Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-2013 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 18, 2013 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: August 7, 2013 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. VR2013-004 Variance Request to Allow a 6-foot Fence in the Front Yard of a Corner Lot Address: 5048 Greenwood Drive Applicant: John Ellis 6. Other Planning Activity None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, October 2, 2013 B. Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8. Review Minutes: A. August 21, 2013 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 August 21, 2013 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for August 21, 2013. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Carvelli-Yu, Cramblit, Elofson, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 County Road 10 Corridor Discussion 2 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes July 24, 2013. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Carvelli-Yu. To approve the Minutes of the July 24, 2013 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases None. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. County Road 10 Corridor Discussion – Sign Code Amendments Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that the corridor is the City Council’s priority this year and the Planning Commission has been reviewing and discussing development design along County Road 10. The Commission started focusing on creating a PUD Corridor Overlay District and discussing general development ideas to make the corridor look better. One of those ideas was changing the style and height allowances of the signage that is along the corridor and reducing the 15-foot setback amount. Associate Heller explained the Commission discussed sign code changes at the July 24th meeting and feels that amending the sign code rather than only having specific requirements for the corridor overlay district, is a better option since they will be applicable for the entire city rather than limited to the Corridor. She requested the Commission discuss the specific sign code amendments further and direct Staff how to proceed. Chair Stevenson questioned if the monument sign requirements should be held just to the corridor. He indicated the new standards could adversely impact businesses throughout the community if it were approved universally throughout the entire City. Commissioner Cramblit was in favor of adjusting the sign code for only those businesses within the overlay district. He supported a zero setback for monument signs along the corridor. Chairperson Stevenson suggested the setback be reduced to five feet on the County Road 10 side of properties since there is so much right-of-way. He discussed the Walgreens monument sign size and style. The Commission supported this recommendation. Commissioner Love asked if the City would be purchasing the redevelopment books she suggested at a previous meeting. Associate Heller commented she would be purchasing four copies for the Commission and interested Council members to share. Associate Heller questioned if the Commission was in favor of requiring masonry, stucco, stone or brick on the monument signs. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu was in favor of having some of the monument signs be masonry, stucco, stone or brick. The Commission agreed with this recommendation. Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson discussed the suggested monument sign height. The Commission was in favor of limiting the monument sign height to 16 feet. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu recommended the sign square footage remain consistent along the corridor. She questioned how non-conforming signs would be handled. Associate Heller indicated all existing signs would be able to remain in place unless they were damaged 50% of its value at which time, the sign would have to meet the new standards. Commissioner Cramblit suggested the City look into a loan program to assist businesses in updating or improving their signs. Commissioner Love was in favor of a loan program also possibly assisting with sign design. Associate Heller thanked the Commission for their input this evening. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. September 4, 2013 B. September 18, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Review Minutes: A. August 7, 2013 The Commission discussed the August 7, 2013 meeting minutes and made no changes. 9. Staff Updates A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. She updated the Commission on the recent actions taken by the City Council, noting the City would be demolishing both the Robert’s Sport Bar and Taiko/Sandwich King properties by the end of September. She indicated that Apple Tree Dental would be closing on the building very soon. She noted the Council approved the conditional use permit for the oversize garage on County Road H2. 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports None. Mounds View Planning Commission August 21, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: September 18, 2013 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 5048 Greenwood Drive; Planning Case VR2013-004 Introduction: The applicant, John Ellis, is requesting a variance to install a 6-foot tall fence in the “second front yard” of his corner lot located at 5048 Greenwood Drive. The property is located at the northeast corner of Greenwood Drive 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 recently purchased this newly constructed house and would prefer to have a 6-foot tall wood fence for screening from County Road H, and thus has applied for the variance. Discussion: 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 5048 Greenwood Drive 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 also very close to Sunnyside Elementary School which in itself creates a lot of vehicle and pedestrian traffic, and there is a Metro Transit bus stop in front of this house. There will also be a new sidewalk along this side of County Road H within the next two years. The taller fence would provide privacy and security for this property. 5048 Greenwood Variance Report September 18, 2013 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. When the applicant’s house was built, the builder placed it close to the north end of the property in order to give more separation from County Road H. The house has a 15 foot side setback on the north side and approximately a 65 foot setback from the south property line. A big portion of this home’s backyard is considered the front yard according to the City Code. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed fence will be setback about 16 feet from the edge of the County Road H pavement so it should not impact sight lines, include the view for vehicles going south from Greenwood Drive and turning onto County Road H. There are other homes along County Road H that have been granted variances for 6-foot tall fences in their front yards due to how busy this road is. 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. 5048 Greenwood Variance Report September 18, 2013 Page 3 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 for the fence has already been applied for. 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 5048 Greenwood Drive. Staff received one email not in favor of this request (included in this report). 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 988-13 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. Photographic Documentation 4. Corner Lot Fence Diagram 5. Resident Comment Email 6. Resolution 988-13 ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential County Road H 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 a 6-foot tall privacy fence. County Road H Greenwood Dr 5048 House Photographic Documentation Greenwood Drive County Road H Applicant’s house 5048 Greenwood Dr Bus Stop View from rear (SE) corner of yard – the fence would be placed just to the left of the row of trees There is another 6-foot fence 1 block to the west at the NE corner of Eastwood & County Road H (fence starts at arrow) Greenwood Drive County Road H City Code Permitted Fence Location for Corner Lots Public Comment MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 988-13 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 5048 GREENWOOD DRIVE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2013-004 WHEREAS, the applicant, John Ellis, 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 5048 Greenwood Drive; and, WHEREAS, 5048 Greenwood Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: That part of the South ½ of the South ½ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 7, Township 30 North, Range 23 West, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 7; thence North 10 rods; thence West 16 rods; thence South 10 rods; thence East 16 rods to point of beginning, except the East 152.24 feet thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Ramsey County, Minnesota And That part lying South of the North 75 feet of Lot 7, Block 1, Twelve Oaks. Subject to a reservation by State of Minnesota of all minerals and mineral rights over all but the North 75 feet of above Lot 7 PIN: 07-30-23-44-0117 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, Resolution 988-13 Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday, September 18, 2013, 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. 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 5048 Greenwood Drive, 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 is on corner lots, particularly lots that front a busy street, 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 corner lot which creates two front yards, and the house was built close to the north side of the lot so the second front yard is very large. 5. There are other properties along County Road H that have a 6-foot tall fence in the front yard and have not changed the existing neighborhood character or caused 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. Resolution 988-13 Page 3 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 5048 Greenwood Drive. Adopted this 18th day of September, 2013. _____________________________________ Paul Schiltgen, Vice-Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL)