06-21-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 7, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ access to the backyard and limits how the garage can be constructed and makes it difficult to build a garage that would be two cars deep rather than two cars wide. When the house was built, it was placed 30 feet from the north side property line and 24 feet from the south side property line, which is where the side entrance and previous garage were placed. This leaves limited space for more than a one-car garage. Most of the other homes in the area were placed off center on the lot allowing more room for garages. Planning Associate Heller then addressed the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Title and explained that while the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by the other properties in the same zone, the placement of the home on the lot and the slope of the back yard precludes the applicant from having more than a one-car garage. This in itself may be considered a hardship. She noted the applicants are not the original owners of the property and had no choice in the placement of the home or the slope of the rear yard. With regard to special privilege, Planning Associate Heller noted that granting the variance would not confer upon the property owners a special privilege in that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their property. Setback issues are the most common source of variance requests. Planning Associate Heller stated the applicant is requesting a three-foot variance, which is the minimum amount that would allow the proposed garage to be wide enough for two cars. Granting a variance to allow the addition to encroach three feet into the side setback would not be materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. The previous detached garage was 8.5 feet from the property line. The proposed addition should not have any impact on the supply of light or air to adjacent properties, nor would it impact congestion on the street. The proposed garage will not increase the danger of fire, endanger pubic safety or decrease property values in the neighborhood. Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that after holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and the affected neighbors, the Commission can approve, deny or table actions related to the request. If the Commission chooses to deny the requested variance, it should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. Should the Commission choose to table the request because they require additional information before a decision can be made or more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information is provided. Because of the 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Mr. Jim Wilson, 7025 Pleasant View Drive, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Wilson stated his intention is to get both cars in a garage. Their son just turned 16 so there will be a third car in the driveway. Mr. and Mrs. Wilson also want to clean up their lot and keep pace with the upgrades to other houses in area.