Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Case MU2017-002 <br />July 5, 2017 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />Further, it is Staff’s opinion that if the Planning Commission’s intent is to allow a taller <br />fence within this front yard, it would be more appropriate to amend the Zoning Code to <br />make 6’ (or 8’) fences a permitted use within the I-1 district, than to grant a variance for <br />this one property. <br /> <br />Staff has prepared two resolutions, one for approval, and one for denial. <br /> <br /> <br />Summary <br />St. Cloud Industrial Products requests a Variance to construct a fence up to 6’ in height <br />within a front yard (maximum 4’ fence height permitted) for properties at 4821 and 4825 <br />Mustang Cir. <br /> <br />A Public Hearing notice was mailed to all property owners within 350’ of the subject <br />properties (eight property owners), and published in the Sun Focus on June 23, 2017. <br /> <br />The City received a response from Ramsey County Parks Dept, owner of the adjacent <br />Rice Creek Regional Park. The County had no comments. <br /> <br /> <br />Recommendation <br />Staff recommends DENIAL of the variance due to lack of a practical difficulty. It is <br />Staff’s opinion that the property does not have unique circumstances justifying a fence <br />within the front yard to exceed 4’ in height. The proposed fence, up to 6’ in height, will <br />not serve the purpose of screening adjacent residential areas (Towns Edge Mobile <br />Home Park). <br /> <br /> <br />The Planning Commission is requested to consider the following options, including <br />conducting a Public Hearing for the Variance request: <br /> <br />1. Resolution 1074-17, approving the variance is attached. <br /> <br />A two-third’s majority vote (5 votes) of the Planning Commission members is required to <br />approve a variance. <br /> <br />2. An alternative Resolution 1074-17, denying the variance is attached, if the Commission <br />chooses this option. A simple majority is required to deny. <br /> <br />3. Table the request(s). If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered <br />or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until <br />such information has been provided. Because of the 60-day requirements (Deadline: Aug, <br />12, 2017) the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably <br />possible to avoid an inadvertent approval.