Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-2015 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA October 7, 2015 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes August 19, 2015 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2015-008 Variance to Allow a Reduced Side Yard Setback for Living Space and to Allow an Addition and Garage to Expand on the Non-Conforming Front Setback Applicant: Jason & Sarah French Address: 2474 County Road H2 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Proposed Code Amendment to Allow Fences Taller Than 4-Feet in Front Yards of Corner Lots 7. Review Minutes A. September 2, 2015 8. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases B. Staff Updates C. Council Updates D. Planning Commissioner Reports 9. Next Planning Commission Meetings A. Wednesday, October 21, 2015 B. Wednesday, November 4, 2015 10. Adjourn PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting September 2, 2015 Mounds View City Hall 2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for September 2, 2015. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Elofson, Kieffer, Klander, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller and Council Member Gary Meehlhause. ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Special Order of Business A. Oath of Office for Commissioner Justin Klander Planning Associate Heller administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed Planning Commission member Justin Klander. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2015-007 Variance to Allow a 4-foot Encroachment into the Front 2 Yard Discuss a Code Amendment to Allow Fences Taller than 4-Feet in Front 4 Yards of Corner Lots _____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Approval of Minutes Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ August 5, 2015. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the August 5, 2015 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 5. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Planning Cases A. VR2015-007 Variance to Allow a 4-foot Encroachment into the Front Yard Applicant: Jerome Buchanan Address: 5231 Irondale Road Planning Associate Heller indicated Jerome Buchanan, property owner of 5231 Irondale Road, has requested a variance to construct a roof extension off the front of his home four feet closer to the street than the existing building, to cover the front steps. All of the homes on this block of Irondale Road are set back the same distance—30 feet from the property line. The variance requested is to encroach four feet into the front setback. Associate Heller stated setback requirements are addressed in Section 1104.01 of the Zoning Code. Each zoning district is listed with the corresponding front, side and rear setbacks. In an R- 1, Single Family Residential district, the typical setbacks are as follows: Front, 30 feet; Side, 10 feet; and Rear, 30 feet. It is noted that sheds and garages, attached or detached, can have side and rear setbacks of 5 feet. Associate Heller explained the applicant wants to build a 12-foot wide by 4-feet deep roof to cover the front steps. A front stoop or deck is considered an allowable encroachment into a front setback, provided it does not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal structure. The steps extend four feet into the front yard. Awnings, eves and other roof extensions are also allowed as an encroachment, however they are limited to no more than a two-foot encroachment. Thus, the variance of an additional two feet is requested. Staff reviewed the request in further detail and recommended approval of the 4-foot encroachment into the front yard. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Tim Miller, 5225 Irondale Road, presented the Planning Commission with several photographs. He did not believe the proposed project would improve the site. He explained that the homeowner does not complete projects. He suggested that the homeowner consider placing Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ gutters on the house as the water was running of the applicant’s roof and was flooding his property. He stated this property was an eyesore in the neighborhood and had a great deal of mold growing on the site, which was impacting his family’s well-being. Laura Miller, 5225 Irondale Road, recommended that the applicant consider placing gutters on his house to alleviate the water situation that was now taking place in her backyard and basement. She expressed a great deal of frustration with the poor condition of her neighbor’s home and believed the request should not be approved. Mark Matusovic, 5220 Skiba Drive, reported the applicant’s garage construction was a big jumbled mess and the construction took entirely way too long. He reported the garage still had no siding at this time. He believed the applicant had too many projects underway that were incomplete and another project should not be taken on. He recalled that this was the first summer in years that the applicant has mowed his lawn. Commissioner Elofson asked if one year would be enough time to complete the proposed project. Associate Heller believed a year should be plenty of time to complete the proposed project. Chair Stevenson questioned how the City would react if the project was not completed in a timely manner. Associate Heller stated that a fine would be first assessed against the property owner, and continued non-completion would lead to a court citation. Commissioner Schiltgen inquired what action the City was taking on the incomplete garage. Associate Heller reported that the contractor has now walked away from the project and the City was aware of the situation and monitoring it. Commissioner Schiltgen believed that the applicant’s property was in need of major improvement. Commissioner Klander asked if the applicant had any other code violations with the City. Associate Heller was uncertain and stated the site had no junk lying around at this time. Commissioner Klander questioned if the tar paper was sufficient covering for a building. Associate Heller understood that the site had been covered with tar paper since approximately late last fall. She commented that the City was trying to be reasonable and allow the homeowner enough time to complete the project since the contractor walked away. She indicated that the City was working with the homeowner to complete the project. Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson was of the opinion that the City could not deny the request based on the applicant’s past. He was in favor of tabling action until the homeowner could be present to provide the Commission with additional information on the property. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Klander. To table action on this item to the October 7, 2015 Planning Commission meeting. Ayes – 6 Nays – 1 (Elofson) Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 7. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss a Code Amendment to Allow Fences Taller than 4-Feet in Front Yards of Corner Lots Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that the Planning Commission has received, and approved, several variances over the last few years allowing a 6-foot or 8-foot fence in the second front yard of corner lots. Commissioners have mentioned that maybe the zoning code should be amended to allow for these taller fences since they are always approved. Another variance request for a 6-foot fence was approved at the last Planning Commission meeting on August 19, 2015, and at that time, again it was mentioned that there should be discussion to amend the code. The Commissioners in attendance all agreed, and asked staff to add this code amendment discussion to the next meeting agenda. Associate Heller explained the Zoning Code allows fences up to 4-feet tall in any part of a property. Fences that are taller than 4-feet are only allowed behind the front line of the house (the Zoning Code allows fences up to 8-feet tall). Properties that are on corners have two front yards and therefore are much more limited in where they can put a taller fence. Property owners want the taller fences for privacy and safety, and the Planning Commission has been very understanding of this and approved every fence height variance request. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and discuss the information, and provide staff with direction about the proposed amendment. Chair Stevenson believed it was time that the City amended it code. He supported the City allowing up to a six foot fence for a second front yard with requests for taller than six feet still requiring a variance review by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Schiltgen questioned how many requests the City has had for an eight foot fence on corner lots. Associate Heller recalled only three requests in the past ten years. Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Kieffer expressed confusion with City Code Section 1102 and asked which lot line was considered to be the designated front yard. Associate Heller discussed this with the Commission and explained how the City interpreted front yards. Chair Stevenson was in favor of staff revising the Code Amendment with the front yard definition being more clearly defined to be discussed at a future Planning Commission meeting. In addition, he supported fence heights being 6-feet or less in second front yards of corner lots with at least a one-foot setback from the property line on the second street frontage side. The Commissioners all agreed with this recommendation. Staff will bring a resolution with language for this code amendment to the next meeting. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Review Minutes: A. August 19, 2015 The Commission discussed the August 19, 2015 meeting minutes. No changes were made. 9. Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. B. Staff Updates Planning Associate Heller provided the Commission with an update from staff. She was pleased to report that the City has eight new homes being built so far this year. C. Council Updates Councilmember Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City Council. He noted that the Council approved the first reading of an Ordinance that would allow beekeeping in the City of Mounds View. He discussed the Council’s upcoming worksession agenda and noted the 2016 budget was in the works. D. Planning Commissioner Reports Commissioner Love recommended that the Commission approve minutes in a more timely manner. She suggested that a copy of the minutes be provided to the Chair at the meeting in order for the changes to be discussed. Mounds View Planning Commission September 2, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Further discussion ensued regarding the minute approval process. 10. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. Wednesday, September 16, 2015 B. Wednesday, October 7, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:16 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: October 7, 2015 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Title/Subject: Public Hearing - Consideration of Variance Request to allow for Reduced Front and Side Yard Setbacks at 2474 County Road H2; Planning Case VR2015-008 Introduction: The property owner, Jason French, is requesting a variance to permit a garage and living space addition to his house at 2474 County Road H2 to encroach five feet into the required ten-foot side yard setback. The variance is also requesting that the new garage be allowed to have the same front setback as the house, which is less than the minimum required. The owners want to build a new attached garage and expand the second floor of the house over the garage. The new garage and second floor would have a five foot side yard setback, which is acceptable for the garage, but the living space setback requirement is ten feet. The addition area would also be brought forward slightly to match the existing front line of the house. Discussion: The French’s house is a small 1 ½ story style with a detached 1-car garage that was built in 1950 on a 0.35 acre corner lot. This property has a non-conforming lot width and front setbacks on both street frontage sides: - Minimum corner lot dimensions are 100 feet by 100 feet – the applicant’s property is 74 feet wide by 208 feet deep; - Minimum front setbacks for structures is 30 feet from the property line – the house on this property is setback 19.8 feet from the County Road H2 side and 9.4 feet from the Irondale Road side. The applicants like their neighborhood and want to improve the functionality and livability of their home by building an addition with an attached 2-car garage and expanding the second floor of the house over the garage. The current garage is set back 6 feet from the side property line and the new garage would be set back 5 feet in order to maximize the amount of room next to the house. Needed square footage can be added to the main floor by placing the garage at the 5 foot setback, but structurally and aesthetically, it doesn’t make sense to have the second floor 5-feet narrower than the first floor so that it can have a 10-foot living space setback. The front setback for the house is non-conforming at 19.8 feet rather than the required 30 feet. The Zoning Code allows non-conforming structures to remain as-is and be maintained, but the non-conformity cannot be expanded on without a variance. The non-conformity for this property would increase since the new addition/garage would increase the footprint at the reduced house setback. Planning Case VR2015-008 October 7, 2015 Staff Report Page 2 Variance Criteria Review: The Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission may issue a variance to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the property owner’s land. This is true for all variance requests. