Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-2014 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 21, 2014 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: April 16, 2014 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. VR2014-002 Variance for 8-foot Fence in Second Front Yard of a Corner Lot Applicant: Michael Winkel Address: 7701 Bona Road B. VR2014-003 Variance for a 6-foot Fence in Second Front Yard of a Corner Lot Applicant: Blaine Fyksen Address: 5045 Eastwood Road C. VR2014-004 Variance for a Second Curb Cut Applicant: Frands Jensen Address: 7800 Groveland Road 6. Other Planning Activity A. None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, June 4, 2014 B. Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8. Review Minutes: A. May 7, 2014 9. Staff Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner’s Reports 11. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting May 7, 2014 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Schiltgen at 7:00 p.m. for May 7, 2014. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Birken, Elofson, Rundle, and Schiltgen. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Carvelli-Yu, Love and Stevenson. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2014-001 Consideration of Variance Additional Wall Signage 2 MA2014-001 Consideration of Major Subdivision of Longview 2 Estates into 10 Lots Review Sign Code Amendment, Chapter 1008.10 4 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes April 2, 2014. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Birken. To approve the Minutes of the April 2, 2014 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission May 7, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2014-001 Consideration of Variance for Additional Wall Signage Applicant: Chad Mason, Allegiance Fitness Address: 2240 Woodale Drive Planning Associate Heller requested the Commission consider a variance for Chad Mason with Allegiance Fitness at 2240 Woodale Drive to allow for additional wall signage. She reported the business has two primary building sides and two building entrances facing the parking lot, and would like to add a 120 square foot sign facing County Road 10 and a 39 square foot sign above each entrance. The signage would assist people in finding their building. Staff did not object to the request and recommended approval of the variance for additional wall signage for Allegiance Fitness. Vice Chair Schiltgen opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Vice Chair Schiltgen requested further information on the temporary sign. Associate Heller explained that businesses were allowed to have several temporary signs on a yearly basis. She believed that the applicant wouldn’t need temporary signs as much after the new wall signage was put in place. Vice Chair Schiltgen closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Vice Chair Schiltgen questioned when the wall signs would be placed on the building. Chad Mason, Allegiance Fitness at 2240 Woodale Drive, anticipated the signs would be attached to the building in the next five or six weeks. He appreciated the Commission’s consideration noting the new signs would greatly assist his clients in locating his business. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Elofson. To approve Resolution 1001-14, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for Additional Wall Signage; Planning Case No. VR2014-001. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission May 7, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ B. MA2014-001 Consideration of Major Subdivision of Longview Estates into 10 Lots Applicant: Eichi, Inc., Marty Harstad Address: 2195 Silver Lake Road Planning Associate Heller indicated Marty Harstad was requesting to subdivide a seven acre vacant parcel into 10 single-family lots. The location of the property was described by staff. She commented the plat would be known as Longview Estates. Staff discussed the subdivision in further detail and recommended approval of the request. Martin Harstad, 2195 Silver Lake Road, stated he was one of the family members that owned this property. He commented he had already received approval on the subdivision from the Rice Creek Watershed District. He reported sewer and water stubs were installed for each of these lots back in the 1960’s, along with a storm sewer pipe. He discussed how the storm water would be treated prior to being discharged into the wetland. It was noted the current rain gardens would be moved slightly but remain on the property. He indicated behind the homes there would be a boulder retaining wall to keep property owners from infringing on the wetland. He reported he had one builder that would construct homes on each of the 10 lots. Vice Chair Schiltgen questioned the timeline for the proposed subdivision. Mr. Harstad anticipated that soil corrections would take place over the next 30 days. The builder would love to begin homes shortly thereafter. He reported most utilities were already onsite. Commissioner Elofson expressed concern with the proposed development and the destruction of the wetlands. He believed there had to be another solution to save the wetlands. Mr. Harstad indicated storm water from the streets was already draining into the wetland and he was proposing to improve the water quality. While a portion of the wetland would be filled, he explained he had purchased twice as much space, as a wetland credit, to make up for the small amount of wetland on this site that would be removed. In the end, better wetlands would be created. He reported that Rice Creek Watershed had supported this plan. Commissioner Rundle indicated that a lot of wetland would still remain on this subdivision. Commissioner Birken questioned if the future residents that lived on these lots would be frustrated with the fact they would not be able to put a play structure or shed in their rear yard. Mr. Harstad commented the future residents would be informed that the wetland, which is designated as an easement on the plat, could not be encroached upon. He explained the boulder wall would assist in creating a barrier to encroachment. Associate Heller indicated that residents requesting building permits or an accessory structure would be told that they are not able to place anything in the easement area. Mounds View Planning Commission May 7, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Elofson recommended the Commission reconsider this request as additional wetland would be lost. Mr. Harstad explained he was trying to work with the City to create a best case scenario and wanted to create a pleasing development for the neighborhood. He discussed the amount of wetland that would remain within the subdivision and believed the proposed subdivision was a great compromise between the amount of woods and wetlands that would remain. He indicated he had rights as a property owner as well. Commissioner Elofson questioned the value of the site once fully developed. Associate Heller anticipated that the value of the 10 lots would be at least $2 million once fully developed. Commissioner Birken inquired where the utilities would be located. Associate Heller noted all utilities would be located along Longview. Commissioner Birken stated she too did not like to see the City’s wetlands decreasing. She asked if the pond would be fenced. Mr. Harstad indicated the pond would not be fenced. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Birken. To approve Resolution 1002-14, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Preliminary Plat for the Major Subdivision of Longview Estates into 10 Lots; Planning Case No. MA2014-001. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Sign Code Amendment, Chapter 1008.10 Planning Associate Heller reviewed a proposed sign code amendment to Chapter 1008 of City Code. She explained this section addresses dynamic display signs and the blending or movement of the screen. It was noted dynamic signs would not be allowed to blink or flash. Commissioner Birken supported the proposed changes to the Sign Code. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Birken/Commissioner Elofson. To approve Resolution 1000-14, a Resolution Recommending a Sign Code Amendment to Chapter 1008.10 about Dynamic Display Signs; Special Planning Case SP-190-14. Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission May 7, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. May 21, 2014 B. June 4, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Review Minutes: A. April 16, 2014 The Commission discussed the April 16, 2014 meeting minutes. No changes were made. 9. Staff Updates A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. She noted on Monday, June 2, 2014 there would be a joint meeting between the Council and Planning Commission. 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports None. 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Schiltgen adjourned the meeting at 8:11 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: May 21, 2014 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance to Allow an Eight-Foot Tall Fence in the Front Yard of 7701 Bona Road; Planning Case VR2014-002 Introduction: The applicant, Mike Winkel, is requesting a variance to install an 8-foot tall fence in the “second front yard” of his corner lot located at 7701 Bona Road. The property is located at the southeast corner of Bona Road and County Road I. Since two streets border corner lots, they have two front yards. As such, the City Code requirement for front yard applies to two sides of the property, which means that corner lots to have additional limitations. The Zoning Code indicates that no fence in front of the front line of a building in a residential district may exceed four feet in height. The applicant would prefer to have an 8-foot tall wood fence for screening from County Road I since his yard is a little lower than the sidewalk, and thus has applied for the variance. Discussion: The applicant currently has a 6-foot fence in the second front yard area but it needs to be replaced, and he wants to expand the fence to the front line of the garage (see attached site plan). A permit for the existing fence was issued by the City in 1981. According to the Municipal Code, Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3, fences of a height greater than 48 inches (4 feet) are not allowed in the front yard of a property without a variance. The Zoning Code also establishes a sight triangle that limits all obstructions within the area at the corner of intersections, measured thirty (30) feet from the point where the property lines meet at the intersection of two streets. The proposed fence would not be located within the sight triangle. Variance Considerations: For the City to approve this variance, as with any variance request, there needs to be demonstrated practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. The City has set these criteria in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria and a staff comment about each are as follows: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The property at 7701 Bona Road is a corner lot, which is not in itself unique; however, the applicant seeks permission to have an 8-foot tall fence for the purpose of privacy and screening from busy County Road I. This property is across the street from several apartment buildings which create a lot of vehicle and pedestrian traffic, and there is a sidewalk along County Road I, adjacent to the applicant’s property. The applicant’s yard is a couple of feet below the sidewalk level, so he would like to install an 8-foot fence to compensate for the grade difference. The taller fence would provide privacy and security for this property. 7701 Bona Road Variance Report May 21, 2014 Page 2 b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan supports improvements to properties. The applicant, owning a corner lot, is at a disadvantage to improve the property as other homeowners might because the property has two front yards. Every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their property. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicant cannot control the fact that his property is a corner lot with two front setbacks. The corner lots are much more restricted by the City Code and many times the resident’s use and privacy of the property is limited because of these restrictions. 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. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that most property owners do not have to work with these setback constraints. The City has approved similar variances for taller fences in front yard areas of corner lots that are along busier streets. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The fence is setback about 35 feet from the edge of the County Road I pavement so it should not impact any sight lines, including the view for vehicles going south from Bona and turning onto County Road I. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The four foot variance is the minimum variance needed since the Zoning Code limits front yard fence heights to four feet. 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 does not have any suggested conditions. A zoning permit is required for the fence installation. 7701 Bona Road Variance Report May 21, 2014 Page 3 Based upon the review of the above criteria, it appears to staff that the requested variance does satisfy the practical difficulty threshold. