03-15-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 15 5. Planning Case VR00-001 Property Involved 2741 Hodges Lane. Public Hearing and Discussion of a Request for a Reduced Corner Lot Front Setback to Allow for a Garage Expansion. Applicant: Cathy Magoris The applicant was present. Planning Associate Ericson gave the staff report as follows: The applicant, Cathy Magoris, who lives at 2741 Hodges Lane, which is located at the northwest corner of Hodges Lane and Park View Drive, is requesting a variance from the required thirty- foot corner front yard setback. She would like to expand an existing attached two-car, 576 square-foot garage into an 864 square-foot three-car garage. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the existing garage is set back 30 feet from the side property line, on the corner of the property, and the applicant is proposing that the setback be reduced to 18 feet at the front corner of the garage. He explained that the setback at the back corner of the garage would be more than 18 feet, as Park View Drive angles away from the property. He provided the Commission with a photograph of the subject property. Planning Associate Ericson stated, as with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. He indicated State Statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria, which are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. Planning Associate Ericson stated that 2741 Hodges Lane is an odd-shaped corner lot which presents difficulties in terms of development, yet there are numerous other corner lots in the City and similar types of situations. He stated that the literal interpretation of the Code, in staff's opinion, would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the R-1 district. He indicated that while staff does not feel there are any special circumstances regarding this request, the configuration of the lot is certainly not the doing of the applicant. He stated that approval of the requested variance would in effect confer upon the applicant a special privilege. While granting a variance to allow for the third garage stall would not necessarily be materially detrimental to the Code, he indicated that based upon the other criteria, it would appear that the variance should not be approved as not all of the criteria are satisfied.