Agenda Packets - 1982/07/26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission May 5, 1982 Regular Meeting Page Two --------------------------------------------------------------------- f differences in opinion being stated about whalic-r AP PROVEO the traffic increase would be a unique situatiouation, as well as the suggestion thaL barriers could be used, such as shrubs and trees, or additional insulation in the house, that the proposed garage could cut off the line of vision for neighbors, with the majority agreeing that there were alterna- tives to be used other than a variance. Chairman Mountin advised Mr, Petrowski that he could make an application for variance, if he wished, and if the Planning Commission denied it, he would have the right to appeal it to the City Council. She also advised him that the Council has a Lime for residents requests and comments at their meeting if he wished to address them. Official Rose explained the requested variance is 5. Gregory & Mary 7'10" and drew a sketch of the property involved Windsperger, and the proposed addition. He reported the 2610 Louisa property directly across the street is classified Avenue, Variance Request (Reduced wetlands and may never developed, as well as Greenwood not being a through street and never side yard setbac' will be. corner lot) R-1 Single Family -. The Planning Commission discussed the request, Zone clarifying the grade of the property, and making Case 106-82 the points that it is actually only half a rnrner, that there is still potential for develop- ment of the wetlands, that it is not necessarily a unique situation, and there could be a safety factor involved with people driving around the corner, and they should stay as close to the required setbacks as possible. Motion/Second. Breske/Miller to approve Resolu- tion—' No.n-61 as amended, granting approval of the requested variance. 2 ayes 5 nays Motion Denied Commissioners Breske and Miller voted in favor of the motion. The remaining Commissioners stated they did not feel it was a unique situation, and an 8' variance request was too large, with a similar variance request being denied in the past. Motion/Second: McCarthy/Linke to adopt Resolu- tLo-n—No. 52-82 as presented, denying the variance request, 6 ayes 1 nay Motion Carried Commissioner Breske stated he did feel the situa- tion was unique.