05-17-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 Mr. Meinert inquired if the Commission would require a survey of the property. Planning Associate Ericson explained that the City’s policy is that a survey is a very good idea. He explained that a survey is required for a house, and not necessarily for a garage, however, when a structure is proposed within 5 feet of the property line, a survey is very strongly recommended. He added that the Planning Commission could make such a requirement as a condition of granting a variance. Commissioner Stevenson stated that if the applicant still desires to build closer to the property line than the current 3-foot setback, he would probably desire a survey in order to obtain a variance through the Planning Commission Commissioner Kaden recommended the applicant obtain a survey. He indicated his home is also on an irregularly shaped lot, and in his experience, the measurements can vary. He explained that when he decided to construct a fence, he attempted to locate the survey stakes with a metal detector. He pointed out that by the time he was finished, he could have probably hired a survey for less money and time than he put into this process, and in the end, he only found a lot of buried metal. He stated his neighbors informed him that the survey stakes were probably located in the street, however, there is so much metal under the streets that it is nearly impossible to determine where the stakes are located. He indicated he also discovered that his house was not parallel to the road, which might also be the case with this application. He stated the applicant might discover that the corners of the garage vary in distance from the street, which could make a difference as well. Chairperson Peterson stated the City has established dimensional requirements for a number of reasons. He explained that if a situation is very specific to a particular lot, and these requirements can normally be met, then in order to grant a variance, each of the criteria for a variance must be satisfied. He indicated staff has provided an analysis and response for each of these criteria. He noted that this case involves an additional situation, in terms of a building that is legally non-conforming. He explained that the structure was legal at the time it was built, however, it does not conform by the current Code. He indicated he would not be comfortable extending that non-conformance by allowing the garage to be constructed even closer to the property line however, the exact boundary was unknown in this case. He inquired if the applicant had considered connecting the garage to the house. Mr. Meinert stated this would be more expensive, and he was on a somewhat limited budget. He pointed out that it would cost over $20,000 to attach the garage to the house. Chairperson Peterson explained that if the structures were constructed parallel to each other, it would be easier to add a breezeway in the future, and he could see from the draft the applicant provided that he would not necessarily desire the garage to be butted up against the house,