PL PACKET 08172021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. _____________ A RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR A FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from Anthony Farah for a variance from the required maximum height for a fence in the front yard at 3501 Maplewood Drive, legally described as follows: Lot 23, Block 5, Wilshire Park 4th Addition (Subject Property); and WHEREAS, the property is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential district and the applicable fence height for the front yard is 6 feet for the Subject Property on the south side of the home; and WHEREAS, Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code Section §152.245 provides that City Council must provide evidence that the subject matter of the application is within the scope of the section and that strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a variance from the fence height dimension requirements to accommodate space for a swimming pool; and WHEREAS, the impervious surface limits on the property would permit a swimming pool and appurtenant deck and fence within the required setbacks; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 17, 2021 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings of fact in support of the resolution for approval: 1. The applicant is able to construct a swimming pool, pool deck, and privacy fencing within the allowable setback. 2. A pool of the size that would encroach into the front yard would exceed impervious surface standards on the lot. 3. The applicant cannot show unique conditions on the property that interfere with putting the property to a reasonable residential use. 4. Circumstances that would lead to variance approval are the result of the actions of the owner, in violation of the requirements for variance consideration.