Laserfiche WebLink
_ _— _ _ <br />� , _ -_ -�'� �_ --- ----� - <br />Mounds View Plan <br />Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />- - � ----=--� l'-- �. -- =--� I - ,�_ _. __ ._ � � .. - <br />April 19, 2000 <br />Page 6 <br />four findings of fact listed on the second page, which indicate that there a��� �AO �xceptional or <br />e�ctraordinary circumstances related to the property, and that the literal mteY-������<��r�� of the Code <br />would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed b� t�thers. �r•; ,�i��:X-^r�."�t�e third and <br />n .::.�; . ..:::; <br />fourth findings indicate that without an evident hardship tied �ti'the propeY c;;� �� �dfi;, a.� xvoiald be <br />inappropriate to grant a variance, and that granting a vari�rat;�' to allow fo�'.��i �������r`��t�� ��x��cP in <br />the front yard would be materially detrimental to the pu����.�n�l; of the Zpn�rig Code, ��.��� �s��� x3�a; <br />lend well to the community spirit and neighborhood colac��,����. k�� p�iinted out tha� �:�ai;� �Q,�,�����'. <br />might already be lacking in this situation, however, approv�.� �s�° �:��i;, request would certaitll�� ;;rt � <br />precedent in terms of the potential for future requests for �^��,�a�.•�er��s� x�rnces in the front ya�-ds of <br />other properties. , <br />Planning Associate Ericson indicated the applicant has <br />been forwarded a copy of the staff report and the rest�'1 <br />Commissioner Stevenson requested a brief ez��l�riation <br />as resented at the revious meetin `�`"'� <br />P P g• ,..... .�:: <br />Planning Associate Ericson stated <br />perhaps the fence could be allowec <br />advised that the City Code had be� <br />very similar to a conditional �%se ��:i <br />the use. ,��ka�: �Y�abling langa���;� �it � <br />allow �o�` �Ea�;h �yp� of t���. �� c��: <br />however, t�t�:y ������;,, ii�-st �a�� �ra a��- <br />after whir;�, ��c,�3�;a�c,�it���, �a�on ih�'�°€ <br />for the use ���i��aat�� ����rrr���sarily b���� <br />the City Cour����_ <br />�g Associate E <br />, y;�• <br />��: would be any r� <br />the best response <br />indicated staff felt <br />on in this situatior <br />�c� A�����-r�.��f�;'„ � f���:act; <br />h cle��i�� �hi.;!x�:ciUeSt. <br />and has <br />to an interim use, <br />a� ik�� previo�t's�meeting, 1t had been brought forward that <br />�� � i.empor� structure, through an interim use permit. He <br />�'recen�iy, .; ��is�:d to a1lt�w for interim use permits, which are <br />mits, wit�r'�.��., .,�: ���ti�in that a time limit could be imposed on <br />�e Cod�, ?ac��r����: ,�ecessitates that an ordinance be drafted to <br />�c;,� word�� ���am; �;icy could allow for a use as an interim use, <br />���:a�.nE,e that would amend the City Code to allow for that use, <br />G�crr'�a�;�;_�s stated therein, they could grant an interim use permit <br />�; �•�qu�red to come back before the Planning Commission or <br />������:�� this process would require a minimum of two months before <br />���a€� ��Y� che property owner, and in light of this, it would probably not <br />ie �pplicant, who would most likely take her case to the City Council. <br />actively pursuing an interim use pernut would not be the best course of <br />��;��gland inquired if this was the recommendation provided to the applicant. <br />ciate Ericson stated staff and the applicant did not specifically discuss the interim <br />roach. <br />Commissioner Hegland stated this option was discussed at the previous meeting of the Planning <br />Commission, and he was uncertain whether or not the applicant had a clear understanding of the <br />process. He inquired if this option has been offered to the applicant as an alternative that she <br />could pursue. <br />