04-05-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission April 5, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 wider than the front. He explained that the frontage along Park View Terrace curves outward and away from the house so that the back portion of the garage has a setback that exceeds the setback at the front of the garage. He indicated the applicant is requesting a third stall addition, which would create a setback of 18 feet at the front of the garage, and a setback of 24 feet at the back of the garage. Planning Associate Ericson stated at the previous meeting, the Planning Commission also discussed the basis for the 30 foot setback on corner lots, a part of which is the sight lines, which should allow for vehicles travelling along the street to see traffic coming from the adjoining street. He stated the Commission discussed that given the irregular shape of the property and the back end of the garage setback that is 24 feet from the property line would not significantly alter the present sight lines. He indicated it was also mentioned that the 40-foot setback of the house from Hodges Lane also allows for greater driver visibility. Planning Associate Ericson stated another issue brought forward at the previous meeting was with regard to maintaining the uniform setback in the neighborhood. He advised that in this particular subdivision, there is no uniform setback. He explained that because of the irregular shape of the lots and the configurations of the cul-de-sacs, there is no uniformity in terms of the location of the houses. Planning Associate Ericson stated that based upon these discussions, staff has drafted Resolution 612-00, which would approve the variance request for the reduced corner lot front setback. He indicated the resolution contains findings of fact that address the criteria required to be reviewed pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes. Planning Associate Ericson stated the first criteria pertains to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. He explained that because the lot is of an irregular shape, it presents some obstacles to development. He indicated that in order to maintain a uniform setback, the house would have to be situated at an angle, which would not make sense for this lot. He stated staff would make the case that this could be interpreted to be one of the extraordinary circumstances. Planning Associate Ericson stated the second criteria indicates “The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district.” He stated the rationale for this finding is that the eastern side of the proposed garage addition would have varying setback requirements. He pointed out that this is not a normal situation, and the literal interpretation may cause some issues for the property owner in terms of developing the lot. Planning Associate Ericson stated the third criteria indicates “The variance request is the result of factors over which the applicant has no control.” He explained that the applicant did not plat the lot, and did not cause the oddly shaped configuration of the lot. The building was constructed in the location where it needed to be, therefore, it is not as a result of the applicant’s actions that the hardship was created.