My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Resolution 587-99
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Resolutions
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
Planning Commission Resolution 587-99
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/4/2007 3:01:22 PM
Creation date
8/29/2018 5:22:34 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Resolution 587-99 <br />Gregori Variance <br />July 7, 1999 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal <br />Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be <br />satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. <br /> <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission <br />finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View <br />Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the property <br />located at 2801 W oodale Drive to warrant the approval of a variance to Michael and Christine <br />Gregory for the constnlction of a 672 square-foot garage eleven feet from the property line, and <br />makes the following findings offact related to its decision: <br /> <br />1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to 2801 Woodale Drive which do not <br />apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity in that the house and <br />garage were built in 1953, predating the City's zoning code by seven years. <br /> <br />2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of <br />rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this <br />Title in that multiple car garages are common features in this district and serve as a <br />physical improvement to properties <br /> <br />3 The variance request is the result offactors over which the applicants had no control. The <br />house and garage were constructed in such a way that made the garage non-conforming <br />with the advent of the City's Zoning Code. <br /> <br />4. Granting a variance to allow a two-car garage in the same location as the existing single- <br />stall garage, without further encroaching into the setback, would not be a special privilege. <br />Multiple-car garages are standard residential features while single stall-garages are <br />becoming functionally obsolete. <br /> <br />5. The Planning Commission finds that an eleven-foot setback is the minimum variance that <br />would alieviate the applicant's hardship. <br /> <br />6. The purpose of the variance provision in the Code is to give relief to property owners <br />seeking to improve their properties yet are unable to do so because of zoning code <br />requirements and factors beyond their control. Granting this variance for a two-car garage <br />utilizing the same setback as the existing garage would not be materially detrimental to the <br />purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. <br /> <br />7 A 672 square-foot garage set back eleven feet from the Silver Lake Road right of way <br />would not impair a supply oflight or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger <br />offire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.