Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission May 17, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 8 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />however, with six feet or slightly less of a separation and appropriate changes, he might still be <br />able to construct the garage in the proposed location, once the property line has been established. <br /> <br />Mr. Meinert inquired regarding the date of the next Planning Commission meeting. Planning <br />Associate Ericson stated it would be held on June 7th. <br /> <br />Mr. Meinert stated he could provide a survey or more accurate measurements by that time, <br />adding that if he could locate the survey stakes, those measurements should be adequate. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson indicated there appeared to be alternatives available other than the request <br />for a zero setback. Mr. Meinert stated he did not desire to construct the garage in back of the <br />house. He explained that he was already proposing to set the structure back 4 feet. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson advised that given the situation of structures on a lot, it was not always <br />possible to have everything quite right. He stated that the garage has been in its present location <br />for many years, and therefore, he did not see a problem with regard to that placement, however, <br />once the structure is demolished, the legal non-conforming status would disappear, and the <br />current 3-foot setback would be lost. He advised that at that point, the new construction must <br />meet all of the requirements of the Code, and since the garage has existed in this location for <br />many years, he did not see a real issue in this regard, however, in terms of allowing a lesser <br />setback, particularly since the property lines have not been clearly defined, he would have a <br />problem. <br /> <br />Commissioner Berke agreed, adding that some type of a survey would be necessary. <br />Commissioner Miller stated a survey would be very helpful to the Commission. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson advised that the requirements for a variance must still be met. He <br />explained that the Commission must define a hardship, which is not an arbitrary process, but <br />rather, based upon a very strict legal requirement. <br /> <br />Mr. Meinert stated he was aware that only 3 of the 7 criteria for hardship were met with his <br />proposal. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kaden stated he would be comfortable allowing the existing three-foot setback, if <br />the structure could meet the Fire Code requirements. Commissioner Hegland stated this would <br />be reasonable, and it would not necessarily require a survey because the structure already exists. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stevenson advised that this was a public hearing, and the Commission would not <br />be taking action at this time, therefore, the item would not need to be tabled. He indicated staff <br />has requested the Commission provide direction regarding the preparation of a resolution. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson explained that the Commission could not be fully aware of what could be <br />done without knowing the actual distance between the structures and the property line. He