01/10/1996 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

acres in size and owned by Anoka County. The State of Minnesota owns the balance of this quarter section or roughly 150 acres. In addition to a site plan review, the Planning & Zoning Board is being asked to approve a 5' side yard variance. Our Zoning Ordinance requires a 10' setback. According to Beutow and Associates, architects for the County, the proposed building must be located as shown on the site plan, 5' from the side property line for the following reasons: 1. A secure connection must be provided between the proposed building and the adjacent juvenile center to allow access to the gymnasium. The buildings must remain separate buildings with spacing determined by the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, the buildings can not be moved closer together or located elsewhere on the site. 2. The building size is the smallest possible that meets State Department of Corrections approval and State of Minnesota Building Codes Division approvals. 3. Acquisition of additional property from the State of Minnesota was suggested, however, any purchase would require legislation action which cannot be facilitated in a timely manner. 4. The Department of Corrections, who approve work at the State Prison and County Campus, has agreed to the 5' setback and variance and additionally indicated that they would never construct a facility within 40' of the new juvenile building. 5. The State Building Code Division has also given their approval to the 5' setback based on the noncombustible construction type of the proposed structure. According to the County's Architect, the hardship involved in this variance request is due to the tight site, special operational requirements, cost containment, and the fast track of the construction schedule. For Planning & Zoning Board information, the following findings of fact must be considered in the review of a variance request: a) That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. b) That the plight of the landowners is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. c) That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. d) That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. e) That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or