05-19-1999 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 410 Regular Meeting Page 4 e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. Ericson stated that this would be the minimum variance required to alleviate this hardship. He reiterated that if the porch were constructed observing the proper setbacks, it would only be 7 feet in depth, which, he stated, would not be enough area for a porch. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Ericson stated that the purpose of the Code was to maintain a `separation of uses.' He stated that the existing deck has a setback of 5 feet and that the applicant wishes to construct the three-season porch at the same setback. He noted, however, that a three-season porch could be viewed as a more intensive use of the space. g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger • of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Ericson stated that he did not believe that a porch at the reduced side yard setback would deprive other residents of the right to air and sunlight. Ericson stated that the criteria lend themselves to subjective thought and requested the Planning Commission review them to determine whether or not a hardship exists. Ericson stated that staff had directed the required mailing to all residents within 350 feet of the subject property, and had received no response. He stated that he had received a letter from a neighbor with adjacent property directly north of the applicant, who stated that they approved the proposed construction. Chair Peterson opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m. Peter Murlowski, a representative of TimberCraft Remodeling the applicant's contractor, stated that the applicant had planned on constructing a porch on the property since purchasing it in 1981. He stated that since the deck was already there, the applicant had assumed he could build a porch in the same area. Murlowski stated that when he and the applicant discovered that the proposed porch would not be in compliance with the City Code, they looked at other options for placement of the porch. He stated that placing the porch at the rear of the home would require the elimination of one • of the two bedrooms located there. Due to inadequate front yard setback, as well as aesthetics, the