Laserfiche WebLink
8. That the existing configuration of the cul-de-sac bulb causes the placement of a home on the <br />Subject Property that meets the minimum required setback to be located entirely east of the <br />rear wall of the existing home to the north, likely resulting in a partial loss of privacy for the <br />adjacent property owner. <br />9. That the Applicant is requesting the setback to better align a new home on the Subject <br />Property with the existing home to the north and to provide more usable (not encumbered <br />with easement) rear yard space on the Subject Property. <br />10. That the design of the Feldspar Street cul-de-sac bulb creating the practical difficulty was <br />not the result of actions by the Applicant. <br />11. That the plight is/is not due to circumstances unique to the Subject Property. <br />12. That the plight was/was not created by the Applicant. <br />13. That, if granted, the Variance will/will not alter the locality' s essential character. <br />14. That, if granted, the Variance will/will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to <br />adjacent property. <br />15. 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 />16. That, if granted, the variance will/will not increase the congestion on the public street. <br />17. 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 />18. That, if granted, the Variance will/will not permit standards that are lower than those required <br />by state law. <br />19. That, if granted, the variance will/will not diminish established property values within the <br />neighborhood. <br />20. That, if granted, the variance requested is/is not the minimum variance necessary to <br />accomplish the intended purpose of the Applicants. <br />21. 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 />RESOLUTION #15-02-031 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />