Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-18-2008 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA June 18, 2008 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. May 7, 2008 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. VR2008-003 Consideration of a Variance for reduced driveway setbacks at 5352/5354 Raymond Avenue (duplex) Applicant: Bob Yentsch, Kinyon Properties Address: 5312 Raymond Avenue B. AV2008-002 Consideration of an Administrative Variance to allow for a 2 foot driveway setback Applicant: John Wiggins Address: 5053 Brighton Lane C. VR2008-004 Consideration of a Variance to allow a 6 foot fence on a corner lot Applicant: Tom & Laurie Malaske Address: 2551 Ridge Lane 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review preliminary plans for a senior housing development 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. July 9, 2008 B. July 23, 2008 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. May 21, 2008 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 May 21, 2008 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Miller at 7:00 p.m. May 21, 2008. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Vice Chair Miller; Commissioners, Cramblit, Gunn, Lang, Meehlhause, and Walsh-Kaczmarek Absent and Excused: Chair Stevenson Also Present: Planning Associate Heller ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page AV2008-001 Consideration of an Administrative Variance for a Reduced driveway Setback at 5414 Jackson Drive 2 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes April 2, 2008. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Gunn/ Commissioner Lang. To approve the Minutes of the April 2, 2008 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 May 21, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. AV2008-001 Consideration of an Administrative Variance for a Reduced driveway Setback at 5414 Jackson Drive Planning Associate Heller reported the applicant, Matt Eenigenburg, has requested an administrative variance for a reduced driveway setback at 5414 Jackson Drive. She explained for many years this property and the property to the north have shared a driveway. The property owner to the north re-routed their driveway and removed their side of the old driveway. At that time the applicant was told that his driveway would be allowed to remain up to the property line. The applicant replaced the top part of the driveway with concrete and is now going to replace the bottom half. The driveway is currently one foot of the property line. The code has since been amended and the driveway needs to be five feet off the property line. There are not many shared driveways within the city and this makes it a special circumstance. For consistency, the applicant would like to keep the driveway the same width throughout when replacing the bottom portion. The current city code states the driveway needs to be five feet off the property line without a variance. Staff has looked at it and felt this is sufficient to be granted an administrative variance. As this is a non-conforming, pre-existing driveway, it qualifies for an Administrative Variance, which means that applicants’ fee is less and notices are sent only to the adjacent property owners who are given 10 days to respond if they object. These notices were sent and staff has not heard anything them. Vice Chair Miller stated it seems like the right thing to do to have the driveway match up. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Gunn/ Commissioner Cramblit. To approve Resolution 885-08, a Resolution Approving an Administrative Variance for a Reduced driveway Setback at 5414 Jackson Drive; Planning Case No.AV2008-001 Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. None ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. June 4, 2008 B. June 18, 2008 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission May 21, 2008 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Miller adjourned the meeting at 7:07 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Barbara Suciu TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: June 18, 2008 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 Request to allow for a one foot driveway setback at 5352 & 5354 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case VR2008-003 Introduction: The applicant, Bob Yentsch, representing property owner, Michael Kinyon, is requesting a variance to permit the new driveways at his side-by-side duplex to have a one foot setback from the north and south property lines. The property owner is adding attached garages to this duplex, one on each end of the building, along with new driveways to replace the existing gravel. The lot is 100 feet wide so they are only able to build single car garages, but they would like to make the driveways wide enough for two cars to fit next to each other. Many of their tenants have more than one vehicle, and with the current narrow driveways, they either park or drive off the driveway, or they have to move cars around when someone is leaving. Since there is no overnight parking on the streets in Mounds View, all vehicles must be in the driveways. The east side of Raymond Avenue is entirely side-by-side duplexes on identical 100 foot wide lots which causes issues when owners want to add additional space or more than a one car wide driveway to these properties. The applicant owns several of the duplexes on Raymond Avenue and he received another variance in 1995 for a reduced driveway setback when he added garages to another duplexes on this block, and another duplex owner on this block received a reduced setback variance in order to add living space closer than 10 feet to the property line. Due to the lot being rather narrow for a duplex, the applicant is requesting to place the driveways one foot from the north and south property lines. City Code requires that all driveways be at least five feet from the property line without a variance. Discussion: As with any variance application, for the Planning Commission to act favorably, 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. 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. 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. 5352/5354 Raymond Variance Staff Report Page 2 The extraordinary circumstances which apply to this property are that a 100 foot wide lot is somewhat narrow for a rambler style duplex. The lots are all walk-outs so the grade drops significantly at the back of the house which would make it very difficult to put garages behind the duplexes and be able to access them with a driveway. 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. The literal interpretation would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district, as most other property owners are able to have at least a decent one car wide driveway. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant is not responsible for the conditions which have prompted him to apply for a variance. Mr. Kinyon purchased the duplexes after they were built. d. That granting the variance requested will 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 this variance would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that other property owners are able to have two car wide driveways. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. The variance requested is the minimum that would be necessary in order to have a driveway wide enough for two cars to park next to each other. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. Given the circumstances, granting the variance request may not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title. 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 driveway will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining properties. 