Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Property Involved: 8018 Sunnyside Road <br />Discussion and Consideration of Resolution No. 632-00, a Resolution Denying a Side-yard Setback <br />Variance <br />Applicant: Jim Trapp <br /> <br /> <br />Jim Trapp, the applicant, was present. <br /> <br />Planner Ericson gave the Staff report as follows: <br /> <br />Jim and Judy Trapp, property owners of 8018 Sunnyside Road, have applied for a variance to <br />encroach into the required side yard setback to allow for the construction of a deck and gazebo in <br />their rear yard. There is presently a deck in the rear yard three feet from the property line. The <br />Trapps would like to extend the deck an additional two feet (one foot from the property line) and <br />construct upon it a gazebo, also one foot from the property line. <br /> <br />While decks are currently allowed to be setback two feet from property lines, gazebos (which are <br />treated as outdoor accessory buildings in terms of their setback requirements) are required to be <br />set back five feet from a side or rear property line. The property owners of the adjacent property <br />had previously obtained a variance to place a garage one foot from the property line. <br /> <br />For the Planning Commission to act favorably, there must be a demonstrated hardship or <br />practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code <br />overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing <br />body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance <br />with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City <br />Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. <br /> <br />Planner Ericson reviewed Staff’s assessment and interpretation of the criteria. . <br /> <br /> Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do not apply to this property in that the <br />property owners have caused the conditions which necessitate approval of a variance. <br /> <br /> The literal interpretation of the Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly <br />enjoyed by others in the district in that the setback requirements do not prohibit the <br />addition of the gazebo, only its requested location. <br /> <br /> The special conditions or circumstances result from the actions of the applicant. <br /> <br /> Granting of this variance would confer a special privilege to the applicants in that the <br />Trapps are responsible for the conditions that necessitate the variance. <br /> <br /> Granting this variance for a gazebo one foot from the property line would be materially <br />detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone in that it <br />would result in the gazebo being located less than two feet from the neighbor’s garage.