2003 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

!_--- _______ _ --- --- - _ _ � -- ' �_�:.� �._ . � ;. .. ., �� _. � _ �,.y _ -- -. � s- - '- Mounds View Planning Commission September 17, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 2 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. 5. Consider Request for a Front-Yard Setbacic Variance at 2434 Hillview'Road Conununity Development Director Ericson indicated that this case is a request from the property owner for a reduced front yard setback for a roof extension over the decic. He then indicated that the City's Code allows for a two-foot roof extension into the setbacic so this request is for a four- foot variance to allow for the six-foot roof extension. Director Ericson indicated that Staff does not feel that the decic and roof extension impede visibility and noted that a decic can extend to within two feet of the property line. Director Ericson indicated that Staff did some searching and the City has approved similar variances in the past and noted there is one on Quincy with very similar circumstances. He then commented that, with every variance application, the Commission is charged with reviewing the criteria and establishing a hardship. Director Ericson reviewed the hardship criteria with the Commission and indicated that Staff feels that a hardship can be justified in this case and recommends approval of the variance. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Cormilissioner Miller indicated the applicants applied for a permit for the decic extension and aslced whether they had applied for a permit for the roof extension. Director Ericson indicated it is the same permit both items are included. Commissioner Hegland aslced whether the other roof extensions approved were all for non- enclosed structures. Director Ericson indicated that they are. Commissioner Zwirn indicated that this seems to have already been constructed prior to requesting the variance. Director Ericson indicated that some construction started and there was an issue with an opening in the roof leaving the home open to potential water damage from rains so the applicaalt contacted Staff and asked for permission to enclose the portion leaving the home at rislc for water damage. Staff indicated that would be fine but cautioned the applicant that, if the variance were not approved, they do so at the risk of needing to remove the worlc. He then said that the City has had after the fact variance requests before but that is not the case in this situation.