Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission September 4, 2002 <br />Regular Meeting Page 2 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />4. Planning Case VR02-007 <br /> <br />Planner Atkinson briefly updated the Commission on the request of Mr. Life for a variance to <br />construct a living space addition. <br /> <br />Planner Atkinson indicated that the total square footage of the home would be approximately <br />2565 with the addition. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller indicated that the Commission had asked for drawings. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson asked if there was a question of the property line location. <br /> <br />Planner Atkinson indicated that was not with this case. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller asked if the question concerning rooflines had been addressed. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson explained that the applicant is not required to provide that information and <br />noted he had made a statement at the last meeting that it would be preferable, for aesthetic <br />reasons, that the rooflines match the existing structure. <br /> <br />Mr. Life passed out a drawing of the proposed addition. <br /> <br />Chair Stevenson indicated an allowance should be made to keep the structure consistent with the <br />garage so that it does not stick out and look disproportionate. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller suggested that the Resolution state that a three-foot variance is being <br />granted. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Johnson. To Approve Resolution 705-02, a Resolution <br />Approving a Variance for a Reduced Side Yard Setback for a Living Space Addition. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. <br />______________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />5. Planning Case ZC02-004 <br /> <br />Planner Atkinson briefly updated the Commission on this case. He then reviewed the two <br />criteria that must be met to approve a rezoning request. The first is that the request must be <br />consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the second is that the rezoning would not be <br />detrimental to the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Planner Atkinson explained that the property in question does not have enough land to warrant a <br />PUD designation and the Commission felt that the properties to the east and west would not total <br />three acres and thus could not be given a PUD designation. <br />