My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-19-2020 PC
MoundsView
>
City Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2020
>
08-19-2020 PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/1/2020 10:30:20 AM
Creation date
10/1/2020 10:29:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Planning Commission
DOC TYPE
PACKETS
Date
4/15/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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).
View images
View plain text
Item 05A <br />Page 2 of 12 <br /> <br />Commission has approved 27 variances for driveway setbacks. This suggests that the <br />ordinance is inadequate. <br /> <br /> <br />Analysis <br />The Criteria for Granting Variances is detailed in the Resolution. In summary, the existing hard <br />surfaced driveway is one-car wide. A two-car wide driveway is a reasonable request. The <br />placement of the 1½ car garage limits which side of the garage door (east or west) the driveway <br />should be widened. If widened east (towards the side yard), a Variance is necessary. If <br />widened west, it will likely require removal of a mature tree. The City would prefer to preserve <br />mature trees because they contribute to the character of the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Many homes in Mounds View were built in the 1940’s and 1950’s with a one-car garage. This <br />property is not unique, nor is the situation to choose to preserve green space (setbacks) vs. a <br />70 year-old tree. <br /> <br />It is common for property owners to inquire, or submit zoning permits to widen driveways with <br />less than 5’ setbacks with the intent of preserving mature trees planted in the front yard, or <br />because widening driveways toward the interior yard, would interfere with a home’s side door <br />and steps. This property is not unique, to this dilemma. <br /> <br /> <br />Summary <br />The Applicant requests a Variance to decrease the side yard setback from 5’ to 0’ to reconstruct <br />a driveway. <br /> <br />A Public Hearing notice was published in the Shoreview Press on August 4, 2020, and mailed to <br />property owners within 350’ of the subject property. <br /> <br /> <br />Strategic Plan Strategy/Goal: <br />N/A <br /> <br /> <br />Financial Impact: <br />N/A <br /> <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation <br />It is Staff’s opinion that a two-car wide driveway is reasonable, and that it’s more of a choice <br />between what is more valuable; preserving the side yard setback, or preserving a mature tree. <br />The applicant’s request is to keep the tree and sacrifice the setback. <br /> <br />Staff requests that the Commission conduct a Public Hearing, and consider the following: <br /> <br />1. Approve Resolution 1121-20, Approving the Variance. <br /> <br />2. Approve Resolution 1121-20, Denying the Variance, with Findings. <br /> <br />3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be made, the <br />Commission may Table the request until such information is provided. Because of the 60-
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.