My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-05-2000
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
04-05-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2018 8:28:53 AM
Creation date
8/28/2018 8:28:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Minutes
GOVBOARD
Planning Commission
DOCTYPE
minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 10 <br /> <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated with regard to the fourth criteria, the granting of a variance to <br />allow for the 18-foot corner lot front setback would allow the applicant to better utilize the <br />property, yet, in staff’s opinion, would not confer upon the property owner rights denied to <br />others in the same district, due to the unique configuration of the lot. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated the fifth finding of fact indicates “The Planning Commission <br />finds that the requested 18-foot setback is the minimum variance required that would alleviate <br />the applicant’s hardship, yet would still result in a 24-foot setback to the street from the rear of <br />the garage.” He advised that the sixth finding indicates that granting a variance for a reduced <br />front yard, corner-lot setback for the proposed garage addition would not be materially <br />detrimental to the purpose of the Title or to other property in the same zone. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson indicated the last finding states “An 18-foot setback would not <br />impair a supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or <br />endanger the public safety or diminish property values.” He stated these findings are staff’s <br />view of the requirements for hardship, and staff has drafted the resolution to reflect this. He <br />indicated that if the Planning Commission feels the findings are not appropriate or should be <br />altered in any manner, staff is open to suggestions in this regard. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson stated he did not believe that the literal interpretation of the provisions of <br />the Title would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other properties. He explained that <br />there is an existing two car-garage on the property, and although there are many three car <br />garages within the City, this is certainly not the norm. He indicated there were probably more <br />single car garages in the City than there were three car garages, therefore, he did not believe this <br />would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson stated with regard to exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, the <br />subject property is an irregularly shaped lot, however, a trapezoid lot on a corner property is not <br />uncommon. He stated he was concerned that approval of this request would create a potential <br />for other property owners to request the same consideration. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson stated he was of the same opinion at the previous meeting, however, <br />given the traffic visibility and safety factors, and in light of the fact that the setback is 18 feet in <br />the front and 24 feet in the back, he was leaning in the opposite direction. Commissioner Miller <br />added that the fact that the setback from the street is 40 feet rather than the typical 30-foot <br />setback is another consideration. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson stated the argument pertaining to a uniform setback is compelling, <br />however, he did not see a hardship. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stevenson stated he could see no reason for denying this request. He indicated <br />there were quite a few three-car garages within the City, and the Planning Commission would be <br />seeing more requests for these in the future. He stated it was fairly common for the Planning <br />Commission to approve third-stall garage expansions.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.