Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 6 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Meinert indicated he planned to finish the garage with sheathing and a ceiling. He <br />commented he has measured several times, and determined there would be 5 feet 8 inches one <br />time, and 6 feet 4 inches another time, which would depend upon the exact location of the <br />property line. He stated it would probably save some time to have a professional survey done. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson explained that with an application, the Commission is typically provided <br />with a professional site plan or accurate measurements. He advised that a professional survey <br />would be a better approach, particularly in a case that involves setbacks. He pointed out that <br />there have been several cases in which buildings have been constructed on neighboring <br />properties, because everyone believed the property line to be in a particular location, however, it <br />was not as it appeared. <br /> <br />Mr. Meinert indicated that there should be a front and back stake on the property, and if they are <br />located, a straight line string would provide at minimum, a good guideline, however, he would <br />be willing to retain a surveyor to determine the location of the westerly property line, which <br />would be more accurate for the Commission’s needs. He explained that if this matter was tabled <br />until the next meeting, he could obtain a survey and submit it to staff. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson advised that a survey would generally be required as part of an application. <br />Commissioner Miller noted there might actually be more room on the property than the applicant <br />thought. <br /> <br />Mr. Meinert stated there is a double fence located on the westerly border of the property, and he <br />would estimate that this fence is within 6 to 8 inches of the property line. He added he has lived <br />at this property for 25 years, and during that time, it has always remained the same. He indicated <br />he did not particularly care if it was changed, however, in this particular case, it was important to <br />have an accurate measurement. <br /> <br />Planning Associate Ericson pointed out that a hardship might be found in the fact that the <br />existing garage is 3 feet off of the property line, and at minimum, the applicant be allowed to <br />construct the garage in the same location. He indicated that if this were the case, and these <br />measurements were verified by the survey, a 24-foot wide structure 3 feet from the property line <br />would provide for a five-foot separation between the house and the garage. He explained that if <br />the specific Fire Code precautionary measures were met for structures with less than a six-foot <br />separation, the Commission, at the same time as granting a variance to allow for what in effect <br />exists, could also grant a variance for the reduced setback from the garage to the house. He <br />advised that the City Code requires a six-foot separation between structures. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland stated it was difficult to determine the correct measurements without <br />knowing the exact location of the property line, however, assuming that the garage would be <br />parallel to the house, and the applicant were to construct a 24-foot garage with a six-foot <br />separation between the two buildings, the Commission could determine the exact setback from <br />that point. He indicated this may be another way to approach this application.