Laserfiche WebLink
Item 05A <br />Page 8 of 12 <br /> <br /> <br />Finding: The home was built in 1952 with a detached 1½ car garage. Since then, it has been more <br />common for households to have more than one vehicle. It is reasonable to have a <br />driveway that is two-cars wide. Further, it is reasonable that the proposed driveway be <br />configured such that one side (e.g. lane) of the driveway is aligned with the garage door <br />opening. The Applicant’s request to align one lane along the side yard (e.g. 0’ setback) <br />will allow the other lane to align with the garage door. <br /> <br />Alternatively, if the 5’ side yard setback were maintained, and the second driveway lane <br />were to be between the garage and the house, it would likely necessitate the removal of a <br />mature Maple tree, a High Value and Specimen Tree (over 16” in diameter), according <br />to Mounds View City Code, Section 1127.02. <br /> <br />It is not the City’s intent, however, to preserve significant trees or woodlots where <br />substandard subdivision design, poor drainage, excess slope in streets and driveways or <br />inefficient utility construction would result. That said, if the tree is in the way, it’s the <br />owner’s option to remove the tree, or let the tree dictate the width of the driveway. <br /> <br />4. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone <br />or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner <br />of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not <br />result from the actions of the applicant. <br /> <br />Finding: There are no unique circumstances. The home was built in the 1950’s with a one-car <br />garage, and one-car wide driveway. The tree was planted with this in mind, and is now <br />in the way. There are many homes in Mounds View with the same circumstances. An <br />alternative solution is to replace the one-car garage with a larger garage in the <br />backyard, and widen the driveway within the backyard to accommodate vehicle storage. <br />This would both maintain the 5’ side yard setback, and preserve the tree in the front yard. <br /> <br />5. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Finding: One-third of the homes on the 2400 block of Clearview Avenue have driveways with <br />setbacks less than 5’. Allowing the existing driveway to be reconstructed with a 0’ <br />setback, is not out of character with the neighborhood. <br /> <br />6. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. <br />Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. <br /> <br />Finding: Practical Difficulties include the location of the detached garage (5’-6’ setback from side <br />yard property line), and garage door opening (about 7’-8’ setback), and the home’s side <br />door steeps. <br /> <br />The most practical solution is to remove the tree, and expand the driveway towards the <br />south (interior), or to replace the garage, and expand the driveway into the rear yard. <br /> <br />7. The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a <br />variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or <br />minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out <br />the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough <br />proportionality to the impact created by the variance.