Agenda Packets - 2005/03/14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Greenfield Estates Variance Report March 14, 2005 Page 13 property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 16, 2005 and based on their review of the facts and their assessment of the hardship criteria, the Planning Commission denied the requested variance due to lack of hardship; and, WHEREAS, the applicant exercised his right to appeal to the City Council the Planning Commission’s variance denial; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing regarding this request on March 14, 2005; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the City Council is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code requires that the City Council consider the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and shall consider the relationship between the proposed variance and the Comprehensive plan and consider the impacts of the use supported by findings of relevant fact. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact related to this request: 1. The property is zoned R-4, High Density Residential. 2. The Zoning Code requires that multiple family properties provide one covered parking space per unit. 3. The applicant is requesting a variance to provide 100 covered parking stalls for an apartment complex with 125 units. 4. The property is regularly shaped and is neither exceptional nor extraordinary. There is no physical reason that all the required garages cannot be constructed. 5. The literal interpretation of the Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. 6. Granting a variance in this case would confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 7. Granting the variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title in that there does not appear to be a sufficient hardship to warrant approval of the variance. 8. The proposed variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or