2001 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001 ` Regular Meetrng Page 3 Planner Atkinson noied that the fourth criieria is that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owriers of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. He then noted that Staff feels that granting the variance requested would confer a special privilege not enjoyed by:other property .owners. Planner Atkinson noted that the £ifth criteria is that the variance"requested is the Xninimum variance which would alleviate the hardship noting econom�c conditions;alone shall not be considered a hardship. He then noted that without a demon'strated special condition any.variance granted would exceed the minimum necessary to alieviate a hardship: Planner Atkinson noted the sixth criteria is that the minimum variauce.would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title ar to otller property;:in the same zone.; He then noted that granting a variance in this situation would be detrimental fo the purpose, of the Title by allowing an accessory structure to be located within a required,•setback while there i"s ample space to construct the accessory structure in a location that meets the: setback requiremerits established in ;,,, � the Code. ` ' ' ,��. y Planner Atkinson noted the seventh criteria is that the �proposed vananCe`will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to ad�acerif property:' He then noted that the requested variance would not impair an adequate supply o��li'ght and'aii to adjacent property. � � Planner Atkinson indicated that Sfaff does not �feel the sltuation warrants a variance and � �3�� ` �� recommended denial of the.�anarice request� y�e th,eri no�ed that Staff had drafted a Resolution for consideratlon at tlus mee�n�rthat wou1d �.enyfi �� ariance request. ; �, �� _ � w;`� � : ��t ; ,�� Chair Stevenson,�ked why�li� City does not allow structures within five (5) feet of the property �. f {� line. �� "�,�,: ��. ��°�� £` Community:Development�Director Encson explained that for fire code reasons maintaining adequate space between buildings is important. He also noted that due to the intensity of use keepirig' stxuctures five (5):fee� off of the property lines keeps neighbors a distance from each other'to keep them from i,nfru�guiig on each other's space. He further noted that if the structure were located on the property�line, maintenance of the structure would be an issue as the applicant xwould need to be in his neighbor's yard to do the maintenance. _� `,�h�atir Stevenson noted�that it is also a good idea to be on your own property so that the run off ,.fi'om the,structu��does not fall into a neighbor's yard. �`.'� �� t: ��='� �, .� � �� ,:'. Arlen Bautnhoefner, the applicant, nated that the structure is not being built on the property line but one foot off the property line so water runoff should run on his property and not be an issue. He handed out pictures to the Commissioners to show where the shed would be located. He noted the structure would be backed up to his neighbor's garden and hidden by the existing fence. He further noted that the shed is more like a small camiage house than a shed.