5352/5354 Raymond Variance Staff Report Page 3 Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, this request necessitated a public hearing. Notices were mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant’s property. Staff has not received any comments on this request. 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 886-08 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. Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Proposed Site Plan 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial Photo 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Resolution 886-08 SITE PLAN ZONING MAP N * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View Raymond Avenue is all duplexes on the east side of the road and single family homes on the west side of the street. Photographic Documentation North side South side Another Raymond Avenue duplex after the improvements are completed – this property was not able to have the driveway wider up to the garage due to the side yard grade drop MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 886-08 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR ONE-FOOT DRIVEWAY SETBACKS AT 5352 & 5354 RAYMOND AVENUE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2008-003 WHEREAS, the applicant, Robert Yentsch, representing Kinyon Properties, has applied for a variance to allow for driveways with a one-foot setback from the property line of a duplex located at 5352 & 5354 Raymond Avenue; and, WHEREAS, 5352 & 5354 are zoned R-2, Single and Two Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Norseman 1st Addition, Lot 5, Block 1, Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Proposed Site Plan 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Photographic Documentation 6. 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 June 18, 2008; 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 the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient hardship with regard to the property located at 5352 & 5354 Raymond Avenue, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Res. 886-08 Page 2 1. Circumstances apply to this property in that the duplex is located on only a 100 foot wide lot with a steep grade drop to the backyard, making it difficult to place a garage in the rear yard and be able to access it with a driveway. 2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Code would limit the applicant’s ability to have a two car wide driveway in order to provide enough parking spaces for the tenants. 3. The applicant did not build this duplex, and intends only to substantially improve the property. 4. Granting this variance would not confer upon the applicant a special privilege in that the lot size is a pre-existing condition. 5. The one (1) foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s hardship. 6. Granting a variance to allow for a driveway with a one foot setback would not be detrimental to the purpose of the Zoning Code in that due to lack of parking space, some of the tenants are parking closer to the property lines now and causing no adverse impacts. 7. Granting the variance would not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the adjoining property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Robert Yentsch representing Kinyon Properties, to allow for driveways with a one-foot setback from the north and south property lines. Adopted this 18th day of June, 2008. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ Kenneth Roberts, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: June 18, 2008 Type of Business: Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Final Approval of an Administrative Variance for a Reduced Driveway Setback at 5053 Brighton Lane; Planning Case AV2008-002 The applicant, John Wiggins, is proposing to replace his gravel driveway with asphalt. The driveway currently winds around two large trees that are in the way of where the driveway normally would be. The applicant’s garage was built right behind a tree, and another tree is closer to the street. These trees cause the driveway to be different widths and make the garage partially inaccessible for vehicles. The applicant would like to put the new asphalt driveway in the same place that the gravel currently exists, which has a two foot setback between the trees, and more than a five foot setback on the other sides of the trees. Discussion: Staff reviewed this request and determined that it qualified for an administrative variance, as it is a pre-existing, non-conforming driveway. Administrative Variances were added as an option a few years ago to make the process faster and easier for residents when their request was not excessively beyond what the code allows. Staff reviewed the proposed driveway replacement and spoke with the applicant about his hardship claim. Staff feels that the situation is sufficient to warrant a variance. Staff also considered any negative affects that the proposed addition might have on the surrounding area and found that the driveway replacement would not negatively impact the neighborhood as the width would be remaining the same. The Community Development Director granted preliminary approval. The five adjacent property owners have been notified of the variance request. At the time this report was written, Staff had received no feedback from the adjacent property owners. 5053 Brighton Admin Variance Staff Report page 2 Recommendation: The Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the administrative variance as requested. Resolution 887-08 is attached for the Commission’s approval if that is the chosen course of action. 2. Deny the requested variance. If the Commission chooses this option, the applicant will have the right to apply for a formal variance. 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. Because of 60-day requirements, the Commission would need to act upon the request as soon as reasonably possible to avoid an inadvertent approval. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Photographic documentation 2. Aerial View 3. Resolution 887-08 Photo Documentation Aerial View North 5053 County Road H MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 887-08 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A TWO FOOT SETBACK FOR A DRIVEWAY AT 5053 BRIGHTON LANE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE AV2008-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, John Wiggins, has applied for a variance to allow a two foot setback to continue for a driveway located at 5053 Brighton Lane; and, WHEREAS, 5053 Brighton Lane is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Twelve Oaks Addition, Lot 7, Block 5, , Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Site Plan WHEREAS, the purpose of the administrative 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, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 6 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Community Development Director is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant an administrative variance to the Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, the property owners adjacent to the subject property were notified of the variance request and were allowed ten days to respond; and, Resolution 887-08 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon its review of the identified hardship, does hereby grant final approval of the variance request to allow the current two (2) foot setback to remain for a driveway at 5053 Brighton Lane. Adopted this 18th day of June, 2008. _______________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _______________________________________ Kenneth Roberts, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5C Meeting Date: June 18, 2008 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 2551 Ridge Lane; Planning Case VR2008-0004 Introduction: The applicants, Tom and Laurie Malaske, are requesting a variance to allow a 6 foot fence in the “second” front yard of their corner property located at 2551 Ridge Lane. The property is located at the northwest corner of Ridge Lane and Long Lake Road. By virtue of bordering on two streets, the corner lot has two frontages. 