05-17-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 9 indicated that if the proposed garage were constructed in the same location as the present garage and perhaps expanded closer to the house, a variance would be required regardless, to replace the structure that has been legally non-conforming. He advised that there would have to be a hardship statement that defines why the situation merits a variance, and although the applicant feels it would be reasonable to replace the structure in the same location with a 3-foot setback, he was not certain what the hardship would be. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if staff could prepare a resolution recommending both approval and denial of the request. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff would attempt to do this. Commissioner Kaden inquired if this item was subject to a 60-day time limit from the date of submittal, which was April 26th. Planning Associate Ericson stated this was correct, and theoretically, the Commission would have until June 26th to act on this matter. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the applicant had considered constructing the garage 22 feet wide, but perhaps somewhat deeper. Mr. Meinert stated 22 feet would be adequate for two vehicles, however, if he was to go deeper into the lot, the structure would block the sunlight from the addition. He explained that the end of the proposed 24-foot structure would come up to the edge of the first window on the addition. He indicated he would prefer the 24-foot length, however, if it was necessary to adjust this to 22 feet in order to meet the requirements without a hardship, he would be willing to consider this. He explained that one of the reasons for the proposed 24-foot width was that this was a standard lumber width, and a 22-foot board would be more costly than a 24-foot board. Chairperson Peterson pointed out that 22 feet was a very common width for new construction. Mr. Meinert agreed. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the existing garage was set back four feet from the front of the house. Mr. Meinert stated the garage was currently even with the front of the house, and he was planning to set it back four feet. He indicated he has a slab patio with a large Elm tree directly in the middle of the two buildings and additional width toward the eastern edge would encroach upon the walkway between the existing garage and the tree. Chairperson Peterson inquired if the tree was healthy. Mr. Meinert stated it was. He indicated the tree, which is approximately 50 years old, was treated for Dutch Elm disease in 1980, and survived. Chairperson Peterson inquired what staff required in order to proceed with this matter. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has received sufficient information from the comments that have been brought forward at this time. He indicated that once the applicant submits a survey and site plan, staff would review these items and bring the Commission a recommendation at their next meeting based upon the findings. He explained that this might be in the form of a resolution of