Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/09/2016 P&Z PacketCITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, November 9, 2016 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers Please be courteous and turn off all electronic devices during the meeting. A CTF Nn A 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 12, 2016 4. OPEN MIKE 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Variance for 1558 Meadowview Court for a Porch Addition 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Project Updates 7. ADJOURN Meeting guidelines on reverse side. City of Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board MEETING GUIDELINES Open Mike — The purpose of a Board Meeting is to accomplish the business of the city. When presenting at a meeting please remember to be respectful, and follow these guidelines: • Please address the meeting chair. • State your name and address for the record. • Please observe a 4-minute limit. • The topic must relate to city business. • Open Mike is for items not on the agenda. • A spokesperson must represent a group of five or more — groups will have 8 minutes. • The Presiding Officer may limit duplicative presentations. • Remember, the meeting is to discuss city business only. Public Hearing - Held as a separate item of business on the agenda. The public hearing segment is your opportunity to tell the Board how you feel about issues scheduled to be heard. Typically, a hearing follows these steps: • The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice -Chair) will announce the proposal to be reviewed and ask for the staff report. The presiding Officer shall maintain strict order and etiquette at all meetings. • Staff will present their report on the proposal. • Board members will then ask City Staff questions about the proposal. • The Presiding Officer will then open up the public hearing for anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Comments should be limited to four (4) minutes unless further time is granted by the Presiding Officer. All comments should be directed to the Board as a body and not to any individual Board Member or City Staff Member unless permission is granted by the Presiding Officer. No person shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the Board without the permission of the Presiding Officer. • After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his/her comments, the Presiding Officer shall close the public hearing. • The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. • The Board will then make a recommendation(s) and/or a decision. When you are called upon for your comments, please step to the microphone at the podium and state your name and address for the record. Occasionally, the Board may continue a hearing to another meeting before taking action. Meeting Etiquette The Planning & Zoning Board must preserve order and decorum while the meeting is in session. A resident shall not, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the business of the Board, nor disturb any resident or Board Member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the Board. CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE : October 12, 2016 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 7:42 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Dale Stoesz, Lou Masonick, Perry Laden, Paul Tralle (Chair), Neil Evenson, Michael Root MEMBERS ABSENT : None STAFF PRESENT : Michael Grochala, Katie Larsen, Diane Hankee I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Tralle called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. on October 12, 2016. IL APROVAL OF AGENDA yr The Agenda was approved as presented. r III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 14, 2016 Mr. Stoesz made a MOTION to approve the September 14, 2016 Meeting Minutes. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5 - 0. (Tralle abstained) IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Tralle declared Open Mike at 6:33 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:34 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 5 - 0. (Tralle abstained) DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2016 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING: Lino Lakes Elementary School Renovation Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review Alex McKenzie, presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the Lino Lakes Elementary School Renovation Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review. Lino Lakes Elementary School is located at 725 Main Street and consists of two parcels totaling almost 20 acres. The school was built in 1957 and has received multiple additions in 1960, 1975 and most recently 1999. The renovation project will result in an additional 4 classrooms. There will also be a large gathering space at the front/south side of the building and an outdoor classroom to the west side of the building currently not in existence. The school's primary, current curriculum focus is STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) and there is a trend and expectation for an increased student population. Much of the school's HVAC systems are outdated, inefficient, and provide only limited climate control. Staff addressed questions of the Board including: Mr. Root addressed traffic circulation in the parking lot, and solutions. Staff commented that they are waiting on comments from Anoka County Highway Department, and the boundaries of the parking lot will not change. Staff will work with applicant on solutions. Mr. Stoesz asked if the school is a polling location, and staff believes it is not. Mr. Stoesz asked if the flag pole will be relocated. Staff noted it should be located on the plan. Nick Mannel with Loucks, discussed traffic circulation problems and agreeing to conditions noted in staff report. Ron Burris, principal at Lino Lakes Elementary School, discussed bus timing, parking lot, and number of buses. Chair Tralle declared the Public Hearing open at 6:53 p.m. There was no one present to speak. