My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2003 Planning Commission Packets
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
2003 Planning Commission Packets
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2012 11:08:57 AM
Creation date
8/29/2018 5:48:59 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
707
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
Setback Variai�ce Repo�-t <br />2229 County Road {-12 <br />July 16, 2003 <br />I'age 3 <br />f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to �khe pu�rpase of this Title or to ofher <br />property i� fhe same zone. <br />Grartfing a variance fo allow the expansion to encroach six feef into fhe fr°onf sefback <br />would not be maferially defrimenfa! to the purpose and ir�fent of the zoning code given <br />the large fronf set�ack. There have been no objecfions raised up fo fhis point and the <br />six-foof encroachmenf would not be noticeable from fhe sfreef and would not appear <br />inconsisfenf wifh fhe a�'joining homes. <br />g. The praposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of fight and air to adjacent property <br />or substantially increa�e the congestion of 4he public streets or increase the danger of fire or <br />endanger the public safety or subsfantiafly diminish or impair property values within the <br />neighborhood. <br />The proposed variance would not result in any of the abave-ci�ed adverse effects. <br />� <br />Ail of �he criteria, as indicated above, need to be satisfied to justify the granting fhe variance. <br />!n addi#ion to S�aff's reviev� of the criteria, I1�s. �osard has provided #he Planning <br />Gommission with a defiailed letter addressing the hardship criteria along with a set of building <br />plans that would be submiited if the variance were approved. <br />.; . . .. . ,� � <br />After holding the pubiic hearing and taking te�timony frorn sia�f, the property owner and <br />af€ected neighbors, the Commission can take one o# �he foliowing actions related to the <br />reques#: <br />1, Approve ihe variance as requested. Resolution 733-03 is attached for the Commission's <br />approval if that is the chosen course of action. <br />2. Deny the requested variance. To movE forward with this option, the Commission should <br />move io direct staff to draft a r�solution o�f denial with findings of facfi appropriate to <br />support the denial. <br />3. Table the request. If add�tional information is needed before a decision can be rendered <br />or if more disct�ssior� is needed, the Commission can simply move to tabEe �he requ�sfi <br />until stach informagion has been provided. �ecause of �he 60-day rule, fihe Commission <br />would n�ed to act upon ihe request as soon as reasonably possibie however to avoid an <br />inadvertent approval. <br />�J� <br />James Ericson <br />Interim Cifiy Clerk/Admir�isfraior <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.