09-17-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item No: 5 Meeting Date: September 17, 2003 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Reduced Front Yard Setback for a Roof Extension at 2434 Hillview Road; Planning Case VR03-008 Introduction: Rebecca and Lance Bainville, property owners of 2434 Hillview Road, have requested a variance to construct a roof extension off the front of their home to cover a permitted deck addition six feet closer to the street than the existing building. All of the homes fronting Hillview Road on this block are set back approximately the same distance—30 feet from the property line. The variance requested is four feet. Discussion: Setback requirements are addressed in Section 1104.01 of the Zoning Code. Each zoning district is listed with the corresponding front, side and rear setbacks. In an R-1, Single Family Residential district, the typical setbacks are as follows: Front, 30 feet; Side, 10 feet; and Rear, 30 feet. It is noted that sheds and garages, attached or detached, can have side and rear setbacks of 5 feet. The Code also addresses the issue of “prevailing setbacks,” however that is not applicable in this case. The applicants obtained a building permit to construct a deck off the front of their home within the front setback. A deck is considered an allowable encroachment into a front setback, provided it does not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure. The deck extends six feet into the front yard. Awnings, eves and other roof extensions are also allowed as an encroachment, however they are limited to no more than a two-foot encroachment. Thus, the extent of the variance requested is four feet. Variance Considerations: 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. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission, in this case) 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 criteria are as follows: