My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-18-2013
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
09-18-2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/30/2018 7:34:50 AM
Creation date
8/30/2018 7:29:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
9/18/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 />Resolution 988-13 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, <br />September 18, 2013, about 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 that must be <br />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 /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission <br />finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View <br />Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard <br />to the property located at 5048 Greenwood Drive, and makes the following findings of <br />fact related to its decision: <br /> <br />1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding limited fence heights in front yards is <br />to not close off the front of the property from the visual openness of the street, but yet <br />still allow a fence for safety and some sense of privacy for the property owners. This <br />becomes difficult is on corner lots, particularly lots that front a busy street, where the <br />property owners really want the privacy due to the high traffic along one of their front <br />yards. <br /> <br />2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is <br />improving the property. <br /> <br />3. The applicant is requesting this variance because the front yard height limitations <br />would preclude having a fence tall enough to provide security, screening and <br />buffering from busy County Road H. <br /> <br />4. The unique feature of this property is that it is a corner lot which creates two front <br />yards, and the house was built close to the north side of the lot so the second front <br />yard is very large. <br /> <br />5. There are other properties along County Road H that have a 6-foot tall fence in the <br />front yard and have not changed the existing neighborhood character or caused <br />visibility problems for traffic. <br /> <br />6. The 2-foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s <br />practical difficulty since the Zoning Code limits front yard fence heights to four feet. <br /> <br />7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be <br />necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance <br />upon other properties in the neighborhood.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.