06-02-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission May 19, 1999 • 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 re uired o>alleyifig this hardship. He reiterated that if the porch were constructed observin• the r� IUcks, it would only be 7 feet in depth, which, he stated, would not be e «< areati7V74. f. The variance would not be materially detrimen ,r to the pu :ese of h .. : :'Mir to • "er in the same zone. `:.. property aiiiiiMatr N.<:. ,. :r Ericson stated that the purpose of the Code was to maintain riziottotiFparation of uses.' lie stated that the existing deck has a setback of 5 feet an‘tpdiellgjcant wishes to construct the three-season porch at the same setback. lie noted,notedTfttowev <,>t hree-season porch could be viewed as a more intensive use of the s ace,,:. g. The proposed variance will not impair,,h ek F>w;supply,a'1 ight and air to adjacent ro er or substantially th :on esti:.: a h <$ i lic eets or increase the danger P P tY increaseg �:::.;, �:::::::,�� :. � g of fire or endanger the public s! ety or s :; tantia .:'_>•�.:i ttnish or impair property values within the neighborhood : . ....,,,,, III 4., 0 .41, Ericson stated that he did believat a por.• :, . t the reduced side yard setback would �y - M: depri a other reside .o <:t a right to? d` alight. 0A;'s7,s :-, ted th. ` >iex :i `eria lend ' emselves to subjective thought and requested the Pla . :` .,.s' ssion r >;gm to determine whether or not a hardship exists. Ericson state. :� ; M1 `�d direct a 'e required mailing to all residents within 350 feet of the subject pre;®e' , a M - `.:ved no response. He stated that he had received a letter from a neigh')!filth adjacent $;, so houses north of the applicant, who stated that they approved the • KNosed constn'cti•riiiir C,j.< Peterson opened �e Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m. Ar gatil' • `' ifrlowski,"`presentative of TimberCraft Remodeling the applicant's contractor, stated that �,,:+,$ :• "` :,e • anned on constructing a porch on the property since purchasing it in 1981. He sta . s; `e 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 existing deck was not in compliance with the City Code, they looked at other options for placement of the deck. 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 porch could II