My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-05-2004
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
05-05-2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/4/2018 6:20:07 AM
Creation date
9/4/2018 6:19:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV City Council
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
5/5/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
Read Variance <br />May 5, 2004 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Variance Considerations: <br /> <br />For a variance to be approved, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship or practical <br />difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly <br />burdensome or restrictive. Minnesota statutes require that the governing body (the Planning <br />Commission, in this case) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its <br />decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, <br />Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of <br />the criteria are met. Establishing a hardship for a fence is more problematic in that typically <br />the need for a taller fence is based on social factors rather than the physical features of a lot. <br /> <br />The hardship criteria are as follows: <br /> <br />a. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply <br />generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, <br />topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective <br />date hereof have had no control. <br /> <br />The motivating basis for this variance request is not property based but socially <br />based. As a result, this particular criteria and some others to follow are not <br />particularly applicable. The homes on this cul-de-sac have typical setbacks and <br />nothing of a physical nature presents an extraordinary issue for the applicant. <br /> <br />b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights <br />commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. <br /> <br />While the literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would not deprive <br />the applicant of typical rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone, the <br />applicant seeks relief to be able to use his property in a more comfortable manner. <br /> <br />c. The special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. <br /> <br />The applicant indicates that he would rather not install a six-foot tall fence in his <br />front yard however the actions of others have prompted the request. <br /> <br />d. Granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that <br />is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. <br /> <br />Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in <br />that every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to seek relief from the <br />literal application of the zoning codes. While true that the Planning Commission has <br />not before granted approval for a tall fence, one such request was granted by the <br />City Council. <br /> <br />e. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. <br />Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.