My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1998 Planning Commission Packets
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
1998 Planning Commission Packets
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2018 10:25:19 AM
Creation date
2/22/2012 8:14:59 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
882
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Blacktop Paving of MN Variance Request <br />Planning Case No. 539 -98 <br />December 2, 1998 <br />Page 3 <br />3. Special conditions do not result from actions of the applicant: The condition which would <br />warrant the granting of a variance is the direct cause of the applicant. Again, had the <br />contractor or resident applied for the building permit before starting the work, they would <br />have been informed that what they proposed was not allowable. This criterion cannot be <br />met. <br />4. Granting this variance will not confer onto the applicant a special privilege: Granting of <br />this variance would confer onto the applicant a special privilege not afforded to others in the <br />same district, in that the City Code specifically prohibits driveways from encroaching any <br />closer than one foot to an adjoining property. This criterion cannot be met. <br />5. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. From <br />staffs perspective, there is no hardship. Given that assessment, this question is not <br />applicable and thus, the criterion can not be met. <br />6. The granting of this variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this <br />Title or to other ro ert owners in his dis rict. The intent and purpose of the Code with <br />regard to driveway placement is clear. The one -foot minimum setback is a means to protect <br />both property owners involved - -the applicant and neighbor, in the event that a survey of the <br />lot were to show the dividing lot line in a different location, such as on the driveway as <br />opposed to next to the driveway. This criterion cannot be met. <br />7. This variance will not impair the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. increase <br />congestion on public streets. endanger public safety, or substantially diminish property <br />values in the neighborhood. While granting of this variance would not impair the supply of <br />air and light to the adjacent property owners, the impact to property values or public safety <br />may not be as clear. It would not be expected that traffic would increase as a result of the <br />encroaching driveway. This criterion probably can be met. <br />Except for the last, none of the criteria can be met. According to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 <br />of the City Code, a variance may be granted only when all of the seven criteria are met. It is staff's <br />position that there is no hardship, and as such, no variance should be granted. <br />Recommendation: <br />Approve Planning Commission Resolution 563 -98, a resolution denying the variance request of <br />Blacktop Paving of Minnesota to permit a zero -foot setback for a driveway and requiring said <br />contractor to remove one- foot's width of pavement, restoring area with sod, weather permitting. <br />James Ericson, Planning Associate <br />NADATAIGROUPS1COMDE V1DE VCASE51539 -981 VARIANC E.RPT <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.