06-15-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 15, 2005 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Case VR2005-006. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request for a Fence in a Front Yard Taller than Permitted by Code at 5290 Pinewood Court. Applicant: Shawn and Stephanie Young Community Development Director Ericson explained that the applicants, Shawn and Stephanie Young, are requesting a variance to replace an existing non-conforming fence in the front yard of their property located at 5290 Pinewood Court. He advised the Young’s home is a corner lot, and therefore has two lot frontages. He stated the Zoning Code indicates that no fence in front of the front line of a building may exceed four feet in height. He indicated the applicants would like to replace the existing six-foot tall privacy fence, which acts as a buffer and screen from County Road H2. Director Ericson stated the property is a corner lot, which is not in itself unique, however the unique circumstance is that the fence currently exists. He advised the property is on a busy roadway across the street from commercial and industrial uses, which is another unique factor to consider. He stated the applicants have a nicely landscaped backyard protected by the existing privacy fence. He indicated to locate the fence any closer to the home would result in lost backyard area to which the applicants have been historically accustomed to using. Director Ericson advised that for this variance to be approved, as with any variance request, there needs to be demonstrated substantial hardship or practical difficulties associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. He reviewed the variance criteria and Staff’s findings. He explained that the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances are that the fence currently exists and is in need of replacement, and is necessary for continued privacy and screening that the special conditions or circumstances did not result from the actions of the applicant, since the fence existed when they purchased the property and appears to have been there for many years. He added that City Staff can find no previous variance request for the fence, and it is possible it was constructed at the time the home was built. He continued by saying that granting of the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege and that the variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship and would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this property or to other property in the same zone. He stated that the lot to the east backs up to this property, and there is no property on the side yard that would be affected. He added that the lot to the east was granted a variance for an addition, so there is history as to the unique circumstances of these two similar properties and that the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property. Community Development Director Ericson stated Staff sent notices to property owners within 350 feet, and the only comment received in opposition was from a resident on Spring Lake Road who is opposed to fences in front yards in general. He indicated after holding the public hearing,