Agenda Packets - 2004/07/26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Scotch Variance and CUP Report July 7, 2004 Page 14 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing regarding the variance and conditional use permit requests on Wednesday, July 7, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 1. Other than the width, the proposed oversized 1,125 square foot garage satisfies the dimensional requirements as outlined in Chapters 1104 and 1106 the Zoning Code. 2. The request is consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the Comprehensive Plan encourages the development and maintenance of residential areas so as to improve the quality, appearance and attractiveness of housing units and residential property in general. 3. The proposed garage would not be out of place given the character and geography of the surrounding area involved and the size of the subject property which is able to accommodate such a structure. 4. The proposed garage would not depreciate the neighborhood. 5. The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that a need exists for the proposed oversized garage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the variance request: 1. The property is located just off of a cul-de-sac and is located on Spring Lake. The irregularly shaped lot and the desire to preserve the view of Spring Lake limit the possible locations of accessory buildings. The proposed garage allows the homeowner to have only one accessory structure, which is planned to be located as far from Spring Lake as possible. In addition, a utility easement limits the depth of the proposed garage. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in that most property owners could have up to three accessory buildings, but due to the constraints of the lot, the applicant has limited options. 3 The special circumstances or conditions do not result from the applicant in that Ms. Scotch had no control over the shape of the lot or the utility easements placed on the property. 4. Granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege in that most property owners do not have such limited options for accessory buildings.