Laserfiche WebLink
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING <br />PAGE 2 June A, 1980 <br />~---^--°-°°-°--°°-----°------°--_.°°.-------•-°-°°°---------°-°-° °--- <br />~Officiai Rose informed the Pianning Cortmissian 5. CODE REVIEW-CHAPTER 40.05 Subd.C(a) <br />•- tha~ the City Council has referred this revtew FRONT YARD SETBACKS <br />back to the Planning Commission, The Council CASE 55-80 <br />would like a consensus on the interpretation <br />of the Code as it was rewritten by the Commission. <br />Mayor McCarty was present and indicated to the <br />Comission that he fet¢ a strict interpretation <br />of tha Code did not a?low enough flexibility as <br />Weil as not equaliy applying to a11 residents. <br />If a resident has a house on the corner, he/she <br />only has to conslder one ad,~acent structure, <br />If a resident has an i~terior lot, there are <br />two ed~acent structures involved. <br />Ken 6reske, 2280 Terrace Cr~ve, pr•esented his <br />reasons for wanting a more flexibie interpre- <br />tation of the Code from the Comnission. He is <br />currently plenning an addition to his hame. Ne <br />will need to request a variance. There is no <br />other way for him to net more 1lving space, other <br />than moving, wliich is not feasible for him at <br />this time. He stated he felt thls strict inter- <br />pretation made it difficult for residents to <br />r^ increase thcir living space iri the most econamical <br />j ~way possible (that of remodaling versus moving <br />~ to a larger home). He is requesting the Camnis- <br />sion consider the needs of the residents of the <br />City for future remodeling/additions to their homas. <br />After further discussian, the following motion - <br />was made: <br />Goebel made a motion, seconderJ by Haake to , <br />recomnend to Council that the Commission had <br />reviewed the Ordinance 40.05 and found it to <br />clearly indicai:e the intention of the Commission. <br />Furtherrrnre, any intention to modi°y an existing <br />structure wouid require the same variance to this <br />ordinance as a new stru?:°.ure would require. Also, , <br />ad~acent structure woulu indicate the ad,~acent - <br />property boundaries of the ~articular property <br />in question. <br />Ayes-4 MOTION WAS CARRIED (MOTION CARRIESj <br />Nays-w (Warren, Mountin) <br />Nay votes: <br />Warren-doesn't agree with the adfacent structure <br />interpretation. <br />Mountin-doesn't accept the interpretatian or interib <br />~as stated in the motion. <br />Mountin requested from Staff a copy of the attorney's <br />remarks on this issue before the n2xt Commission meetin9. <br />