1998 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission Regular Meeting September 2, 1998 Page 4 Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: The applicant was requesting a variance from the required two -foot side established for decks, terraces or sidewalks. Mr. White has cons cted constructed of green -treed lumber, along his garage l...cated at sidewalk, which accesses a shed in the rear yard, r fallen into disrepair. The property alongside the sidewalk be supported by footings. The sidew y.. etback dewalk, enfield. The new alkway that had g that the can y fo within inches of a chain link fence that separates subje roperty fr y to the north. In addition to the garage, there is an t ` nd pool surrou & $ patio and landscaping, all of which is enclosed by a five vacy fence. The shed is outside of this fenced -in area. Section 1104.01, Subd. 5, regarding encroa similar features; provided they do not e the principal structure or to a distanc The sidewalk as it exists now d hardship as required by the getting a permit from the Ther-. have been no r or aga , decks, stoops or ground floor level of any lot line." ndition. There is no apparent id do the construction without or this type of construction. ation. 'al oft application based on the fact that the sidewalk was ere is no obvious hardship as required by City Code. Commission and asked the applicant for his report. gave two reasons for wanting the walkway: instal Peters ty.of the lot, ease of mowing the yard y access to the back yard area where the shed and yard maintenance quipment is kept. e didn't realize a building permit was required. His only excuse was ignorance, ed. The fence located near the walkway is set in five to six inches from the property line. White did canvas his neighbors on Greenfield and none of the people contacted voiced opposition to the walkway. Stevenson asked if the structure had the proper footings.