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, a public hearing is required. City staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of 7701 Bona Road. Staff has not received any comments as of May 16, 2014. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and any neighbors, the Commission should take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 1003-14 is attached for the Commission’s approval if they so choose. 2. Deny the requested variance. To move forward with this option, the Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Commission needs more information before making a decision or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can table the request until they are provided such information. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Statement from Applicant 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Corner Lot Fence Diagram 6. Resolution 1003-13 ZONING MAP County Road I * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View COUNTY ROAD I Per City Code- only the RED line area can have a fence more than 4-feet tall without a variance. The YELLOW lines are where the applicant is requesting a variance to install an 8-foot tall privacy fence. Bona Rd Site plan from Applicant Photographic Documentation Existing 6ft fence County Road I Applicant’s house 7701 Bona Applicant wants to extend new 8-foot fence up to the front corner of the garage There is about a 2-foot grade difference between the sidewalk and the applicant’s yard, which is why he wants to install an 8-foot tall fence City Code Permitted Fence Location for Corner Lots MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1003-14 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR AN EIGHT-FOOT TALL FENCE IN THE SOUTH FRONT YARD OF 7701 BONA ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2014-002 WHEREAS , the applicant, Michael Winkel, has applied for a variance to allow an eight- foot tall fence in the south front yard (near County Road I) of his property at 7701 Bona Road; and, WHEREAS, 7701 Bona Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: Greenfield, The South 110 feet of the West ½ of Lot 11, Block 2. Subject to Road Easements; Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 05-30-23-33-0036 WHEREAS, Section 1103.08 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the maximum height of a fence in a front yard four feet (4’); and, WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow an eight foot (8’) fence in the front yard abutting County Road I; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents about this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Photographic Documentation 4. 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 public hearing on Wednesday, May 21, 2014, about this variance request; 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. Resolution 1003-14 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings related to this request: 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 7701 Bona Road, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding limited fence heights in front yards is to not close off the front of the property from the visual openness of the street, but yet still allow a fence for safety and some sense of privacy for the property owners. This becomes difficult on corner lots, particularly lots on busy streets, where the property owners really want the privacy due to the high traffic along one of their front yards. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because the front yard height limitations would preclude having a fence tall enough to provide security, screening and buffering from busy County Road I. 4. The unique feature of this property is that it is a corner lot with two front yards, and there is a sidewalk along County Road I that is adjacent to the applicant’s property. 5. The 8-foot tall fence in the front yard should not change the existing neighborhood character or cause visibility problems for traffic. 6. The 4-foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty since the Zoning Code limits front yard fence heights to four feet. 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, does hereby approve the variance request for a six- foot tall fence in the south front yard of 7701 Bona Road. Adopted this 21st day of May, 2014. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: May 21, 2014 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Six-Foot Tall Fence in the Front Yard of 5045 Eastwood Road; Planning Case VR2014-003 Introduction: The applicant, Blaine Fyksen, is requesting a variance to install a 6-foot tall fence in the “second front yard” of his corner lot located at 5045 Eastwood Road. The property is located at the southwest corner of Eastwood Road and County Road H. Since two streets border corner lots, they have two front yards. As such, the City Code requirement for front yard applies to two sides of the property, which means that corner lots to have additional limitations. The Zoning Code indicates that no fence in front of the front line of a building in a residential district may exceed four feet in height. The applicant would prefer to have a 6-foot tall wood fence for screening from County Road H, and thus has applied for the variance. Discussion: The applicant currently has a 4-foot chain link fence in the second front yard area but it offers little security and no screening. A sidewalk will be installed along County Road H, adjacent to the applicant’s property in the near future. According to the Municipal Code, Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3, fences of a height greater than 48 inches (4 feet) are not allowed in the front yard of a property without a variance. The Zoning Code also establishes a sight triangle that limits all obstructions within the area at the corner of intersections, measured thirty (30) feet from the point where the property lines meet at the intersection of two streets. The proposed fence would not be located within the sight triangle. Variance Considerations: For the City to approve this variance, as with any variance request, there needs to be demonstrated practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. The City has set these criteria in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria and a staff comment about each are as follows: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The property at 5045 Eastwood Road is a corner lot, which is not in itself unique; however, the applicant seeks permission to have a 6-foot tall fence for the purpose of privacy and screening from busy County Road H. This property is very close to Sunnyside School which creates a lot of vehicle and pedestrian traffic, and there will be a sidewalk along County Road H, adjacent to the applicant’s property within the next year or two. The taller fence would provide privacy and security for this property. 