Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission March 15, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 17 <br /> <br /> <br />to the side, which would be safer for the children, and this was another reason she would like an <br />additional garage stall. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stevenson inquired regarding the size of the storage shed. Mrs. Magoris <br />indicated the structure was approximately 8’ x 10’ in size. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller inquired regarding the nature of the telephone calls received by staff. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated he received two telephone calls, and a letter that day, <br />however, he could not verify that they were from different individuals. He explained that the <br />letter might have come from one of the two people he had spoken with on the telephone, whose <br />names and addresses were not provided. He explained that in the letter, which the applicant has <br />not seen, there is mention of a privacy fence to assist in screening the site. He indicated this <br />might make such an expansion more palatable to certain people in the area, although imposing <br />such a condition may be viewed as unreasonable and unrelated to the actual request. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stevenson inquired regarding the accessibility of the applicant’s pool. Mrs. <br />Magoris stated the pool was above ground, completely surrounded by a fence, and there was a <br />deck on the side. She explained that in order to access the pool, you must go through a locked <br />gate and up the ladder on the deck, and the pool has been approved by her daycare licensing <br />board. She added that the yard is completely fenced at this time, however, it is not a privacy <br />fence. <br /> <br />Gary Millhouse, 7400 Park View Drive stated he lived directly behind and to the north of the <br />applicant. He indicated he had no problem with regard to the applicant’s proposal, and he would <br />be directly facing it. He stated he believed the property owners who may have some concerns <br />with regard to the proposal are located to the side of the applicant’s garage. He pointed out that <br />the garage would not be across the street from either one of their houses. <br /> <br />Mr. Millhouse stated he believed that a three-car garage would increase the value of the <br />property. He indicated this is one of the nicer developments in the City of Mounds View, and he <br />is very much concerned regarding the property values in that neighborhood, and would like to <br />see that they continue to rise. He stated that neighbors who invest in their homes with additions <br />and expanded garages help increase the value of all the homes, and make this a very desirable <br />neighborhood. He stated he was in as close a proximity to the applicant’s garage as a neighbor <br />could be, and he had no objections to this proposal. He indicated he understood the issues <br />pertaining to variances, and that the Planning Commission must take these into consideration. <br />He stated he would strongly recommend the Commission provide the Magoris with a variance. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson indicated he had some concerns regarding the expansion of a corner lot <br />toward the street. He explained that corner lots are more difficult to deal with, however, when <br />you begin to encroach closer than 30 feet, other issues come into play, such as sight lines. He <br />indicated he would be concerned about this proposal independent of the criteria that must be met