2000 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

,` ` _ _ � _ _ _ � •� : "' --- -- .� _ -- y. .,� �. _ ----------- —• - -- . � Item # 6 Cily of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: April 19, 2000 Title: PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 615-00, A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN EIGHT-FOOT TALL FENCE IN THE FRONT YA.RD OF 8438 GROVELAND ROAD. Planning Case No.: VR00-002 Applicant: Gregory & Elizabeth Brunes Location: 8438 Groveland Road Applicable Regulations: Section 1103.08 states that no fence taller than four £eet shall be installed in the front yard of a residential lot. Section 1125.02, Subd. 2 outlines die criteria to be used by the Plaruiulg Commission in its review of variances. Background: The applicants, Gregory & Elizabeth Brunes, who live at 8438 Groveland Road one block south of County Road J, are requesting a variance from the requirement which states that no fence exceeding four feet shall be installed in the front yard of a residential lot. The applicants have submitted a letter in which they express their need for a taller fence as a means to reduce if not eliminate problems being experienced with their neighbors to the north. The fence would provide a privacy screen between the two properties and would allow the applicants to utilize the front of their property in a manner to which they have grown accustomed in the thirty years they have resided at the property. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on April 5, 2000, regarding the request, reiterating the hardships they have endured as a result of the actions of their neighbors. While the Planning Commission collectively sympathized with the applicants' plight, preliminary discussions focused on a lack of a property-related hardship in this situation. In order for a variance to be granted, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difF'iculty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. In this situation, the property itself is not an impediment to development or use nor does it present any associated hardship.