05-05-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission May 5, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases VR2004-0003 and CU2004-001 Director Ericson indicated that fences in residential districts are allowed to be up to eight feet tall in rear and side yards. Any fence section that extends beyond the front face of the home toward the street (or streets, for corner lots) shall not exceed four feet in height. He directed the Commission to the diagram in the staff report. Director Ericson explained that property owner Michael Read is requesting a height variance for a six-foot fence to be located in his front yard. The fence is being proposed between 2204 and 2208 Lois Drive. The fence would be located between the front and back corners of Mr. Read’s property. The area of the fence that would require a variance would only be the portion of the fence that is proposed to be located in the front yard. Director Ericson reported that for a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive. A hardship for a variance is usually based on the lot itself, and this is a rectangular lot on a cul-de-sac. It is a fairly typical lot but it is wider than normal. Director Ericson explained that the first criteria for finding a hardship is that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same vicinity. The basis for this variance request is not property based but socially based. As a result, this particular criteria and some others to follow are not particularly applicable. The homes on this cul-de-sac have typical setbacks and nothing of a physical nature presents an extraordinary issue for the applicant. Director Ericson indicated that secondly, the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would have to deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. While the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive the applicant of typical rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, the applicant seeks relief to be able to use his property in a more comfortable manner. Director Ericson explained that, in addition, the special conditions or circumstances should not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant indicates that he would rather not install a six-foot tall fence in his front yard, however the actions of others have prompted the request. Director Ericson added that granting the variance requested should not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Code to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special