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 6:54 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 5-0 (Tralle Abstained) Mr. Stoesz made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Lino Lakes Elementary School Renovation Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review on the following conditions: 1. All comments from the City Engineer letter dated October 04, 2016 shall be addressed. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2016 Page 3 2. All comments from the Environmental Coordinator dated October 06, 2016 shall be addressed. 3. All comments from the Anoka County Highway Department letter dated (to be provided) shall be addressed. 4. The two parcels shall be combined. 5. All plan sheets shall clearly show property lines. Property line along CSAH 14 appears to contradict the Anoka County GIS map. 6. A Stormwater Maintenance Agreement shall be required. 7. A Site Improvement Performance Agreement is required. a. Detailed construction cost estimates shall be provided. b. Met Council SAC unit determination shall be provided. 8. A construction timeline shall be provided. 9. A separate Sign Permit shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 10. The Site Plan indicates "relocate ball fields and benches". The plan should show where these ballfields are being relocated. 11. Sheet C2-1, Site Plan: a. Parking lot shall be re -designed to address the following staff concerns: i. Traffic circulation and excess traffic onto CSAH 14/Main Street. ii. Conflict between bus drop-off/pick-up area and personal vehicle parking stalls. iii. Handicap -parking stalls are blocked by the bus parking. iv. Crosswalks shall also be installed across both parking lots to the main entrance. Plan shows bus parked in crosswalk. v. An additional crosswalk shall be added on the west side of the parking lot. b. Show relocation of ballfields as noted on plan sheet. 12. Sheet L2-, Landscape Plan: a. Seed mix type and detail need to be stated. b. Required Open Space trees and shrubs shall be planted above the normal water level of infiltration basin. These shall be shown on the plans. i. The trees and shrubs planted in the parking lot and near building foundation do not count towards Open Space requirements. 13. Sheet L2-1, Tree Preservation Plan: a. The Tree Inventory chart indicates 21 trees being removed but the Tree Data chart indicates only 16 removed. Please revise accordingly. b. There are 10 trees being removed that are not within the Basic Use Area. i. These trees shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. ii. The trees and shrubs planted in the parking lot and near building foundation do not count towards Tree Replacement requirements. c. Tree in courtyard is to be counted as removed. 14. Sheet Exxx-Photometric Plan: a. Plan needs to clearly show the west, south and east property lines of the property. b. Only 1.0 foot candle is allowed onto the right of way. c. Only 0.4 foot candle allowance is allowed onto adjacent property. d. Height and location of outdoor lighting is to be shown. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2016 Page 4 e. Light pole details shall be provided. 15. Sheet A400 and 401, Exterior Elevations: a. Trash enclosure details shall be shown on plans. b. Exterior fagade material areas and percentages for the south elevation shall be shown on the plans. c. Mechanical equipment location and screening shall be shown. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5 - 0. (Tralle abstained) B. PUBLIC HEARING: Century Farm North PUD 3rd Amendment Katie Larsen present the staff report. Staff recommended approval of Century Farm North PUD 3rd Amendment. Century Farm North is a residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) in northwest Lino Lakes and was approved in 2003. It includes a mix of housing styles including typical single family lots, single family airpark lots with hangars, single family detached townhomes (individual house lots located within a commonly owned yard lot) and attached townhomes. The proposed third PUD amendment is to allow for side yard setbacks of 7.5 feet on both sides of either the principal or attached accessory structures. This flexibility would only apply to the platted lots in Century Farm North 6th Addition. Staff addressed questions of the Board including: Mr. Laden addressed concerns regarding Lot 8, Block 1, Century Farm North 61h Addition. The adjacent lot to the east has an existing single family home and a minimum 10 foot side setback should be required. Mr. Root addressed traffic calming measuring on Robinson Drive. Staff commented bump out curbs were installed at the north -south crossing. Mr. Stoesz addressed changing R-2 setbacks to 7.5 ft. Staff commented amendments to setbacks should be done on a case by case basis. Steve Bona, with Capstone Homes 14015 Sunfish Lake Blvd, Ramsey. Addressed setbacks and home designs. Chair Tralle declared the Public Hearing open at 7:10 p.m. There was no one present to speak. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Masonick. Motion carried 5-0 (Tralle Abstained) DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2016 Page 5 Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend approval of Century Farm North PUD 3rd Amendment on the following conditions; 1. Each lot must be able to provide for a minimum 10'x10' deck if the house plan shows a main floor patio door. The certificate of survey submitted with the building permit shall show the location of a future deck to verify compliance. 2. Corner lots shall meet the required building setbacks from both streets. 3. Lot 8, Block 1, Century Farm North 61h Addition shall maintain a 10 foot side setback from the east property line. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 5 - 0. (Tralle abstained) C. St. Clair Estates Final Plat Katie Larsen present the staff report. Staff recommended approval of St. Clair Estates Final Plat. The applicant has submitted a land use application for final plat of St. Clair Estates. This development is a single family residential subdivision located north of CSAH 34 (Birch Street) and east of Hokah Drive. The development contains one 30.47 gross acre parcel. The approved preliminary plat was for 35 lots. The submitted final plat is for 36 lots. Staff addressed questions of the board including; Mr. Masonick addressed connection to Birch Street. Staff commented the possible future connection would be an Anoka County Project. Mr. Stoesz asked if there was compensation for 40 foot trail easement. Staff commented it was between the property owner and developer. Mr. Evenson addressed concern with the addition of the extra lot. Staff commented City Council is not in favor, and other lots widths were reduced. Mr. Root asked if there will be signage at the end of the cul-de sac, so cars do not drive on trial. Staff confirmed there will be. Developer Jamie Jensen, 1517 Dawn Circle, Arden Hills, addressed future connections, additional lot, and cul-de sac location. Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to recommend approval of St. Clair Estates Final Plat on the following conditions; 1. All comments from City Engineer letter dated October 6, 2016 shall be addressed. 2. All comments from Environmental Coordinator letter dated October 6, 2016 shall be addressed. DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2016 Page 6 3. The final plans and final plat shall be revised to 35 single family lots. 4. A Development Agreement shall be drafted by the City, executed by the City and the developer and recorded by the developer. 5. Deeds for Outlots A, B and infiltration basin outlot shall be drafted by the developer. 6. The plan set shall clearly indicate which existing sheds/buildings are going to be removed. 7. Homeowner Association: a. The infiltration basin shall be platted as an outlot and deeded to the HOA. b. All 36 lots shall be part of the HOA. c. A Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be drafted by the developer that includes a detailed Landscape Planting Plan and Landscape & Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Plan. 8. Sheet S3, S4 and S5, Preliminary Plat: a. Note shall be revised to "Lots 5-8, Block 1 have construction limitations for accessory structures, decks or additions due to 150 feet setback requirement from OHWL." a. Plans shall be revised so the rear building setback line does not encroach into drainage and utility easement. b. The Proposed Drainage, Utility, Trail and Access Easement over 453 Birch Street shall be 40 feet wide. i. Developer shall provide to the City for review a recordable document with an exhibit for the Easement. c. The developer shall provide to the City for review a recordable document with an exhibit for the Driveway and Access Easement in favor of 441 Birch Street. d. Outlot B shall extend to Enid Trail 20 feet in width similar to Outlot A to provide City direct access to the storm pond and wetland and avoid future conflicts with private fence installation in easements. e. The Proposed Pond Maintenance Access Agreement shown over Lot 9 and 10, Block 1 shall be omitted. f. The infiltration basin shall be platted as an outlot and deeded to the HOA. 9. Sheet S6 and S7, Final Tree Inventory and Tree Removal Plan: a. The table shall be revised from 112 to 114 total trees removed. b. The Basic Use Area (BUA) should not include stormwater pond areas. The plan shall be revised and tree mitigation chart re -calculated. 10. Sheet S8 and S9, Final Plat: a. The status of Lois Speiser's interest must be established and the plat must be revised accordingly. b. Since St. Clair Land Company has an interest in the land being platted by virtue of the existing Contract for Deed, they must be on the plat, too. c. Mortgage consents to plat are required. d. Sheet 2 of the final plat references Birch Street as 11. Sheet C1.3, WMC Buffer Plan: a. The Plan indicates 115,902 s.f. (2.66 acres) of wetland buffer but the preliminary plat indicates Total Area Wetlands (13.6 acres) and Conservation Easement equals 16.38 acres. Please clarify. 12. Sheet L1, Landscape Plan: DRAFT MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2016 Page 7 a. Revise plan to indicate Large Tree size is 2" caliper. b. Revise plan to indicate Large Shrub size as 3 gallon container. c. Landscape Plan shall reflect any additional trees required when Tree Preservation Plan is revised. Motion was supported by Mr. Masonick. Motion carried 3 - 1. (Laden voted nay, Tralle abstained) VI DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Michael Grochala provided updates on various city projects. