Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that any property side that abuts a street is considered a front yard. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated all the criteria were the same for this request and all needed to be met. <br />He noted Staff feels there is a hardship because if the porch had not been damaged beyond 50% <br />Mr. Bratz would have been allowed to rebuild it. He then indicated Staff had drafted Resolution <br />655-01 approving the twenty-six (26) foot front yard setback to rebuild the porch addition. <br /> <br />Chairperson Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. <br /> <br />Chairperson Stevenson indicated that the sight lines are not an issue with this property so he feels <br />the variance is warranted. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller noted that due to the elevation of the property the porch does not seem to <br />pose a problem. <br /> <br />Chairperson Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Johnson/Kaden. To Approve Resolution 655-01, a Resolution Approving <br />a Variance to Allow for a Twenty-Six Foot Front Yard Setback for a Three Season Porch <br />Addition at 5287 Jackson Drive. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kaden noted he had stopped at the property to look at the location for the <br />proposed porch and had spoken to the property owner who indicated she had considered moving <br />the porch back to meet the setback but learned that the electrical service and air conditioning <br />would need to be moved which would be quite involved. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 8 Nays – 0 Motion carried. <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />7. Planning Case No. VR01-002 <br /> <br />Community Development Director Ericson noted this matter was a variance request from the last <br />meeting for a reduced side yard setback to construct a home addition. He noted the applicant had <br />spoken at the last meeting and there was significant discussion on the merits of the case. He then <br />noted a letter was received from the property owner to the north in support of the home owner's <br />efforts to improve their property. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated that the exceptional circumstances involve the location of the house <br />on the lot, and the internal layout of rooms that prohibits adding on in any other place. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated he felt this request is the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship <br />and would not impose any adverse effects upon parks or schools in terms of what was talked <br />about at the last meeting. <br />