My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-16-2009
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
12-16-2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/30/2018 9:07:53 AM
Creation date
8/30/2018 9:05:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
12/16/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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 />Resolution 920-09 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal <br />Code, 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 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 hardship with regard to the property located <br />at 2280 County Road I, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: <br /> <br />1. Circumstances apply to this property in that the west property line is not straight since <br />there is a garage on the adjoining property around which the property line jogs. This <br />jog cuts out the southwestern corner of the property, creating an odd shaped parcel. <br /> <br />2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would limit the applicant’s <br />ability to have an adequate length entrance driveway into the car wash. <br /> <br />3. The applicant had no control over the placement of the garage, or the actions of the <br />people he hired to design and build the car wash. <br /> <br />4. Granting this variance would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that <br />the odd lot shape due to the neighbor’s garage is a pre-existing condition. <br /> <br />5. The zero (0) foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s <br />hardship. <br /> <br />6. Granting a variance to allow for a driveway with a zero-foot setback would not be <br />detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code, in that the area between the car wash <br />and the neighbor’s garage is almost completely taken up by the driveway. Whether or <br />not there is 5 feet of rock or 10 feet of rock between the edge of the driveway and the <br />garage would not make much difference as this area is not used by the neighboring <br />property owner. The car wash has opened with the zero-foot setback and it is causing <br />no adverse impacts. <br /> <br />7. Granting the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the <br />adjoining property. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.