Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Item No: 6 <br />Meeting Date: November 19, 2003 <br />Type of Business: Public Hearing <br />City of Mounds View Staff Report <br />To: Mounds View Planning Commission <br />From: Kristin Prososki, Planning Associate <br />Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance to Allow <br />a Reduced Side-Yard Setback for a Second-Story <br />Addition at 8471 Fairchild Avenue NE; Planning Case <br />VR03-011 <br /> <br />Introduction: <br /> <br />The applicant, David Przetycki, is proposing to construct a second-story addition above <br />his garage located at 8471 Fairchild Avenue. The home was built in 1981 and at that <br />time was constructed crooked on the lot, causing the northwest corner of the home to be <br />only nine (9) feet, six (6) inches from the side property line. Mounds View Zoning Code <br />requires that the living area of a home is ten (10) feet from the side property line. The <br />requested variance is for six (6) inches. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />Setback requirements are addressed in Section 1104.01 of the Zoning Code. Each zoning <br />district is listed with the corresponding front, side and rear setbacks. In an R-1, Single <br />Family Residential district, the typical building setbacks are as follows: Front, thirty (30) feet; <br />Side, ten (10) feet; and Rear, thirty (30) feet. It is noted that sheds and garages, attached or <br />detached, can have side and rear setbacks of five (5) feet. The Code also addresses the <br />issue of “prevailing setbacks,” however, that is not applicable in this case. <br /> <br />The applicant desires to expand his home by constructing a 1,209 square foot second-story <br />addition above the garage. Under typical circumstances the addition would not require a <br />variance, however, one corner of the home encroaches into the side setback by six (6) <br />inches. <br /> <br />Variance Considerations: <br /> <br />For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical <br />difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly <br />burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning <br />Commission, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its <br />decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, <br />Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of <br />the criteria are met. The criteria are as follows: <br /> <br />a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply <br />generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, <br />topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective <br />date hereof have had no control. <br /> <br />