulation in the houae, that the propoaed garage <br />could cut off the line of vieion Por neighbors, <br />with the ma,jority agreeing that there were alterna- <br />tivea to be used other than a variance. <br />Chairman Mountin advised Mr. Petroweki that he <br />could mt~ke an application Eor variance, if he wiahed, <br />and if tt~e Planning Commiseion deni.ed it, he caould <br />have the right to appeal it to the City Council. She <br />al.ao adviaed him that the Council has a time for <br />reaidente requeats and coum~ents at their meeting if <br />he wiahed to addresa r..hem. <br />Official Roae explained the requeated variance is 5. Gregory & Mary <br />7'10" and drew e sketch of the propErty involved Windaperger, <br />and the propoeed addition. He reported the 2610 Louiea <br />property directly acrosa the atreet is classified Avenue, Variance <br />wetlanda and may never develoQed, as well as Request (Reduced <br />Greenwood not being a through etreet and naver side yard aetback, <br />will be, corner lot) R-1 <br />.- Single Family <br />The Planning Co~nisaion diacueaed the request, <br />` Zone <br />._~ <br />clarifying the grade of the property, and making Case 106-82 <br />the puinta that it ie actually only half a <br />corner, that there ia etill potential for devalop- <br />ment of the watlanda, that it is not neceaearily <br />a unique aikuation, and there could be a safety <br />factor involved with peop2e driving around the <br />corner, and ehey ehould etay as clase to the <br />required aethacka as posaible. <br />Motion 5econd; Breake/Miller to approve Resolu- <br />t on o. - 1 ae amended, granting approval oE <br />the requeAted variance. <br />2 ayee 5 naye Motion Denied <br />Coimaiaeionera Breske and Miller voted in favor of <br />the motion. The remaining Co~isaioners etated <br />thpy did not feel it wae a unique aituation, and <br />an 8' variatnce requeet was too large, wieh a <br />aimilar varianca requeat being denied in the past. <br />Motion/Second: MnCarthy/Linke to adopt Reso'ru- <br />o~i n Ao: 52=fS2 as presented, denying the variance <br />r~queat. <br /> <br />6 ayea 1 nay <br />~ <br />Motion Carrted <br />Commisaioner Breske stated he did feel the s3tua- <br />tion wus unique. <br />