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Laden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 7:42 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 5 - 0. (Tralle abstained) Respectfully submitted, Alex McKenzie Community Development Intern U DRAFT MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 5A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner P & Z MEETING DATE: November 9, 2016 REQUEST: Variance for 1558 Meadowview Court for a Porch Addition CASE NUMBER: VR2016 — 002 APPLICANTS: J. Hempel Services, LLC Attn: Jason Hempel 12330 Lindstrom Lane Lindstrom, MN 55045 OWNER: Mary Meuwissen 1558 Meadowview Court Lino Lakes, MN 55038 REVIEW SCHEDULE: Complete Application Date: October 31, 2016 Environmental Board Meeting: N/A EDAC Meeting: N/A Park Board Meeting: N/A Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: November 9, 2016 City Council Meeting: November 14, 2016 60-Day Review Date: December 30, 2016 120-Day Extension: February 28, 2017 BACKGROUND Jason Hempel, J. Hempel Services, LLC, submitted a Land Use Application on behalf of the property owner, Mary Meuwissen, for a variance for a porch addition. J. Hempel Services, LLC is constructing a screen covered porch and deck for the property owner. The porch encroaches 1.29 feet (15.48 inches) into the rear yard setback. The property address is 1558 Meadowview Court. ANALYSIS Corner Lot Setbacks The property at 1558 Meadowview Court is a corner lot abutted by Meadowview Court and Pheasant Hills Drive and is zoned R-IX. Front lot lines are along both streets. The rear lot line is opposite Meadowview Court. The side lot line is opposite Pheasant Hills Drive. See Attachment #4. Setback Principal Accessory Front-Meadowview Court 30 30 Front -Pheasant Hills Drive 30 30 Rear Yard 30 5 Side Yard 10 5 The construction project consists of a screen covered porch (principal structure) and a deck (accessory structure) off the back of the house. The porch must be 30 feet from the rear lot line because it is a principal structure. The deck can be 5 feet from the rear line because it is an accessory structure. Section 1007.00] (2) Definitions: ACCESSORY BUILDING. A portion of the principal building or a detached structure on the same lot which is used for an accessory use. ACCESSORY USE. A use of land or of a building or portion thereof customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the land or building and located on the same lot with such principal use. LOT LINE. A property boundary line of any lot held in single or separate ownership except that where any position of the lot extends into the abutting street or alley, the lot line shall be deemed to be the street or alley right-of-way. LOT LINE, FRONT. The lot line separating a lot from the street right-of-way along the lot frontage. LOT LINE, REAR. The lot line opposite and most distant from the lot frontage which connects the side lot lines. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the rear lot line of a triangular lot shall be a line entirely within the lot at least ten (10) feet long and parallel to and most distance point from the front lot line. If the front lot line on such a lot is curved, the rear lot line shall be parallel to a line tangent to the front lot line. 2 LOT LINE, SIDE. Lot lines extending away from the lot frontage, which connects the front and rear lot lines. PRINCIPAL USE. The primary or predominant use of any lot and/or building. STRUCTURE. Anything which is built, constructed or erected, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up and/or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner whether temporary or permanent in character. Building Permit Application and Construction J. Hempel Services, LLC submitted a building permit application for the porch addition and deck on August 15, 2016. The application included construction plans, site plans and property survey. The permit was issued on September 19, 2016 with written staff comments noting the required setbacks and stating the property corner markers shall be exposed. On September 30, 2016, staff failed the footing inspection because the property corners were not located and exposed. Staff also had concerns the 30 foot rear setback was being encroached. It should be noted the sidewalls and roof were already constructed (see attached photos). J. Hempel hired Premier Land Surveying, LLC to locate the property corners, measure the setbacks and draft a certificate of survey. The survey was completed on October 21, 2016 and indicated the northeast corner of the porch is only 28.71 feet from the rear property line; therefore encroaching into the setback 1.29 feet. Options Option 1: Remove 1.29 feet of the constructed porch. Option 2: Approve a variance. Findings of Fact No variance shall be granted unless it meets all the criteria in paragraphs 1. through 7. below. The City shall make findings regarding compliance with these criteria. 1. The variance shall be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The general purpose and intent of the R-IX, Single Family Executive Residential District is to provide a residential atmosphere for those persons desiring a single family neighborhood with a suburban density. Approving the variance request for a rear setback encroachment for a porch addition does not pose a threat to the health, safety or general welfare of the single family neighborhood. The nearest structure is an attached garage on the neighboring property to the east. 2. The variance shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3 The variance request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The parcel is guided for low density residential use. A porch addition and deck are consistent with residential uses. 3. There shall be practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The porch addition is a reasonable residential use of the property. The practical difficulty in complying with the 30 foot rear setback would require removal of 1.29 feet of the already constructed porch. 