Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-15-2005 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION June 15, 2005 -- 7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approve Minutes: May 18, 2005 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already Present on the Agenda CITIZENS: BEFORE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE MINUTES 5. Planning Case VR2005-006 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance Request for a Fence in a Front-Yard Taller than Permitted by Code at 5290 Pinewood Court Applicant: Shawn and Stephanie Young APPLICANTS: YOUR ATTENDANCE AT THIS MEETING IS REQUESTED. PLEASE NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AT 763-717-4020 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND. 6. Next Planning Commission Meeting: July 6, 2005 7. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: June 1 Minutes will be reviewed at the July 6, 2005 meeting 2. Staff Reports a. Update on Vasilakes variance request b. Update on Planning Associate recruitment c. Golf Course / Medtronic Public Meeting – June 20, 2005 d. Update on Harstad Neighborhood Meeting e. Upcoming planning requests 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports Item No: 6 Meeting Date: June 15, 2005 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing and Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Six-Foot Tall Fence in the Front Yard of 5290 Pinewood Court; Planning Case VR2005-006 Introduction: The applicants, Shawn and Stephanie Young, are requesting a variance to replace an existing non-conforming fence in the front yard of their property located at 5290 Pinewood Court. The property is located at the northeast corner of County Road H2 and Pinewood Court. 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 existing privacy fence has deteriorated to the point where it is beyond repair. The applicants would like to replace the existing six-foot tall privacy fence, which acts as a buffer and screen from County Road H2, 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. The property at 5290 Pinewood Court is a corner lot, which is not in itself unique, however the applicants seek permission to replace an existing fence for the purpose of continued privacy and screening. Young Variance June 15, 2005 Page 2 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 (2) front yards. This property is on a busy roadway across the street from Commercial and industrials uses 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. They only seek to replace what is currently present. 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 historically 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 would not be impacted. 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. Young Variance June 15, 2005 Page 3 Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and affected neighbors, the Commission can take one o f the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 773-04 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. 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, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Aerial Photo (2003) 5. Existing Site Plan 6. Corner Lot Fence Diagram 7. Photographic Documentation 8. Resolution 798-05 ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View (2003) Saturn MultiTech Open Space Photographic Documentation View of backyard area, looking southeast toward County Road H2 Photo of old privacy fence to be replaced Evidence of fence deterioration and disrepair Permitted Fence Location for Corner Lots MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 798-05 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 5290 PINEWOOD COURT; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2005-06 WHEREAS, the applicants, Shawn and Stephanie Young, have applied for a variance to replace a six-foot tall fence in the front yard at their property at 5290 Pinewood Court; and, WHEREAS, 5290 Pinewood Court is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Lot 17, Block 4, PINEWOOD TERRACE NO. 2 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 replace an existing six foot (6’) fence in the front yard abutting County Road H2; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Planning Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Aerial Photo dated 2003 5. Site Plan 6. Photographic Documentation 7. Staff Report Resolution 798-05 Page 2 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, June 15, 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. 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 across from a more intensive commercial land usage. 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 replacement of an existing fence which provides screening and buffering from the traffic and land-uses across the street. 3. The applicant has not caused the configuration of the lot nor the historical usage of the lot and intends only to replace the deteriorated privacy 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. Replacing the existing six-foot tall fence in the front yard of 5290 Pinewood Court would not impair the supply of light or increase congestion, nor would it increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values. Resolution 798-05 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the public hearing, and the identified findings, does hereby approve the variance request for a six-foot tall fence in the front yard of 5290 Pinewood Court as shown on the attached site plan labeled Exhibit 1, contingent upon the following: 1. The applicants shall obtain approval of a zoning permit for the fence prior to any work being initiated. 2. The fence shall be located on the applicants’ property with the “good side” of the fence, if there is one, facing out toward the street and neighboring properties as required by Code. Adopted this 15th day of June, 2005. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) NArea of Fence Variance EXHIBIT A