My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Resolution 689-02
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Resolutions
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
Planning Commission Resolution 689-02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/4/2007 3:01:19 PM
Creation date
8/29/2018 5:36:50 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 />Resolution 689-02 <br />April 17,2002 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Planning Application <br />') Zoning Map <br />J Letter from Applicant <br />4 Site Plan Packet <br />5 Staff Report <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to <br />property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship <br />thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by <br />unique or cxtraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner's <br />control; and, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, a public hearing was held Wednesday, April 3, 2002, with regard to this <br />variance requcst; and, <br /> <br />\VHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds Vicw Municipal <br />Codc, 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 of fact related to this request: <br /> <br />1. The property is irregularly shaped and is fronted on all but one property line by public <br />right -of- ways. <br /> <br />2. The facility would house physically handicapped, mobility-impaired adults who require <br />different amenities than one would find in a typical multi-family housing facility. <br /> <br />3. The applicant is proposing more handicap parking stalls than is required in the Minnesota <br />State Building Code. <br /> <br />4. The literal interpretation of the provisions ofthc Zoning Codc would deprive the applicant <br />of rights commonly cnjoycd by othcr property owners in the R.-4, High Density Residcntial <br />zoning district in that varianccs to the requiremcnts are often justified when practical <br />ditl-iculties present a hardship as they do in this situation. <br /> <br />5. The applicant is not responsible for the conditions or circumstances that necessitate the <br />approval of the variance. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />6. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied <br />to others in the same district due to the unique nature of the existing conditions present on <br />the site as well as the type of facility proposcd. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.