Laserfiche WebLink
22. That the owners of the adjacent property to northwest have stated that as long as the proposed <br />detached accessory building is constructed using conventional stick -built construction, has <br />siding and roofing that matches that of the Applicants' principal structure, and includes some <br />stonework to also match their principal structure, they would not oppose the request. <br />23. That there may be an alternative location on the Subject Property that would not encroach <br />upon the minimum bluff line setback, OHWM setback, or the front yard setback. <br />24. That the proposed use (detached accessory building) is a permitted use in the R-1 Residential <br />(Rural Developing) zoning district. <br />25. That the plight is/is not due to circumstances unique to the Subject Property. <br />26. That the plight was/was not created by the Applicants. <br />27. That, if granted, the Variance will/will not alter the locality' s essential character. <br />28. That, if granted, the Variance will/will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to <br />adjacent property. <br />29. That, if granted, the variance will/will not have the effect of allowing a use that is prohibited <br />in the applicable zoning district. <br />30. That, if granted, the variance will/will not increase the congestion on the public street. <br />31. That, if granted, the variance will/will not adversely impact the degree of public health, safety <br />and general welfare provided for in the Ramsey City Code. <br />32. That, if granted, the Variance will/will not permit standards that are lower than those required <br />by state law. <br />33. That, if granted, the variance will/will not diminish established property values within the <br />neighborhood. <br />34. That, if granted, the variance requested is/is not the minimum variance necessary to <br />accomplish the intended purpose of the Applicants. <br />35. That, if granted, the variance will/will not grant the Applicants any special privilege that is <br />denied to the owners of other land in the same district. <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner <br />, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: <br />and the following voted against the same: <br />and the following abstained: <br />RESOLUTION #14-09-176 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />