Agenda Packets - 2000/05/22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council May 8, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 21 property owner of the rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners in the area. He explained that the need for the variance must not result from the actions of the property owner, and that granting the variance would not bestow upon the property owner special privileges. He advised that the variance request must be the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship, it must not be due to economic conditions alone, and that it shall not impair the adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property. Furthermore, the variance must not be materially detrimental to the Chapter of the Title. City Attorney Long advised that if the Council makes all of these findings, they could grant the variance to the applicant, and if they chose to proceed in this manner, he would recommend that the Council make those findings, which would become part of the record, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for formal action at the next meeting, and also move to approve the issuance of permits based upon the findings in the motion to approve the variance. He explained that through this process, the Council would be granting the appeal, as well as the variance request. Mayor Coughlin inquired if it was within the purview of the Council to define the hardship. City Attorney Long stated this was correct. He pointed out that occasionally situations will come forward wherein one property owner requests a higher level of screening or buffering on their property to provide a greater screening from a visual perspective or otherwise, from a neighboring property. He explained that this sometimes occurs when there is a change in use or activity on a neighboring property that requires one property owner to seek a variance for a higher level of screening, in closer proximity to the property line. He pointed out that in this situation, there may be some change in the use or activity on the neighboring property that has resulted in this property owner’s request for a taller fence. Mayor Coughlin stated he would offer as a motion that the Council finds that the situations testified to at the Council Work Session, in conjunction with the staff reports and the Police reports that were involved in this matter, this situation rises to the level required for a variance, and that furthermore, the City Administrator and the Mayor be allowed to enter into the final execution of this document, in order to move forward in this process, with regard to building permits and items of this nature, and allow for the fence without delay. MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Thomason. The Council Finds that based upon the Standards Testified to at the Council Work Session, in conjunction with the Staff Reports and the Police Reports Involved in this Matter, this Situation Rises to the Level Required for a Variance, Furthermore, the City Administrator and the Mayor be Allowed to Enter into the Final Execution of this Document, and to Execute all Necessary Documents Pertaining to Building Permits and Items of this Nature, In Order to Move Forward in this Process and Allow for the Fence without Delay, and Based Upon the Facts and the Presentation, the Council Finds That a Hardship Exists, and Based Upon Those Findings, the Council would Grant the Appeal, and Furthermore, the Homeowner Shall Act in Good Faith Upon the Measure Passed, and that Staff be Directed to Prepare a Resolution in this Regard. Council Member Marty indicated that during the previous Work Session discussion, the possibility of having the Police Chief address the situation in a different manner had come