Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission October 19, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 2 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />5. Planning Case VR2005-013. Consideration of a Variance Request for a Driveway <br />Extension/Parking Area and Lean-to Garage Addition within 1 Foot of the Property <br />Line. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Heller reviewed the staff report indicating the applicant, Dan Kelner, 8036 <br />Fairchild Avenue, is requesting a variance to permit a driveway/parking area extension along the <br />side of the garage with a lean-to covering it, built onto the side of his garage within one foot of <br />the south side property line. Most of the lean-to structure has already been constructed and the <br />concrete extension is complete – both without a permit. Mr. Kelner, after receiving notification <br />that the construction was in violation of code requirements, stopped and applied for a variance. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Heller stated for approval of the request there needs to be a demonstrated <br />hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property. There are no extraordinary <br />circumstances; the applicant would not be deprived of commonly enjoyed rights; granting the <br />variance would confer a special privilege; and stormwater runoff would most likely drain onto <br />the adjoining property. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Heller noted the Planning Commission received one letter from a neighbor <br />supporting the requested variance. However, due to the above noted, she recommended the <br />Planning Commission deny the variance as requested. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked what the condition of the driveway was prior to purchasing the property. <br />He also asked how long the concrete had been in before the lean-to construction was started. Mr. <br />Kelner replied he purchased the property in 2000 and at that time the driveway construction was <br />already there, but with gravel and weeds. The neighbor had no objection with him replacing the <br />driveway extension with concrete. He added the concrete was poured about a week before <br />construction on the lean-to was started. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson asked if the construction is seven feet wide from the garage. He also asked if <br />the driveway was raised when it was put in. Mr. Kelner replied there is approximately one foot <br />to the property line. He added the driveway was raised prior to 2000 and timbers were put in. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller stated the construction cannot really be seen from the road due to trees. <br />She asked if the lean-to is being constructed to protect what will be parked there. Mr. Kelner <br />replied the construction was considered a repair, not an extension of a footprint. He added he is <br />thinking of putting a boat in the lean-to. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zwirn asked if there are plans to put a roof on it. Mr. Kelner replied yes. He <br />added the reason he failed to apply for a permit on the lean-to was that in reading through <br />materials provided by the City he believed a lean-to did not qualify in any of the categories. <br />