Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-2010 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA April 21, 2010 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. March 17, 2010 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2010-001 Consideration of a Variance to allow a 6-foot fence in front of the house line on a corner lot. Applicant: Daniel Haga Address: 5046 Eastwood Road 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss expanding permitted uses in B-1, Neighborhood Business Zoning Districts 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. May 5, 2010 B. May 19, 2010 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. April 7, 2010 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 7, 2010 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. April 7, 2010. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Miller, Rundle, Schiltgen, Smith and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: Commissioner Meehlhause. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for the temporary tent at The Mermaid, 2200 County Highway 10 2 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes January 6, 2010 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Miller. To approve the minutes of the January 6, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as slightly amended. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 2010 Regular Meeting Page 2 ____________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for the temporary tent at The Mermaid, 2200 County Highway 10 Planning Associate Heller stated in 2003 after the completion of the AmericInn Hotel, the adjacent Mermaid erected a temporary outdoor membrane structure for banquets, receptions and other events. When the structure was first installed there was no zoning regulations to address such a structure and is typically the case in Zoning Codes, the absence of an allowance constitutes a disallowance. In 2004, Mounds View adopted new provisions for temporary tent structures in business zoned districts and created an Interim Use Permit (IUP). The City approved a 5-year Interim Use Permit for the Mermaid’s temporary tent in March 2005. The IUP has now expired and the Mermaid has applied to the City for a new IUP in order to continuing using the tent. She added the tent is a temporary structure because it is only erected for 180 day per year. Staff is not aware of any problems with parking since the tent was installed. Staff is suggesting making this a lifelong IUP with the stipulation that if any problems do arise, the City Council can review the interim use permit. Chair Stevenson questioned if the structure is inspected yearly by the Fire Marshal. Planning Associated Heller stated that the Fire Marshal does inspect the structure every year after it is erected. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Rundle. To approve an interim use permit for a temporary outdoor tent structure at The Mermaid located at 2200 County Highway 10; Planning Case No. IU2010-001. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. B-1 Zoning Uses Discussion Planning Associate Heller stated there are two properties in the City that are zoned B-1, Neighborhood Business. The B-1 district only permits a few types of businesses. Staff is suggesting expanding the B-1 zoning to allow other types of businesses. Currently, there is an individual interested in opening a thrift store in a B-1 zoning district. Chair Stevenson stated a B-1 zoning district is for neighborhood businesses, and he would like to keep the zoning code wording to reflect only neighborhood type uses. He also asked if staff has checked into the parking situation for this property if a thrift store or other retail was added. Mounds View Planning Commission April 7, 2010 Regular Meeting Page 3 ____________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Heller stated staff has not looked into the number of parking spaces, but they will. Commissioner Cramblit suggested researching what uses other cities B-1 or comparable zoning district allow and provide this for the Planning Commission. Chair Stevenson asked that this discussion be brought back to the next meeting. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. April 21, 2010 B. May 5, 2010 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Ken Roberts Community Development Director Transcribed by: Barbara Suciu TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: April 21, 2010 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 5046 Eastwood Road; Planning Case VR2010-0001 Introduction: The applicant, Daniel Haga, is requesting a variance to install a 6-foot tall fence in the “second front yard” of his corner lot located at 5046 Eastwood Road. The property is located at the northeast 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 currently has a 4-foot chain-link fence in this front yard (on the south side of the house near County Road H). He 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. The site plan attached to this report depicts the existing fence location and the location of where the fence would be if consistent with City Code. 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 substantial hardship or practical difficulties associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. 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. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property, which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since the effective date hereof have had no control. Haga Variance Report April 21, 2010 Page 2 The property at 5046 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 75 feet x 132 feet (0.23 acres – 9,900 square feet) which is a smaller parcel, particularly for a corner lot. The city code now requires corner lots to be a minimum of 12,500 square feet. This property also has larger front setbacks – the Eastwood side is 55 feet, and the County Road H side is 46 feet. The smaller lot size and large setbacks along with the property having a detached garage, greatly reduces the amount of available backyard space. b. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Title. No fence greater than four (4) feet in height can be located in any front yard area within the City. 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. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant cannot control the fact that his property is a corner lot with two front setbacks. d. That granting the variance requested would not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Title to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. 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. In addition, every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their property. Finally, the City has approved similar variances for taller fences in front yard areas of corner lots. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The applicant has a smaller lot and because of the large required setback on two sides of the property, along with having a detached garage, the available yard area is very limited. To locate the fence any closer to the home would result in lost yard area. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Approval of the variance in this case would not be materially detrimental to the Code or to other property in the area. This fence should not impact sight lines for vehicles coming from Eastwood Road and turning onto County Road H. Haga Variance Report April 21, 2010 Page 3 g. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The requested variance should not cause any adverse effects. Based upon the review of the above criteria, it appears to staff that the requested variance does satisfy the hardship and 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 5046 Eastwood Road. No resident or property owner has contacted staff about this request. 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 923-10 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. Site Plan 4. Corner Lot Fence Diagram 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Resolution 923-10 ZONING MAP County Road H * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View COUNTY ROAD I Eastwood Road County Road H Per city code- any fence beyond the red line, cannot be more than 4-feet tall without a variance. The yellow lines are where the applicant is requesting to install a 6-foot tall privacy fence – this would replace the current 4-foot tall chain-link fence. Site Plan Photographic Documentation County Road H Eastwood Road County Road H 16.5 feet from fence to edge of asphalt Second front yard area – Applicant would like to replace the 4-foot tall chain-link fence with a 6-foot wood fence This is the applicant’s small backyard (behind the house) due to the two large front yard setbacks from the streets. County Road H Subject property View from a vehicle at the intersection – it does not appear that a taller wood fence would block the view of oncoming traffic along County Road H Eastwood Road Permitted Fence Location for Corner Lots MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 923-10 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 5046 EASTWOOD ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2010-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Daniel Haga, 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 5046 Eastwood Road; and, WHEREAS, 5046 Eastwood Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: Twelve Oaks, Lot 9, Block 2 Ramsey County, Minnesota (PIN 073023440092) 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, April 21, 2010, 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 923-10 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings related to this request: 1. The exceptional or extraordinary conditions relating to the variance request is that the property is a smaller corner lot on a busy street and has two larger front setbacks. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would deprive the applicants of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zone because the height limitations would preclude having a fence tall enough to provide security, screening and buffering from County Road H. 3. The applicant cannot control the configuration of the lot and intends only to provide some privacy and additional area for his side yard and backyard with the fence. 4. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege denied to others in the same district due to the unique nature of the existing conditions present on the site. 5. The two-foot variance (six foot tall fence) is the minimum variance that would alleviate the applicant’s hardship. 6. The replacement of the fence would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code or to other property in the R-1, Single-Family Residential zoning district. 7. Allowing the six-foot tall fence in the south front yard of 5046 Eastwood Road (near County Road H) would not impair the supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety or diminish property values. 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 5046 Eastwood Road. Adopted this 21st day of April, 2010. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Kenneth Roberts, Community Development Director (SEAL)