My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-06-2013
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
11-06-2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/30/2018 7:35:21 AM
Creation date
8/30/2018 7:31:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
11/6/2013
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
<br /> <br /> <br />Resolution 995-13 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing regarding this <br />request on November 6, 2013; and, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View <br />Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all <br />must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. <br /> <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds <br />that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal <br />Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property <br />located at 2832 County Road 10, and makes the following findings of fact related to its <br />decision: <br /> <br />1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding setbacks is to create physical <br />separation between buildings and parking areas for aesthetics and a sense of privacy <br />for the property owners. The requested reduced setbacks are very similar to what has <br />existed for many years on this property. <br /> <br />2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is <br />improving the property. <br /> <br />3. The applicant is requesting this variance because of the way the building is sitting on <br />the property and the lack of access which forces this property to share adjoining <br />properties access drives. <br /> <br />4. The unique feature of this property is that the north property line is angled, the building <br />does not sit parallel to County Road 10 and is located closer to the front of the lot, <br />making the front parking lot very small and difficult to maneuver through. The building <br />does not have its own access to County Road 10 and must use the adjoining <br />properties’ access driveways. The building has side setbacks of about 14 feet (west <br />side) and 32 feet (east side), which leave limited room to access the rear parking lot. <br /> <br />5. The new parking lot will have similar or larger setbacks than the previous parking lot <br />did, so there will be no change to the existing character of the neighborhood. <br /> <br />6. The variances requested are the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s <br />practical difficulty since that is what the zoning code requires for parking lot setbacks. <br /> <br />7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be <br />necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance <br />upon other properties in the neighborhood. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.