06-21-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 9 ________________________________________________________________________ 1,800 square feet. Thus the Code does not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others. With regard to special conditions or circumstances, Director Ericson stated the applicants indicate they have exceeded their available on-site storage capacity and thus would like to construct a new 1,620 square foot accessory building in the backyard to house their arcade games rather than store their machines off-site. The request for this variance is necessitated by the applicant’s hobby and not due to property or other limitations over which they have no control. Director Ericson advised that granting the variance would confer upon the applicants a special privilege in that no single-family residential property owner is allowed more than 1,800 square feet of accessory storage space. The applicants have indicated that the requested 2,468 square feet of accessory storage space is the minimum amount necessary to alleviate their self-created hardship. Granting such a variance would set an unusual standard and would be contrary to the purposes of the Zoning Code. While each request is reviewed on its own merit, approving such a variance request would set a precedent leading to ramifications of this action. Director Ericson stated the proposed addition would not likely have any impact on the supply of light or air to adjacent properties, nor would it likely impact congestion of the streets. The proposed garage would not likely increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety or decrease property values in the neighborhood. Director Ericson summarized by explaining that for a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all criteria are met. In review of the above criteria, it is clear that not all criteria can be reasonably met. Given that, it would not appear that a variance in this case would be justified. Director Ericson stated that after a public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owners and affected neighbors, the Commission they can decide to approve, deny or table the request. Director Ericson acknowledged that staff does not support this action as the review of the hardship criteria does not appear to warrant approval. If the Commission believes hardship is evident, it would need to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval, which clearly outlines the basis of hardship. Director Ericson indicated that staff has prepared a resolution of denial based on its review of the hardship criteria which does not appear to justify approval. If additional information is needed before a decision is made or if more discussion is required, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Director Ericson reminded the Commission that because of the 60-day requirements, it would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Acting Chair Miller asked Director Ericson if this is a garage and he stated it was indeed a garage. Her calculations indicate this building would be larger than the current house and garage together. At this time, Acting Chair Miller called the applicant forward.