06-20-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 20, 2001 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Planner Atkinson noted that the fourth criteria is that granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners 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 fifth criteria is that the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship noting economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. He then noted that without a demonstrated special condition any variance granted would exceed the minimum necessary to alleviate a hardship. Planner Atkinson noted the sixth criteria is that the minimum variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. He then noted that granting a variance in this situation would be detrimental to the purpose of the Title by allowing an accessory structure to be located within a required setback while there is ample space to construct the accessory structure in a location that meets the setback requirements established in the Code. Planner Atkinson noted the seventh criteria is that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. He then noted that the requested variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. Planner Atkinson indicated that Staff does not feel the situation warrants a variance and recommended denial of the variance request. He then noted that Staff had drafted a Resolution for consideration at this meeting that would deny the variance request. Chair Stevenson asked why the City does not allow structures within five (5) feet of the property line. Community Development Director Ericson explained that for fire code reasons maintaining adequate space between buildings is important. He also noted that due to the intensity of use keeping structures five (5) feet off of the property lines keeps neighbors a distance from each other to keep them from infringing 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 would need to be in his neighbor’s yard to do the maintenance. Chair Stevenson noted that it is also a good idea to be on your own property so that the run off from the structure does not fall into a neighbor’s yard. Arlen Baumhoefner, the applicant, noted 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 carriage house than a shed.