CCP 03-25-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. tit tit P3DEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MARCH 6, 2002 Chair Zimmelman askcd ifMs, Schulke had spoken with her neighbors regarding this proposal. Ms. Schulke replied they had not received any negative feedback from their neighbors regarding their proposal. There were no comments against the proposal. Chair Sand closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Commissioner Zimmerman stated he would be more comfortable rcplacing an existing deck, rather than encroaching onto the setback another two feet as this proposal was asking. He indicated he llilderstood the desire to move around the deck, but he did not like the aesthetics of the angle look to the deck by bringing the comer out. He stated he would like to see a two-foot extension all of the way across, instead of having the angle. He indicated he did not see it made any difference if the two-foot was on the corner or all of the way across the deck. Commissioner Duchenes stated she believed tllis was a nominal request and she understood why applicant would want to add the comer to the deck. She believed this proposal was a good improvement to this property. Commissioner Galatowitsch indicated the plan did not substantially change the existing structure, and she also believed the proposal would improve the general looks ofthe home. She indicated she did not have a problem granting this variance, Chair Sand stated he did agree that this was a minimal request, and he believed it would improve the property substantially. He stated when all ofthe factors were weighed, this proposal was still keeping with the zoning code. He indicated he was inclined to approve the request. Chair Sand moved, seconded by Commissioner Duchenes, to approve Case #02-02, 3159 Shorewood Drive, Mindy Schulke, Setback Variance for a 33-foot front yard setback where a 37-foot setback is required in conformance with the design that was submitted dated February 5, 2002, subject to review by the building inspector, for the following reasons: I, The circumstances for which the variance is requested are unique to the property. 2. Granting the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Code. 3. The hardship was not created by the property owner. 4, Granting the variance will not alter the essential character ofthe neighborhood, The motion cmTied unanimously (4-0).