My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-03-2003
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
12-03-2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/4/2018 7:25:53 AM
Creation date
9/4/2018 7:25:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
12/3/2003
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
Driveway Variance Report <br />2817 Laport Drive <br />December 3, 2003 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to <br />other property in the same zone. <br /> <br />The variance may be detrimental to the purpose of this Title unless it is determined <br />that a hardship is present. <br /> <br />g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent <br />property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the <br />danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property <br />values within the neighborhood. <br /> <br />The expansion should not result in any of the above-cited adverse effects <br /> <br />Summary: <br /> <br />In order for the Planning Commission to approve this variance request, the above <br />criteria must be satisfied. Although each of the cases brought before the Planning <br />Commission are viewed individually and on their own merit, it is worthwhile to note that <br />a similar case was brought before the Planning Commission by Violet Woods in 2002. A <br />driveway with a curb cut that exceeded the permitted width was constructed without a <br />permit and the owner requested to be allowed to leave it as constructed. The request <br />was denied. <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. Deny the requested variance. Resolution 744-03 is attached for the Commission’s <br />denial if that is the chosen course of action. <br /> <br />2. Approve the variance as requested. To move forward with this option, the <br />Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of approval with findings of fact <br />appropriate to support the approval. <br /> <br />3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be <br />rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table <br />the request until such information has been provided. Because of 60-day <br />requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as <br />reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. <br /> <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br /> <br />Kristin Prososki <br />Planning Associate
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.