02-19-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission February 5, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Johnson indicated that the previous property owner had checked into the number of units he could have and that is why the building was remodeled as it was. He then said he does not think a variance would be appropriate in this case. Commissioner Zwirn indicated he understood why the applicant wished to expand the building but indicated from an aesthetic standpoint he would side with the residents that it would be unsightly to look out your window and see vehicles parking in front of the building. He also indicated he was concerned that approval of this parking variance would mean the City would be obligated to grant parking variances to the other four-plexes and the area cannot accommodate that type of density and traffic. He further commented that allowing this would detract from the property value of the neighboring properties due to congestion, aesthetics, and increased traffic and he cannot see how this would blend in well with the existing community. Mr. Viger asked if his project could proceed if he were able to provide the garage stalls. Commissioner Johnson indicated he would need to provide 6 garage stalls and 9 surface stalls. Mr. Viger indicated his intent was to provide handicapped accessible units as the building lends itself to that due to the walkout. Director Ericson indicated the options would be to either direct Staff to draft a resolution of denial, approval, or hold off on action to allow time to explore the parking options. Commissioner Johnson recommended a resolution for denial with the main reason being that there is no hardship and if this one is allowed then all eight will want the same accommodation. The Commission directed Staff to draft a resolution to deny the variance. Director Ericson indicated the next meeting would be February 19, 2003 and the Commission would consider a resolution denying the variance request. He then clarified that the project could move forward if the applicant is able to provide enough parking to satisfy the parking requirements of the City’s Code. Ms. Bedbury indicated there are little kids on that street and she cannot see where they can meet the parking. She also said she does not want the increased traffic in the area. Director Ericson indicated Staff could inform residents as to whether the project is proceeding and asked that interested residents provide their name and address. Ms. Bedbury asked if residents could bring a petition to stop the project. Director Ericson indicated that the residents would be within their rights to protest the project by petition but explained that, if the project meets the requirements of the City’s Code, it would be difficult to prohibit the expansion.