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 applicants have already installed the fence. The applicants would like to keep the 6 foot tall privacy fence, which helps to buffer and screen from Long Lake Road and the sidewalk, and thus have 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 this variance to be approved, 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. 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 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. Malaske Variance June 18, 2008 Page 2 The property at 2551 Ridge Lane is a corner lot, which is not in itself unique, however the applicants seek permission to have a 6 foot tall fence for the purpose of privacy and screening. Along the Long Lake Road side of the Malaske’s property, the grade drops a couple feet from the sidewalk to their property line where the fence is located. Many people and pets walk along this sidewalk and anything shorter than a 6 foot fence would be very easy to jump over. 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 applicants, owning a corner lot, are at a disadvantage to improve the property as other homeowners might because the property has two front yards. This property is on a busy roadway with a sidewalk right next to their property line, and sits about two feet below the improved grade of Long Lake Road and the sidewalk, which is another unique factor to consider. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicants cannot control the fact that their property is a corner lot with two front setbacks and a sidewalk. 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, similar variances have been approved 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 applicants have a nicely landscaped backyard protected by the privacy fence. To locate the fence any closer to the home would result in lost backyard area to which the applicants have been accustomed to using. 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. Sight lines at the intersection have not been impacted by this fence. Malaske Variance June 18, 2008 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 would 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. Notices were mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of 2551 Ridge Lane. No resident or property owner has contacted staff regarding this request. 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 888-08 is attached for the Commission’s approval if that is the chosen course of action. 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 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. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Photo 4. Corner Lot Fence Diagram 5. Photographic Documentation 6. Resolution 888-08 ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View Per city code- any fence beyond the red line, cannot be more than 4 feet tall without a White line= existing fence COUNTY ROAD I Photographic Documentation Long Lake Road Permitted Fence Location for Corner Lots MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 888-08 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A SIX-FOOT TALL FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD OF 2551 RIDGE LANE; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2008-004 WHEREAS, the applicants, Tom and Laurie Malaske, have applied for a variance to allow a six-foot tall fence in the front yard at their property at 2551 Ridge Lane; and, WHEREAS, 2551 Ridge Lane is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Red Oak Estates No. 2, Lot 49, Block 1 Ramsey County, Minnesota 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 applicants have applied for a variance to allow an existing six foot (6’) fence in the front yard abutting Long Lake Road; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial Photo 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, a public hearing was held on Wednesday, September 7, 2005, with regard to 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 which must be satisfied in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. Resolution 888-08 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 corner lot on a busy street with a sidewalk which is elevated about two feet above the subject’s backyard. 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 Long Lake Road. 3. The applicant cannot control the configuration of the lot intends only to provide some security and privacy for their backyard with the fence. 4. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owners 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 applicants’ 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 front yard of 2551 Ridge Lane 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 FURTHER 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 front yard of 2551 Ridge Lane, contingent upon the following: 1. The applicants shall obtain a zoning permit for the fence. Adopted this 18th day of June, 2008. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Kenneth Roberts, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: June 18, 2008 Type of Business: Discussion City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Review Preliminary Plans for a new senior housing development Staff has been meeting with a developer regarding a new senior housing development that would be built on the northwest corner of Groveland Road and County Highway 10. The developer has a purchase agreement for the properties at 2865 County Highway 10 (previous trailer hitch business), and 7980 and 8020 Groveland Road. These three lots create a 2.38 acre parcel. The developer plans to submit their development application in early July. Staff received the attached preliminary plans from the developer on Wednesday, and wanted to show them to the Planning Commission for some early discussion on the project. The proposal is for a three story, 97 unit building with senior independent, assisted living and memory care. There would be underground and surface parking, with the main entrance and parking entering from County Highway 10. An additional smaller parking lot would access Groveland Road. The developer would build, own and manage the facility. The assisted living and memory care piece of this project is new territory for Mounds View. There are currently three other senior housing developments here, but all of them are only “independent living” and do not provide the food service or nursing assistance that would be available at this new facility. Assisted living and memory care units are much smaller (400- 600 square feet) than independent units (700-1100+ square feet), which is why the building has 97 units in it. If this were entirely an independent living or regular apartment building, there would only be about 45 -50 units in the same building size. Having said that, the city code requires a certain amount of land square footage per unit, and doesn’t distinguish between different types of high density housing, so the per-unit density of this project is much higher than the code allows. Staff is going to talk to other cities that have similar senior housing facilities to see how they deal with these buildings. Sincerely, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Aerial View of site Groveland Road