My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-16-2003
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
07-16-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/4/2018 7:15:07 AM
Creation date
9/4/2018 7:14:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
7/16/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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 Variance Report <br />2229 County Road H2 <br />July 16, 2003 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other <br />property in the same zone. <br /> <br />Granting a variance to allow the expansion to encroach six feet into the front setback <br />would not be materially detrimental to the purpose and intent of the zoning code given <br />the large front setback. There have been no objections raised up to this point and the <br />six-foot encroachment would not be noticeable from the street and would not appear <br />inconsistent with the adjoining homes. <br /> <br />g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property <br />or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or <br />endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br />The proposed variance would not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects. <br /> <br />Summary: <br /> <br />All of the criteria, as indicated above, need to be satisfied to justify the granting the variance. <br />In addition to Staff’s review of the criteria, Ms. Bosard has provided the Planning <br />Commission with a detailed letter addressing the hardship criteria along with a set of building <br />plans that would be submitted if the variance were approved. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the property owner and <br />affected neighbors, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the <br />request: <br /> <br />1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 733-03 is attached for the Commission’s <br />approval if that is the chosen course of action. <br /> <br />2. Deny the requested variance. To move forward with this option, the Commission should <br />move to direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to <br />support the denial. <br /> <br />3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered <br />or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request <br />until such information has been provided. Because of the 60-day rule, the Commission <br />would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible however to avoid an <br />inadvertent approval. <br /> <br /> <br />_____________________________________ <br />James Ericson <br />Interim City Clerk/Administrator <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.