Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Planning Commission September 6, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 6 <br /> <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson clarified that all variances have to meet the hardship criteria in order to be <br />approved. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson asked if the Planning Commission has ever allowed a variance for a <br />gazebo to be closer than two feet to the property line. <br /> <br />Commissioner Stevenson said they have never allowed a variance for a gazebo and indicated that <br />in the past they have allowed variances for decks but not gazebos. He said that he doesn’t <br />believe the variance would be approved even if there were no garage on the property line. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson asked for a clarification on the exact location where the gazebo would be <br />built. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hegland asked what was on the south side of the pool. <br /> <br />Planner Ericson indicated that there is a house addition. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson asked if there was another location where the gazebo could be placed. He <br />asked if it could be built on the south side of the pool. <br /> <br />Mr. Trapp indicated that it might work to locate the gazebo on the south side of the pool. <br /> <br />Planner Ericson indicated that City Code now allows for three accessory buildings, but added <br />that a gazebo is not considered an accessory building. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson indicated that he recalled when the Planning Commission worked on <br />Ordinance 664 they did not consider a gazebo an accessory structure because it is very seasonal <br />and not used for storage. <br /> <br />Commissioner Johnson indicated that he would like to grant the variance but the situation does <br />not meet the Code requirements. He then indicated that the Planning Commission likes to help <br />people improve their property but he feels he can’t consider approval of this request because it <br />would be too close to the property line and it could be located elsewhere on the lot. <br /> <br />Commissioner Miller stated that in order to grant the variance the applicant has to meet certain <br />criteria and she feels that the criteria have not been met. She also indicated that Mr. Trapp has <br />created this situation and, therefore, is not entitled to a variance. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson stated that he does not believe the hardship requirement has been met in <br />this case. He stated that he agrees with Commissioner Miller that the Trapps made their own <br />situation. He stated that the fact the Trapps gave permission for the neighbor’s garage (even <br />though permission from him was not needed) does not entitle Mr. Trapp to a variance to now <br />build the gazebo. <br /> <br />Chairperson Peterson indicated that for fire safety reasons he would prefer to deny the variance. <br />