Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission August 2, 2017 <br />Regular Meeting Page 3 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson inquired where the six-foot cedar fence would be located along the rear property <br />line. Mr. Stokka reviewed the location of the proposed cedar fence. Planner Sevald commented <br />on the City’s requirements regarding fences and buffers. <br /> <br />Commissioner Schiltgen commented on how this apartment complex would impact the school <br />district. He stated it was his understanding the school district was already aware of the proposed <br />development. Planner Sevald stated this was the case. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson believed the proposed rental rates were properly aligned. He then asked if <br />Mounds View had too many rental units. Planner Sevald was of the opinion the City could <br />support more rental units. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked if how many of the new tenants would need access to public <br />transportation. Mr. Stokka stated he did not have exact statistics but explained public <br />transportation was a good selling point and noted the closest bus stop was approximately one- <br />quarter of a mile from the proposed apartment complex. <br /> <br />Commissioner Schiltgen questioned if the developer was hoping to have access from Mounds <br />View Boulevard. Mr. Stokka explained he was not as familiar with Mounds View as the <br />Commissioners or the County and stated he would follow the recommendation from the experts. <br /> <br />Being that there was no quorum present, the Commission took no action. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />6. Other Planning Activity <br /> <br />A. Discussion of amending Zoning Code to decrease the front yard setback for <br />covered porches <br /> <br />Planner Sevald stated within the R-1 Single-Family Residential zoning district, the minimum <br />front yard setback is 30’ for a house, including covered porches. An exception is if all of the <br />homes on the same side of the block have a greater setback (e.g. 50’+), then the minimum <br />setback shall be equal to the home with the least setback (e.g. 50’). The minimum front yard <br />setback for a patio or deck is 2’. <br /> <br />Planner Sevald explained recently, a resident has asked to build a covered porch onto the front of <br />their house. The house is setback 30’, as are adjacent homes. The requested porch is not <br />allowed. The resident has an option of applying for a Variance if there is a practical difficulty <br />unique to this property. Another option is to consider amending the Zoning Code to decrease the <br />setback for a covered (open) porch. He explained that with this request, staff found there to be <br />no hardship. <br /> <br />Planner Sevald reported in recent years, the City has granted two variances to allow a decreased <br />setback for a front porch. One was less than 30’ and one greater than 30’ from the front property