05-17-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Planning Associate Ericson stated staff examined this application very closely, in light of the magnitude of the variance requested. He explained that this variance would allow for a zero setback for a structure, which is not something that is typically approved. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff reviewed this application in terms of the seven variance criteria necessary to establish a hardship. He advised that the hardship criteria tend to be associated with the property, i.e., the configuration of the lot, the topography, or physical features, which would make the literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome and restrictive for the property owner. He indicated that in this regard, there do not appear to be any extraordinary circumstances present. He pointed out that the lot is somewhat irregularly shaped, which slightly throws off the setbacks, however, staff is of the opinion that granting a variance up to the property line would be a privilege not necessarily afforded to any other property owner in the district. Planning Associate Ericson explained that there does not appear to be any hardship that would warrant the approval of this request, in that the garage could be situated in the backyard where there would be sufficient room to construct it to the specifications the applicant desires. He noted the size of the existing garage is small, and staff recognizes the need for expansion and that the size requested is well within the guidelines for a garage. He explained that the reason this variance is being requested is because the proposed garage would be so close to the property line, and in this case, on the property line. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff felt it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to have some discussion regarding this matter, and therefore, has not drafted a resolution for consideration at this time. He advised that this was a public hearing, and staff would recommend that the Planning Commission discuss this item, and based upon that discussion and the facts presented, direct staff to bring forward a resolution at the next meeting, which would either approve or deny the variance request. Harry Meinert, the applicant stated he had obtained written permission from the property owner located on his westerly border to construct the garage to the property line, which would leave approximately 20 feet between the house and the new garage structure. He explained that with a zero setback from the property line, he would maintain a six-foot clearance from his house, which would meet the standards of the Fire Code. Mr. Meinert stated the proposed structure would be set back from the house, however, he did not wish to extend it into the backyard. He provided the Commission with a drawing, which depicted the situation of the existing building on the lot, and explained that if he constructed the garage in back of the house, it would infringe upon the sunlight that comes into the house and the 25-foot extension he constructed six years earlier. He added that this would also negatively impact the appearance of the house. He stated he proposed to construct the garage on the existing site.