Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View planning CommissirU-NA <br />� / (�September 3, 198t <br />Regular. Meetiny P RO U E '-------Page ------------ <br />Commissioner Fors.lund stated she would agree with Mr. <br />Gjerde that Ire (Ions not have access to his back yard and <br />she did not like to see a boat parked on the grass, as it <br />would rip it up. <br />Commissioner Miller stated she feels the Planning <br />Commission must uphold the Code, which requires a <br />hardship for a variance, and she does not feel Mr.. Gjerde <br />has one. <br />Commissioner Zollner stated she can sympathize with Mr. <br />Gjerde, but she must go along with the Code, and without <br />a hardship, cannot grant a variance. <br />Motion/Second: Miller/Zollner to deny the variances for <br />Lhe property at 2267 Lois Drive, Case 193-86, an.l <br />2272 Lois Drive, Case 194-86, due to lack of hardship. <br />3 ❑yes 1 nay <br />Commissioner Furslund voted against the motion, stating <br />site felt it was a pre-existing condition, and he only <br />needs about a 2!1 foot variance since the garage is <br />closer than 5 feet from the property line. She added <br />she would rather see them park on the concrete drive- <br />way than on the grass. <br />Commissioner Miller stated that since the Code states <br />that anything which is replaced to a degree of more <br />than 50 percent must be brought up to Code, she feels <br />the driveway shrnrid he placed 5 feet from the property <br />line, as specified in the Code. <br />Chairman Mountin stated Lire applicants Can appeal the <br />pinnning Commission's decision to tine City Council. <br />Director Thatcher reported the next Council agenda <br />session is September 15, and he requested the <br />applicants submit a letter stating that they wish <br />to appeal the denial. <br />Director Thatcher reviewed the history of Dynamic <br />Designers briefly. lie also stated that, in response <br />to the planning Commission's question of whether <br />any further fill could be pl.aced on the property, Ire <br />has dCLermined that: a minimal amount could still be <br />placed without causing any problems. tie added that <br />this wetland will not be changed with any future <br />storm sewer system. Director Thatcher also pointed <br />out t:he applicant was in the process of filling the <br />property when the City nnacLed the moritorium on the <br />wetlands, and had the moritorium not been imposed, <br />they could have filled the property and built on it. <br />Motion <br />7. Dynamic <br />Designers, <br />7656 Woodlawn <br />Drive, <br />Case 138-83 <br />