05-17-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Mr. Meinert indicated his home was constructed in 1950, predating the Code and standards for setbacks. He explained that the existing garage is located approximately 3 feet from the property line, and the driveway exceeds the width of the building, and is located in very close proximity to the property line. He stated he would like to have a reasonably sized two-car garage, with a bit of additional space for a workbench and other such items, therefore he is proposing the 24- foot width. Mr. Meinert stated he was aware he did not meet all of the criteria for hardship in this case, however, he was proposing to construct a new garage with an attractive appearance that would match the house. He indicated his house has been completely refinished, and he would utilize the same type of siding and roofing on the garage, which he believed would add beauty to the area. He stated his was one of the nicest homes on Pinewood Drive because of the significant interior and exterior improvements he has made in the past ten years, and this was one of the reasons he was approaching the garage in this manner. Commissioner Stevenson inquired if the applicant planned to obtain a professional survey of the lot. Mr. Meinert stated he has not had the lot surveyed at this point, as this obviously costs money, and he would like to rely upon the fence lines in the backyard, which he assumes are within six to eight inches of the property line. He stated his easterly neighbor had utilized a metal detector to determine the location of the back stake at the northeast corner of the property, and it was exactly where it was supposed to be. He explained that from this point, and measuring to his lot dimensions, which are approximately 90 feet in the back and 105 in the front, there is a 15-foot widening toward the front of the property. He indicated that even if he has a survey performed, he would initially measure the lot himself to determine the exact property lines. Commissioner Stevenson stated he is not aware that the Commission has ever allowed a variance within one-foot of the property line, and for this very reason, whether it be for a structure or impervious surface, it is very likely that relying upon a fence would not provide an accurate representation of the property line. He advised that if a structure or impervious surface was determined to slightly exceed the property line, in the future, there could be major problems. He indicated he felt for the applicant’s situation, adding that the City encourages improvements such as this proposal. He stated he would tend to believe the Commission could allow a variance within a foot of the property line, however, to extend that another 12 inches, and simply state that this was the property line might be problematic in that the property line might be determined to be different in the future. He advised that there could be problems with regard to the overhang, in terms of the runoff, and there were a multitude of reasons the City does not allow for a variance within a foot of the property line.