My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Resolution 655-01
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Resolutions
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
Planning Commission Resolution 655-01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/4/2007 3:01:18 PM
Creation date
8/29/2018 5:36:28 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 655-01 <br />May 2, 200 I <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, May 2,2001, with regard to this <br />variance request; and, <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 />hereby makes the following findings offact related to this request: <br /> <br />1. 5287 Jackson Drive is a corner lot in the R-l Single-Family Residential zoning district. <br /> <br />2_ The variance requested would allow for a replacement of a three-season porch that had <br />sustained irreparable damage from winter snow accumulations. <br /> <br />3 _ The literal interpretation of the code would prevent the property owner from <br />reconstructing the porch at the same dimensions as the previous porch_ <br /> <br />4. The special conditions that necessitate this variance are due to the property being a corner lot and the <br />result of a force of nature-\V-inter snow accumulation. <br /> <br />5. This request is unique in the sense that the variance wou]d permit the reconstruction of a previously <br />existing three-season porch to the same dimensional specifications_ <br /> <br />6. The property owner has not caused the circumstances which necessitate the approval of <br />the variance. <br /> <br />7. The 26-foot setback is the minimum variance that would alleviate the applicant's hardship <br />and allow for the replacement of the porch in the same location.. <br /> <br />8. The replacement of the three-season porch would not be materially detrimental to the <br />purpose of the Zoning Code or to other property in the R-l, Single-Family Residential <br />zoning district. <br /> <br />9, A 26-foot setback in this case would not impair a supply oflight or increase congestion, <br />nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property <br />values, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.