5045 Eastwood Road Variance Report May 21, 2014 Page 2 b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan supports improvements to properties. The applicant, owning a corner lot, is at a disadvantage to improve the property as other homeowners might because the property has two front yards. Every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their property. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicant cannot control the fact that his property is a corner lot with two front setbacks. The corner lots are much more restricted by the City Code and many times the resident’s use and privacy of the property is limited because of these restrictions. 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. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that most property owners do not have to work with these setback constraints. The City has approved similar variances for taller fences in front yard areas of corner lots that are along busier streets. The applicant’s lot is smaller than the current minimum lot size, so the majority of the yard space available is on the south side of the house. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The fence will be setback about 16 feet from the edge of the County Road H pavement so it should not impact any sight lines, including the view for vehicles going south from Eastwood and turning onto County Road H. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The two foot variance is the minimum variance needed since the Zoning Code limits front yard fence heights to four feet. 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 does not have any suggested conditions. A zoning permit is required for the fence installation. 5045 Eastwood Road Variance Report May 21, 2014 Page 3 Based upon the review of the above criteria, it appears to staff that the requested variance does satisfy the practical difficulty threshold. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, a public hearing is required. City staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of 5045 Eastwood Road. Staff has not received any comments as of May 16, 2014. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and any neighbors, the Commission should take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 1004-14 is attached for the Commission’s approval if they so choose. 2. Deny the requested variance. To move forward with this option, the Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Commission needs more information before making a decision or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can table the request until they are provided such information. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Statement from Applicant 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Corner Lot Fence Diagram 6. Resolution 1004-13 ZONING MAP County Road H * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View COUNTY ROAD I Per City Code- only the RED line area can have a fence more than 4-feet tall without a variance. The YELLOW lines are where the applicant is requesting a variance to install an 8-foot tall privacy fence. Eastwood Road County Road H **Highlighted area indicates where new fence would be located. Site plan from Applicant Photographic Documentation County Road H Front of Applicant’s house 5045 Eastwood Property line is about 16 feet from street edge New 6-foot fence would replace the chain link fence in same location Rear of Applicant’s house 5045 Eastwood City Code Permitted Fence Location for Corner Lots MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1004-14 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A SIX-FOOT TALL FENCE IN THE SOUTH FRONT YARD OF 5045 EASTWOOD ROAD ; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2014-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, Blaine Fyksen, has applied for a variance to allow a six-foot tall fence in the south front yard (near County Road H) of his property at 5045 Eastwood Road; and, WHEREAS, 5045 Eastwood Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: Twelve Oaks, Lot 8, Block 3, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 07-30-23-44-0075 WHEREAS, Section 1103.08 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the maximum height of a fence in a front yard four feet (4’); and, WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow a six foot (6’) fence in the front yard abutting County Road H; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents about this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Photographic Documentation 4. 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 public hearing on Wednesday, May 21, 2014, about this variance request; 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. Resolution 1004-14 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings related to this request: 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 5045 Eastwood Road, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding limited fence heights in front yards is to not close off the front of the property from the visual openness of the street, but yet still allow a fence for safety and some sense of privacy for the property owners. This becomes difficult on corner lots, particularly lots on busy streets, where the property owners really want the privacy due to the high traffic along one of their front yards. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because the front yard height limitations would preclude having a fence tall enough to provide security, screening and buffering from busy County Road H. 4. The unique feature of this property is that it is a small corner lot with two front yards, on a busy road. 5. The 6-foot tall fence in the front yard should not change the existing neighborhood character or cause visibility problems for traffic. 6. The 2-foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty since the Zoning Code limits front yard fence heights to four feet. 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, does hereby approve the variance request for a six- foot tall fence in the south front yard of 5045 Eastwood Road. Adopted this 21st day of May, 2014. