05-15-2013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between homes for aesthetics and a sense of privacy for the property owners. The requested reduced side yard setback will still give over 30 feet of building separation and the requested reduced rear setback is almost the same as on the existing house. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property and making it more livable for their family. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because of the shallow lot and angled property lines. 4. The unique feature of this property is that the backyard is only 25 feet deep and the property is narrow in the front with angled side property lines. There are very few properties in the city that have this type of shape or do not have at least a 30 foot rear yard setback. 5. The current house has had a 25 foot rear setback since it was built in 1978, and there is and will continue to be a large side yard separation between the applicant’s house and the adjacent neighbor even with the addition, so there will be no change to the existing character of the neighborhood. 6. The 2-foot side yard variance and 5-foot 6-inch rear yard variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty since that is what the zoning code requires for living space setbacks. 7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Richard and Laurol Boik, to allow a living space addition to have an 8-foot north side setback and a 24-foot 6-inch rear yard setback at 8385 Groveland Court subject to the following: If within one year after granting the variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not been completed, then such variance shall be come null and void unless an extension of time has been requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Commission. Such extension shall be requested by the applicant in writing, and submitted to the City at least 30 days before the expiration of the original variance. Adopted this 15th day of May, 2013. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Res. 979-13 Page 2