My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
798-05
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Resolutions
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
798-05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/4/2007 3:01:17 PM
Creation date
8/29/2018 5:37:55 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Resolution 798-05 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give <br />relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements <br />imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical <br />difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that <br />are beyond the property owner's control; and, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Wednesday, June 15,2005, with regard <br />to this variance request; and, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View <br />Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria which must <br />be satisfied in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. <br /> <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission <br />hereby makes the following findings related to this request: <br /> <br />1 . The exceptional or extraordinary conditions relating to the variance request is <br />that the property is a corner lot on a busy street across from a more intensive <br />commercial land usage. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would deprive <br />the applicants of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone <br />because the height limitations would preclude replacement of an existing <br />fence which provides screening and buffering from the traffic and land-uses <br />across the street. <br /> <br />3. The applicant has not caused the configuration of the lot nor the historical <br />usage of the lot and intends only to replace the deteriorated privacy fence. <br /> <br />4. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owners a special <br />privilege denied to others in the same district due to the unique nature of the <br />existing conditions present on the site. <br /> <br />5. The two-foot variance (six foot tall fence) is the minimum variance that would <br />alleviate the applicants' hardship, <br /> <br />6. The replacement of the fence would not be materially detrimental to the <br />purpose of the Zoning Code or to other property in the R-1, Single-Family <br />Residential zoning district. <br /> <br />7. Replacing the existing six-foot tall fence in the front yard of 5290 Pinewood <br />Court would not impair the supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it <br />increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property <br />values. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.