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 5C Meeting Date: May 21, 2014 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance to allow a Second Curb Cut and Driveway at 7800 Groveland Road; Planning Case VR14-004 Introduction: The applicant, Frands Jensen, property owner of 7800 Groveland Road, is requesting a variance to allow a second curb cut and driveway on his property. The City Code allows one curb cut on each R-1, Single Family Residential zoned property without a variance. Discussion: The house at 7800 Groveland Road is on the corner of Groveland Road and Oakwood Drive. The applicant purchased the house in 2013 and built a detached garage that faces Oakwood Drive. The applicant and contractor were informed by City Staff at the time of the building permit application that a second curb cut was not allowed for single-family homes. The applicant parks a trailer in the detached garage and wants the driveway so that he does not need to drive over the curb to access the garage. The applicant could install a partial driveway from the garage up to five feet from the property line, which would be considered a parking area. The Code just does not allow the second curb cut opening at the street. For the Planning Commission to act favorably toward this application, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. 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. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. While it is true that some lots do have two curb cuts, there are not many of them. While there are a few properties with two curb cuts on a corner lot, it is even less common to see properties with two completely separate driveways. Staff feels that limiting the applicant to one curb cut would not be depriving him of something commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not address this specific of an issue, but traffic safety and management is an important function for the City. By limiting access points onto the streets, there are less traffic movements and the streets are safer. 7800 Groveland Road 2nd Driveway Variance Report May 21, 2014 Page 2 c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicant would use the second driveway to access the detached garage on his property and not need to drive over the City street curb. The applicant was informed that a second driveway was not allowed prior to building the garage in the current location, and knew he would have to drive over the curb. 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. There are no unique circumstances associated with this property. The applicant built the detached garage for his trailer, and had been informed prior to construction of the garage that second curb cuts were not allowed. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There are no other single-family properties in the neighborhood with two curb cuts. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Adding the second curb cut is the minimum variance possible to alleviate what the applicant has stated is his difficulty. 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 recommended conditions. 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 Friday, May 9, 2014. Staff has not received any comments as of May 16, 2014. 7800 Groveland Road 2nd Driveway Variance Report May 21, 2014 Page 3 Recommendation: Staff recommends holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and the public. The Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Staff does not support this action as the review of the practical difficulty criteria appear to not warrant approval. If however the Commission believes practical difficulty is evident, you would need to direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval which clearly outlines the basis of hardship. 2. Deny the variance request. Staff has prepared a resolution of denial based on its review of the practical difficulty criteria which does not appear to justify approval. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide there is a need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully Submitted By, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photos 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Resolution 1005-14 ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential N Aerial View Oakwood Dr Groveland Rd Detached garage Proposed 2nd curb cut location Photographic Documentation Oakwood Drive Detached Garage Requested 2nd curb cut location MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1005-14 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR A SECOND CURB CUT AT 7800 GROVELAND ROAD; PLANNING CASE VR2014-004 WHEREAS, the applicant, Frands Jensen, property owner of 7800 Groveland Road, has applied for a variance to allow a second curb cut on his property; and, WHEREAS, 7800 Groveland Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Haluptzok’s Terrace, Lot 1, Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 06-30-23-34-0026 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Photographic Documentation 4. 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 May 21, 2014; 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, of which all 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 all of the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are not satisfied, and finds there not to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 7800 Groveland Road, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 1005-14 Page 2 1. Section 1121.09 Subdivision 5e of the Zoning Code states that single-family lots shall be limited to one curb cut per property unless it is in the interest of public safety to waive such. There are no public safety issues with this property that would cause the owner to need two curb cuts. 2. The Comprehensive Plan supports good traffic management for safer vehicle movements on streets. Limiting the number of access points onto a street is one of the ways that the City accomplishes this. 3. Second curb cuts for single-family homes are rare and not desired by the City for traffic safety reasons. 4. There are no unique circumstances for this property. The applicant built the second garage and now wants a second curb cut for easier access to it. 5. There are no other single-family properties in the neighborhood with two curb cuts, and granting the variance would be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to other property in the R-1, Single-Family Residential zoning district. 6. Adding the second curb cut is the minimum variance possible to alleviate what the applicant has stated is his difficulty. 7. There are no conditions recommended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, denies the variance request of Frands Jensen, property owner of 7800 Groveland Road, to allow a second curb cut on his property. Adopted this 21st day of May, 2014. _________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: __________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL)