Planning Commission Resolution 568-99

Home Browse Search

. . . PlmUling Commission Resolution 568-98 Gates Varimlce January 6, 1999 Page 2 WHEREAS, the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district in that the literal interpretation of the language regarding accessory building height, if upheld, would require the applicant to demolish the work already completed on the garage expansion (i.e., remove footings, foundation, slab, walls) so as to excavate one foot deeper, repour the floor, reinstall the footings and foundation. If the garage floor were excavated as such one foot deeper, no variance would be required as the height of accessory buildings is measured from the exterior grade, not the interior floor elevation.; and, WHEREAS, special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant in that while Mr. Gates is responsible for owning a vehicle which does not conform to City Code, he is attempting to correct the situation by constructing a garage with a one-foot variance in order to park the vehicle inside; and, WHEREAS, granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners or other lands, structures or buildings in the same district in that staff would instruct future applicants intent upon parking an oversize vehicles within a garage how to make such arrangements without the need for a variance. Because staff told Mr. Gates that the truck would need to be removed ajier construction had already begun on the garage addition, staff could not offer Mr. Gates this advice; and, WHEREAS, the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship, in that in order to reconfigure the garage to allow for the truck to be parked inside, the garage door will need to be made one-foot taller. Because of the added door height, the garage in turn would become one foot taller. This is the minimum variance possible with keeping the garage roof in line with the roof of the home; and, WHEREAS, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other properties in the same zone in that many attached garages have taller roofs to match the roof-line of the home. The one-foot increase will be imperceivable to the general public and the public benefits from not having to see the applicant's work vehicle parked in front of the home; and, WHEREAS, the variance wouldllot impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood in that the one foot difference from what is allowed and what is requested will not impair any neighboring properties' supply oflight or air, it will not create any additional traffic impact nor will it increase the danger offire or endanger the public safety. There would not be any impact to property values in the immediate area.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, llpproves the variance to allow a 16-foot tall garage at 5364 Clifton Drive, in accordance with the building plans on file with the Building Inspector.