2021-10-20 PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item 05A Page 2 of 5 circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this chapter has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; (5) The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; (6) The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties; and (7) The Board of Adjustment and Appeals may impose such conditions upon the premises benefitted by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this chapter or to reduce or minimize the effect of the variance upon other properties in the neighborhood and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Strategic Plan Strategy/Goal: None. Financial Impact: None. Recommendation: Staff recommends Approval. It is reasonable for single-family homes to have a two -car wide driveway. This home and others on the west side of the street were constructed in 1956 with a one -car wide driveway. Since this time, the other homes (except the applicant's) have expanded their driveways with a 0' setback. It is reasonable for the applicant to do the same. Changes in topography makes it impractical to expand towards the interior of the property. Conflict of Interest Disclosure: 1. The applicant, Steve Firkus, is the Father of Ben Firkus, who is a friend and neighbor of mine (Jon Sevald). 2. The applicant's contractor, Gary Anderson Landscaping, I (Jon Sevald) hired as a contractor in 2013 and 2018 for improvements to my personal property. I have no personal interest in the Planning Commission's Approval or Denial of this Variance, nor do I have any financial or personal gain. Disclosure of this conflict of interest, or perception of conflict of interest, was provided to the City Administrator, and approval has been provided to participate in this planning case, in compliance with the AICP Code of Ethics.4 Respectfully, 14eNaSiF Jon Sevald, AICP Community Development Director 4 American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), Ethical Principals in Planning (1992); Planning process participants continuously strive to achieve high standards of integrity and proficiency so that public respect for the planning process will be maintained. Planning Process Participants should: (4) Abstain completely from direct or indirect participation as an advisor or decision maker in any matter in which they have a personal interest, and leave any chamber in which such a matter is under deliberation, unless their personal interest has been made a matter of public record; their employer, if any, has given approval; and the public official, public agency or court with jurisdiction to rule on ethics matters has expressly authorized their participation; The Mounds View Visior A Thriving Desirable Communal}