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The zoning code requires minimum structure setbacks for aesthetics and to provide separation and some sense of privacy between neighbors. The variance will not bring the addition and garage any closer to the property line than what is already allowed for the garage. Aesthetically and structurally it makes more sense to have the second floor living area be the same width as the space below. The non-conformity of the front setback will only increase by the added square footage, not by lessor of a setback. The addition will match the current front setback of the house. The existing garage also has a non-conforming front setback, but it is slightly further back than the house. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not specify setback criteria or non-conformities, but it does support improvements to properties and maintaining the housing stock values. This addition would be an improvement in the livability and functionality of this home, along with increased curb appeal and property value. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicants want to improve their property with a two-car garage and additional living space. Because of the constraints of the setbacks and the narrow width of the lot, it’s very difficult to construct any additions on this property without a variance. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. This property was subdivided in such a way that created a narrow lot corner lot, and the house was built with two non-conforming front setbacks. These issues make it difficult to add more square footage to the small house. The applicants purchased the property as-is and did not cause the unique circumstances. Planning Case VR2015-008 October 7, 2015 Staff Report Page 3 e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The new addition and overall home improvements will have a positive effect on the look of the property from the street, and increase property values. The addition will only be one foot closer to the east neighbor than the existing garage is. The movie theater and an office building are across the street from this property and are screened by wooded areas. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 5-foot variance for a living space setback is the minimum variance needed since that is what the Zoning Code requires for living space setback, and the addition and garage will expand the non-conforming front setback. g. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Staff has no suggestions for conditions for the variance request. The Planning Commission may add conditions as they see applicable. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, this application requires a public hearing. Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant’s property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper on September 25, 2014. Staff has not received any comments or questions as of October 2, 2015. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 1036-15 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 2. Deny the requested variance. The Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Planning Case VR2015-008 October 7, 2015 Staff Report Page 4 Respectfully Submitted By Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photos 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Survey 5. Proposed Site Plans 6. Resolution 1036-15 N ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family R id i l Carmike Movie Theater I r o n d a l e County Road H2 Aerial View of 2474 County Road H2 N Aerial View of 2474 County Road H2 Movie theater property Office building Photos of 2474 County Road H2 Garage has a 6 foot setback – new addition would have a 5 foot setback Trees provide some screening between the homes County Road H2 Red lines show area where addition would increase house space Rear of 2474 County Road H2 House is setback 9.4 feet from west property line View from Irondale Road Survey for 2474 County Road H2 overlayed with Addition Addition Plans for 2474 County Road H2 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1036-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FIVE-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR LIVING SPACE AND ALLOW AN ADDITION AND GARAGE TO MATCH THE EXISTING HOUSE 19.8 FOOT FRONT SETBACK AT 2474 COUNTY ROAD H2; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2015-008 WHEREAS, property owner, Jason French, has applied for a variance to allow a house addition to encroach five feet into the required 10 foot side yard setback at 2474 County Road H2; and, WHEREAS, 2474 County Road H2 is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 1, Clear View Addition, Except the Southerly 80 feet thereof. Ramsey County, Minnesota, PIN: 08-30-23-32-0108 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Proposed Site and Addition Plans 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Views 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Staff Report WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing regarding this request on October 7, 2015; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria that must be satisfied in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 2474 County Road H2, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 1036-15 Page 2 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding building setbacks is to give some sense of privacy and separation for the property owners and their neighbors. The proposed garage and living space addition would still maintain the required 5-foot garage setback. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicants are improving the property. 3. The applicants are requesting this variance because their limited yard width and non- conforming setbacks will not allow any living space additions. 4. The unique feature of this property is that it is a narrow corner lot with existing non- conforming setbacks on two sides. 5. The addition will change the look of the front of the property for the better. This addition will be a nice improvement to the property and for the neighborhood. 6. The 5-foot side yard living space variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty since the Zoning Code requires a minimum 10 foot rear yard setback. The new garage and addition will be 3.2 feet closer to the front than the current garage in order to be in line with the house, and will expand on the existing non-conforming front setback. 