Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission May 2, 2001 <br />Regular Meeting Page 3 <br />________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated the fourth criteria is that granting the variance requested will not <br />confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the Code to owners of other lands, <br />structures or buildings in the same district. He then indicated that the type of variance requested <br />is common and that all requests are judged on their own merits. He further indicated that Staff <br />did not feel that approval of this variance would be a special privilege. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated the fifth criteria is that the variance requested is the minimum <br />variance which would alleviate the hardship and noted that economic conditions alone are not to <br />be considered a hardship. He then indicated that it is the opinion of Staff that the variance <br />requested is the minimum variance to alleviate the hardship. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated the sixth criteria is that the variance would not be detrimental to the <br />purpose of the Code or to other property in the same zone. He then indicated that Staff does not <br />consider the variance to be materially detrimental to the intent of the zoning code or to adjoining <br />properties. <br /> <br />Director Ericson indicated the seventh criteria is that the variance will not impair an adequate <br />supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public <br />streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or <br />impair property values within the neighborhood. He then indicated that he did not feel the <br />proposed variance would result in any loss of light or air to the adjacent property or add any <br />congestion to the public streets. <br /> <br />Director Ericson explained that given the criteria and Staff’s review of those criteria that Staff <br />feels the variance is warranted and recommends that the Planning Commission, after holding <br />public hearing and discussion, either direct Staff to draft a resolution of denial or approve <br />Resolution 654-01 as provided which approves the variance for the eight (8) foot setback at 5148 <br />Rainbow Lane. <br /> <br />Chairperson Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. <br /> <br />Charles Harsch of 5148 Rainbow Lane provided the Commission with a copy of a letter of <br />approval from his neighbor to the north and then offered to answer any questions the <br />Commission had. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zwirn inquired as to the height of the addition. <br /> <br />Mr. Harsch indicated the addition would be 17 feet high measuring from the ground to the top of <br />the roof. He then explained that he and his wife need another room on the upper level for the <br />second child they are expecting. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zwirn questioned whether the condition of the trees had been checked to ensure <br />that they are alive and well. <br /> <br />Mr. Harsch indicated that the trees were all alive last fall and have been trimmed and well cared <br />for.