05-21-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item No: 5 Meeting Date: May 21, 2003 Type of Business: Public Hearing and Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Interim City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request Regarding Property Located at 7375 Pleasant View Drive; Planning Case VR03-003 Introduction: The subject property is a narrow, interior lot located at 7375 Pleasant View Drive and is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The property owners, Lens and Blair Loder, are requesting a variance to reconstruct a garage with a one-foot side-yard setback. The Zoning Code requires a five-foot setback for accessory buildings. The lot is only 66 feet wide, significantly less than the minimum required by Code. It is due to this narrow lot width, existing mature trees and a desire to maintain visibility between the house and a backyard play area that has prompted the applicants to request the variance. Discussion: For a variance to be approved, there needs to be demonstrated hardship or practical difficulties associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria are as follows: a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. The existing garage, which is too small and too narrow to be of contemporary function, is currently set back one foot from the side yard lot line. The new garage would be constructed behind the existing garage at the same setback. The property owners had no control over the reduced lot width and the existing setback. The other circumstance relating to this request is the desire to preserve the mature oak trees in the back yard. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. The subject property is not typical—it is more narrow than any other residential lot in the City, created by a minor subdivision (presumably) in the late 1950s. The existing garage is situated one-foot from the property line. The configuration of the lot and the location of the house create circumstances whereby literal interpretations would deprive the applicants of rights in that the setback requirements are based on a minimum 75-foot wide lot.