04-19-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has drafted Resolution 613-00, a resolution denying the applicants’ variance request, for Planning Commission action at this time. He indicated there are four findings of fact listed on the second page, which indicate that there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances related to the property, and that the literal interpretation of the Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others. He stated the third and fourth findings indicate that without an evident hardship tied to the property itself, it would be inappropriate to grant a variance, and that granting a variance to allow for an eight-foot fence in the front yard would be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code, and does not lend well to the community spirit and neighborhood cohesion. He pointed out that this factor might already be lacking in this situation, however, approval of this request would certainly set a precedent in terms of the potential for future requests for eight-foot fences in the front yards of other properties. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the applicant has been notified regarding this action, and has been forwarded a copy of the staff report and the resolution, which denies this request. Commissioner Stevenson requested a brief explanation of the option pertaining to an interim use, as presented at the previous meeting. Planning Associate Ericson stated at the previous meeting, it had been brought forward that perhaps the fence could be allowed as a temporary structure, through an interim use permit. He advised that the City Code had been recently revised to allow for interim use permits, which are very similar to conditional use permits, with the exception that a time limit could be imposed on the use. The enabling language in the Code, however, necessitates that an ordinance be drafted to allow for each type of use. In other words, the City could allow for a use as an interim use, however, they must first pass an ordinance that would amend the City Code to allow for that use, after which, depending upon the conditions stated therein, they could grant an interim use permit for the use without necessarily being required to come back before the Planning Commission or the City Council. Planning Associate Ericson stated this process would require a minimum of two months before there would be any resolution for the property owner, and in light of this, it would probably not be the best response for the applicant, who would most likely take her case to the City Council. He indicated staff felt that actively pursuing an interim use permit would not be the best course of action in this situation. Commissioner Hegland inquired if this was the recommendation provided to the applicant. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff and the applicant did not specifically discuss the interim use permit approach. Commissioner Hegland stated this option was discussed at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, and he was uncertain whether or not the applicant had a clear understanding of the