4. The plight of the landowner shall be due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is not due to circumstances unique to the property. The landowner's contractor installed the footings and started construction of the porch without locating the property corners and verifying the rear yard setback. 5. The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality. Porches are common additions found throughout the City s residential districts. 6. A variance shall not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for property in the zoning district where the subject site is located. House additions such as the screen covered porches are permitted principal structures in the R- IX, Single Family Executive Residential District. 7. In accordance with MN Stat. 462.357, Subp. 6, variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in MN Stat. 216C.06, Subd. 14, when in harmony with the zoning ordinance. Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow for a 1.29 foot encroachment into the required 30 foot rear yard setback for the purpose of constructing a screen covered porch. M ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Location Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Certificate of Survey 4. Principal Structure Setback Map 5. Applicant Narrative 6. Photos of Partially Constructed Porch and Deck m Y z v m BIRCH SIT v z J W ' C9 C9 z CANFIELD RD OP S� z J cc m - z 'U KARTH RD y �� 1558 Meadowview Court HOLLY DR MOLITOR DR CEDAR LAKE OHWL 892.9 AMELIA LAKE OHWL 908.1 100-yr 910.0 N Site Location Map W� .E 400 800 1,600 C I T Y'� �� �' U � Feet IN ,[ KEC �s� I Of W-121-jr've'r for - J. HEMPEL SERVICES, LL C of: 1558 Meadowview Court Lino Lakes, MN 55038 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Lot 18, Block 3 STONEYBROOK, Anoka County, Minnesota. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that l am a duly licensed Professional Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. i 22703 10121116 Steven V. Ische License No. Date 0 M PH&4-SANT -N o \ R;19��� \ L = 114.23 a4 QQ (90 �m \ m a wo v \ 1g5 'o ' O G \ °' \ �% \ �s \ \ 10 \ 1 >o L0 - - 174.11 S 89°4532" E SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 18 — LEGEND • Found Iron Monument PROD. # 1442-00 Mon PREMIER LAND SURVEYING, LLC 1600 Arboretum Blvd., Suite 203 Victoria, MN 55386 952-443-3010 Traverse PC - Principal Structure N 0 pg 50 100 LINY ``�"KE S Setback Ma W E Feet p S OCT 31 2016 J. Hempel ServICBS,LLC L 12330 LINDSTROM LANE I LINDSTROMI MN 55045 GENERAL CONTRACTOR J.Hempel Services, LLC was hired by Mary Meuwissen to remove her existing concrete patio, porch and deck structure that had footing failure and build a new 12' x 20' porch and deck per plan. Mary Meuwissen hired another company to install helical pier footings to ensure her new investment wouldn't heave or fail like the prior footings. This came with a very high expense, $6,000.00 worth. Mary didn't like the cost like most of us would agree but she also knew if she didn't invest in the special footings her investment above the footings would fail and cost more in the long run. After the footings where installed, J.Hempel Services, LLC came into frame the new 12' x 20' porch and 7' x 8' deck. We completed all the framing and called in for our framing inspection. When the inspector came out onsite on 9/30/2016 to perform the framing inspection he measured the distance from the porch structure to where he thought the property line would be. He stated this is close to the set back. This is when we were first made aware of the 30, set back on the backside of house for a structure. If it was a deck we could be 5' back that was also stated. We then stopped all work. Jason Hempel owner of J.Hempel Services, LLC then made multiple trips to the City Hall speaking with Patrick (building inspector) about the issue we were facing with one post over the 30' set back. Patrick and Jason reviewed online to see how close the structure really was to the property line. Patrick did state "this is only a tool not a certified survey map". After reviewing, we both determined it was very close and Patrick advised Jason to get a survey to find the true property line. J.Hempel Services, LLC would help assist Mary finding and hiring a certified surveying company to survey the lot. We did find a company but they were a few weeks out. On October 21, 2016 we received a call from the survey company stating they had everything completed and the survey was ready to be paid for. Findings are we have one post about 13" over the 30' set back. We have talked with Mary about options of cutting and moving the porch back but the cost to remove and replace would cause possible hardship on Mary at this time with all the current expenses she has invested to date. She has all material on site and paid for with no returns available do to special order items. Keep in mind we are talking about one post not a whole structure. Mary has invested a lot of money into her dream project. We are asking that you grant her this variance. Office:651.213.6873 • Cel1:651.329.4562 • www.jhempelselvices.com