My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-02-1998 PC
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
09-02-1998 PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2018 5:16:09 AM
Creation date
7/27/2018 5:16:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Minutes
Date
9/2/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
• Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 1998 <br /> Regular Meeting Page 4 <br /> Associate Ericson gave his report as follows: <br /> The applicant was requesting a variance from the required two-foot side yard setback <br /> established for decks, terraces or sidewalks. Mr. White has constructed a sidewalk, <br /> constructed of green-treated lumber, along his garage located at 5249 Greenfield. The <br /> new sidewalk, which accesses a shed in the rear yard, replaced a railroad-tie walkway that <br /> had fallen into disrepair. The property alongside the garage slopes down, requiring that <br /> the sidewalk be supported by footings. The sidewalk is approximately four feet wide and <br /> is within inches of a chain link fence that separates the subject property from the property <br /> to the north. In addition to the garage, there is an above-ground pool surrounded by patio <br /> and landscaping, all of which is enclosed by a five-foot tall privacy fence. The shed is <br /> outside of this fenced-in area. <br /> Section 1104.01, Subd. 5, regarding encroachments: "Terraces, steps, decks, stoops or <br /> similar features; provided they do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of <br /> the principal structure or to a distance less than two feet(2') from any lot line." <br /> The sidewalk as it exists now does encroach on the above condition. There is no apparent <br /> 111 hardship as required by the City Code. The applicant did do the construction without <br /> getting a permit from the City. A permit is required for this type of construction. <br /> There have been no calls for or against the application. <br /> Staff recommended denial of the application based on the fact that the sidewalk was <br /> installed without a permit, and there is no obvious hardship as required by City Code. <br /> Peterson returned the floor to the Commission and asked the applicant for his report. <br /> Timothy White, applicant, gave two reasons for wanting the walkway: <br /> 1. Safety of the lot, ease of mowing the yard <br /> 2. Easy access to the back yard area where the shed and yard maintenance <br /> equipment is kept. <br /> He stated he didn't realize a building permit was required. His only excuse was ignorance, <br /> he added. The fence located near the walkway is set in five to six inches from the <br /> property line. White did canvas his neighbors on Greenfield and none of the people <br /> contacted voiced opposition to the walkway. <br /> Stevenson asked if the structure had the proper footings. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.