|
, _ � �_` � _ _ �
<br />' Mounds View Plan
<br />Planning Commission April 19, 2000
<br />Regular Meeting Page 5
<br />,, <<-
<br />Planning Associate Ericson stated he believed the site plans ir►dicate remr9��1 of ih� existing
<br />structures, and the accessory building may be a new structure, however, he �i� �����, ���i`tain.
<br />,a; :
<br />��:':.
<br />;
<br />MOTION/SECOND: Kaden/Miller. To Approve Planning Comt�vs"sion Resolr�f���i� :i���t�, � l l-00, a
<br />Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use �'ernut, De��;lnpi►��;aa� ��x;v����u �r�d
<br />Wetland Buffer Pernvt Request for Messiah Lutheran Chui-��a; �,ocated,�,t 2848 �ors;:���� ��,s��cl .��'1.,;
<br />Planning Cases CU00-001, DE00-001 and WB00-001, as �i�°����< <I �t����Indicate tha2 ��i;�a�l��it�� ����
<br />be Changed from (24 Feet or Less) to (25 Feet or Less).
<br />6.
<br />Ayes — 7
<br />Planning Case VR00-002
<br />Property Involved: 8438 Groveland Road.
<br />Discussion Regarding a Variance Request �
<br />in the Front Yard of the Property. ,r;�;�
<br />;�;::;>;;>
<br />Applicant: Gregory & Elizabeth Brurz�`";�;�
<br />Nays — 0
<br />` �fll���'�ar�� ca.g-ried.
<br />Eight-foot Tall Fence
<br />T e applicant was not present "�
<br />, ;:
<br />...;,:...;..;>
<br />: ,��
<br />,
<br />,,, f ;y:
<br />Plann��a� l'x�;;��ci�te Ericsrs�z';���,�r�; i'���; sta�'f repoi� as follows:
<br />This is a ret��l��c �{c�r' $ c✓�.ria�c� �c� �sl[c�v� ��r. a fence taller than that permitted by the Code, in the
<br />front yard of''i�.� �:�t����r;,.,y :io�E�t�� �.� �438 Groveland Road. The applicants, Gregory and
<br />Elizabeth Bru�� s�; lk�,r�. �;,�;�,' _somP ��i�x��;ialties with a neighbor located to the north of their
<br />propert�, arid feli i.J��i3 �(k.� ���$�,�; �ould provide a privacy screen between the two properties, and
<br />� ¢r
<br />redu�s if not eliminate �c���ri�� t��'�1��'harassment issues and problems they have been experiencing.
<br />Q��f�
<br />���ining Associate Eri�scin sta�ed there was significant discussion of this item at the previous
<br />����
<br />����~:��ing of the Plannin��Commission, at which time, the applicant addressed the Commission, and
<br />�r:�
<br />��,���I�ined why she ,���:t that a hardship was evident in her case. He indicated the Planning
<br /><<. :.
<br />��A���nission empat��ed with the applicants' situation, and would have desired to approve this
<br />r����ran� �� ��! ;���re �ieen any means to do so, however, the Commission explained to the applicant
<br />i�"�= a,E��_��'� rr��;� �no hardship that could be tied to the property that would warrant the construction
<br />ofi ���� �`�'ao� �;�nce rather than a four-foot fence. He advised that the Commission must abide by
<br />the language in the Minnesota Statutes and the City Code when granting a variance. He explained
<br />that there are seven criteria, all of which must be addressed and satisfied, however, in this
<br />situation, that could not be done.
<br />Plaruung Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted Resolution 613-00, a resolution denying the
<br />applicants' variance request, for Planning Commission action at this time. He indicated there are
<br />� `-=--
<br />
|