7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Jason French, to allow a living space addition to have a 5-foot side yard setback, and allow the addition and new garage to have the same non-conforming front setback as the existing house at 2474 County Road H2 subject to the following: If within one year after granting the variance, the work as permitted by the variance has not been completed, then such variance shall be come null and void unless an extension of time has been requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Commission. Such extension shall be requested by the applicant in writing, and submitted to the City at least 30 days before the expiration of the original variance. Adopted this 7th day of October, 2015. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: October 7, 2015 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Review Proposed Code Amendment for Fence Height on Corner Lots; Special Planning Case SP-198-15 Discussion: At the September 2, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission discussed allowing 6-foot or 8-foot fences in the second front yard of corner lots. The Zoning Code currently allows fences up to 4-feet tall in any part of a property. Fences that are taller than 4-feet are only allowed behind the front line of the house (the Zoning Code allows fences up to 8-feet tall). Properties that are on corners have two front yards and therefore are limited in where they can put a taller fence. Property owners want the taller fences for privacy and safety, and the Planning Commission has been very understanding of this and approved every fence height variance request. Commissioners have suggested that the zoning code should be amended to allow for these taller fences since there have been several variance requests for taller fences and they are always approved. The Planning Commission agreed that it’s time to amend the zoning code to allow for over 4- foot tall fences on corner lots. The Commission suggested allowing up to a 6-foot fence in the second front yard of a corner lot with at least a 1 foot setback on the street frontage side. A fence taller than six feet on a corner lot would still need to go through the variance process. Staff has made some additional amendment suggestions to this section based on issues that have come up: - Specified that no plantings, not just trees and shrubs, over 30-inches tall are allowed in the 30-foot sight triangle at intersections, - No fence or wall may interfere with natural drainage, - Public or semi-public properties may have fences up to 8-feet tall in any yard area. Staff Report – Fence Code Amendments October 7, 2015 Page 2 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed code amendment language. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Diagram showing allowed fence height locations with proposed amendment 2. Resolution 1036-15 City Code Permitted Fence Location for Corner Lots Red lines demonstrate the code change to allow a 6 foot fence on corner lots. 6’ or less 1’ setback MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1036-15 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 1103 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE PERTAINING TO FENCING; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 198-15 WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that amendments be made to the City Code relating to fences; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation that the allowed height of fences on corner lots be increased; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Title 1100 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: 1103.08: FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING: Subd. 1. Height: No fence shall exceed eight feet (8') in height, and in the case of grade separation, such as the division of properties by a retaining wall, the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. Subd. 2. Intersections: No structures or plantings 30-inches or more in height, or fences, structures or planting of trees or shrubs shall be permitted within thirty feet (30') of any corner formed by the intersection of street property lines or the right of way of a railway intersecting a street, except properly constructed chain link fences. Such chain link fences shall not exceed forty eight inches (48") in height from the grade level at the lot line and shall have openings in the wire mesh of not less than one and five-eighths inches (1-5/8") nor more than two and one-fourth inches (2-1/4"). Such fences may follow the lot line to the lot corner. The thirty feet (30') restriction noted above shall consist of the triangle formed by connecting the two (2) points on intersecting lot lines that are each thirty feet (30') from the lot corner. Subd. 3. Location: a. Except as provided in subdivision 2 above, fences not to exceed forty eight inches (48") in height may be located on any part of a lot. Fences not to exceed ninety six inches (96") in height may be erected on any part of a lot behind the front line of the principal building. The City Council may require or approve fencing up to ninety six inches (96") in height in a front yard to satisfy a buffer or screening condition of a development review or conditional use permit. (Ord. 658, 8-14-00) Resolution 1036-15 Page 2 b. A fence or retaining wall shall be installed on the applicant's property. The fence or retaining wall shall not be installed directly over the property line but shall not otherwise be subject to a setback requirement, except as provided in Subdivision 3c below. (Ord. 773, 8-14-06). c. Fences on corner lots whose side yard abuts a roadway may be 6 feet in height beginning at the front building line of the principle structure, provided that the fence has a minimum 1-foot setback from the property line abutting the roadway. Subd. 4. Landscaping Required: In all zoning districts, the lot area remaining after providing for off-street parking, off-street loading, sidewalks, driveway, building site and/or other requirements shall be planted and maintained in grass, sodding, shrubs or other acceptable vegetation or treatment generally used in landscaping. The requirements of Chapter 1127.05 must be met for all new developments in the R-3, R-4, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, I-1 and PUD districts. (Amended, Ord. 785,12-10-07) Subd. 5. Surface of Fences: Any fence shall be so constructed that the surface facing adjoining properties or public rights of way shall be of finished construction. Subd. 6. No fence or wall shall obstruct natural drainage. Subd. 7. Fences on public and semi-public properties may be erected in any yard to a height of eight (8) feet. WHEREAS, amending the City Code to increase fence height on corner lots, clarify that fences and walls shall not obstruct drainage and allow fences up to 8-feet tall on public properties would better serve the public; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Title 1100 of the Mounds View City Code as defined herein. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 7th day of October, 2015. ________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL)