My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-07-2015
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
10-07-2015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/30/2018 7:01:25 AM
Creation date
8/30/2018 6:58:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
10/7/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
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
Planning Case VR2015-008 <br />October 7, 2015 Staff Report <br />Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br />Variance Criteria Review: <br /> <br />The Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission may issue a variance to provide relief to <br />the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes practical difficulties to the property owner <br />in the use of the property owner’s land. This is true for all variance requests. State statutes <br />require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its <br />decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, <br />Subdivision 2, of the City Code. A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the <br />following circumstances exist: <br /> <br />a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. <br /> <br />The zoning code requires minimum structure setbacks for aesthetics and to provide separation <br />and some sense of privacy between neighbors. The variance will not bring the addition and <br />garage any closer to the property line than what is already allowed for the garage. Aesthetically <br />and structurally it makes more sense to have the second floor living area be the same width as the <br />space below. <br /> <br />The non-conformity of the front setback will only increase by the added square footage, not by <br />lessor of a setback. The addition will match the current front setback of the house. The existing <br />garage also has a non-conforming front setback, but it is slightly further back than the house. <br /> <br />b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />The Comprehensive Plan does not specify setback criteria or non-conformities, but it does support <br />improvements to properties and maintaining the housing stock values. This addition would be an <br />improvement in the livability and functionality of this home, along with increased curb appeal and <br />property value. <br /> <br />c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this <br />Title or the City Code. <br /> <br />The applicants want to improve their property with a two-car garage and additional living space. <br />Because of the constraints of the setbacks and the narrow width of the lot, it’s very difficult to <br />construct any additions on this property without a variance. <br /> <br />d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the <br />same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over <br />which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique <br />circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. <br /> <br />This property was subdivided in such a way that created a narrow lot corner lot, and the house <br />was built with two non-conforming front setbacks. These issues make it difficult to add more <br />square footage to the small house. The applicants purchased the property as-is and did not <br />cause the unique circumstances.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.