My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-16-1998
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
09-16-1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2018 7:40:33 AM
Creation date
8/1/2018 7:39:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
9/16/1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
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 y. • setback <br /> established for decks, terraces or sidewalks. Mr. White has cons. -cted ewalk, <br /> constructed of green-treed lumber, along his garage 1.sated at -' ..enfield. The new <br /> sidewalk, which accesses a shed in the rear yard, r Q5.• • a r 1-Ole alkway that had <br /> fallen into disrepair. The property alongside the • � _e slopesr. • g that the <br /> sidewalk be supported by footings. The sidew. ter: approxi ly f. - . e an• <br /> within inches of a chain link fence that separates,1;, suble• Propertyfr• ' � /0•;j` to <br /> � : <br /> the north. In addition to the garage, there is an `�• vi,--?!..40nd pool surrou g��a patio <br /> and landscaping, all of which is enclosed by a five $ _ ., , 'vacy fence. The shed is <br /> outside of this fenced-in area. <br /> Section 1104.01, Subd. 5, regarding encroa • = T.•ts: "Te , decks, stoops or <br /> similar features; provided they do not e •,• <br /> r � �� � u, a heigli : ground floor level of <br /> the principal structure or to a distanc y2£ � #_ < (2') ll' any lot line." <br /> The sidewalk as it exists now d. encroa ,iwi n the kvis.T `•ndition. There is no apparent <br /> hardship as required by the `odey • applica •id do the construction without • <br /> getting a permit from the • pe s `is requir ; 'or this type of construction. <br /> Ther- have been no r or ation. <br /> eco $ � . 'al of e application based on the fact that the sidewalk was <br /> inst.inst•liat'kvillijkout ape ere is no obvious hardship as required by City Code. <br /> Peters ' $ a floo1 Commission and asked the applicant for his report. <br /> mothy Whit:r #1 �f_, gave two reasons for wanting the walkway: <br /> 1. S ty of the lot, ease of mowing the yard <br /> 2. '.y access to the back yard area where the shed and yard maintenance <br /> quipment is kept. <br /> e didn't realize a building permit was required. His only excuse was ignorance, <br /> lgo';:ed.ed. 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.