Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-07-2005 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA September 7, 2005 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: a. July 6, 2005 b. July 20, 2005 c. August 3, 2005 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already Present on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2005-010: Variance request for Reduced Parking Lot and Driveway Setback at the PAK Building Applicant: Linda Miller, Miller Wright Enterprises Address: 2832 County Road 10 B. MI2005-005: Minor Subdivision Request – One Lot into two Applicant: Don Olson Address: 7851 Spring Lake Road C. VR2005-012: Variance Request to Replace a Six-Foot Tall Fence in a Front Yard Area Applicants: Don and Christine Gullickson Address: 7685 Groveland Road 6. Other Planning Activity none 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: September 21, 2005 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. August 17, 2005 2. Staff Reports a. August 22, 2005 City Council Meeting b. September 6, 2005 Council Worksession Meeting c. Harstad Red Oak Estates Update d. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, September 6, 2005 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Marty, Stigney, Gunn, Flaherty, Thomas PUBLIC COMMENT Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes. Agenda Items Discussed by Consensus _______ 1. 6:00 pm – 6:30 pm Joint Meeting with EDA and EDC: TIF Philosophy, Goals and Spending Priorities _______ 2. 6:30 pm – 7:30 pm County Road 10 Corridor Improvement Program Update _______ 3. 7:30 pm – 8:30 pm 2006 Budget Items _______ a. Review City’s 2005-06 LMCIT Insurance Coverage (Maguire and Associates) ______ b. Review Proposed 2006 City Budget/Preliminary Levy ______ c. Discuss Assistant to the City Administrator Position, Payroll/Utility Billing Technician, and discuss a request for a new job description (Receptionist/Communications Coordinator) _______ 4. 8:30 pm – 9:00 pm Review Golf Course Closing: _______ a. Closing Schedule _______ b. Review Cancellation of Contracts 1.) Pepsi Contract 2.) Scorecard Contract – KDM (Golf Score Cards) _______ c. Disposition of fixed assets _______ 5. 9:00 pm – 9:15 pm Review Consideration of Extraordinary Water Bill at 2237 Pinewood Drive _______ 6. 9:15 pm – 9:30 pm Review Meeting Locations/Cable Coverage During City Hall Remodeling/Consideration of Closing City Hall on Friday, September 30, 2005. _______ 7. 9:30 pm – 10:00 pm Review City Council Meeting Protocol. _______ 8. Executive Session Immediately Following this Work Session to discuss the City Administrator Performance Review, and to discuss Threatened Litigation with Innovative Images. Next Council Work Session: Monday, October 3, 2005 @7pm Next City Council Meeting: Monday, September 12, 2005 @7pm Item No: 5A Meeting Date: Sept 7, 2005 Type of Business: Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance Request for a Reduced Parking Lot and Driveway Setback at 2832 County Road 10; Planning Case VR2005-010 Introduction: The subject property is a small commercial lot improved with a one-story concrete block building (commonly referred to as the “PAK” Building) on the south side of County Road 10, northwest of the new CVS Pharmacy. The property is zoned B-3, Highway Business Commercial and is designated as Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development in the Comprehensive Plan. A variance is being requested for a reduced parking lot and driveway setback around the periphery of the lot, as shown on the submitted site plan, to promote positive drainage on the virtually flat lot as well as to provide better maneuvering of vehicles. The owners are represented by building manager Rick Perrozzi. The application does specify the extent of the setback reduction being requested. History: The property was recently expanded as a result of the CVS Subdivision. Originally, the lot was 30,500 square feet. After the CVS subdivision, the PAK Building lot increased in area to 45,380 square feet with the addition of 25 feet to the east and 80 feet to the south. The CVS developers (Velmeir) have indicated that they will be responsible for paving and curbing improvements on the PAK site however these improvements have yet to be completed and are now perhaps on hold pending resolution of this variance request. Discussion: Mr. Perrozzi appeared before the Planning Commission on August 17, 2005 and explained his situation and the need for reduced setbacks on the site to promote better drainage and to provide for adequate drive aisle width and turning radius. Mr. Perrozzi indicated that he was meeting engineers at his site that week, and at that time they would have a better idea of how Velmeir (the CVS developer) plans to address the grading and elevations on his site. The following week, Mr. Perrozzi stopped in to City Hall to review two different options provided to him by Loucks McLagen, Velmeir’s civil engineer for the CVS project. Both options mitigate the sharp elevation change between the two properties by grading toward the PAK Building, rather than away from the building. This creates a two percent slope, or, a six-inch drop in the span of twenty feet to the building. Stormwater would flow either north or south and would be diverted away from the building by the adjacent sidewalk or curb. Alongside the building, the north and south slope drops a minimal 0.5 percent, which increases to the south to 1.4 percent. Runoff to the rear of the PAK site would be directed to the south and conveyed via a catch basin into the pond. It does not appear that one plan is better than the other in terms of stormwater management. The only difference appeared to be location of the east-side curb. Miller Wright Report September 7, 2005 Page 2 The City’s Fire Marshal reviewed the site plans and has recommended drive aisle widths of at least 24 feet on the east side of the building and at the northeast building corner. This would result in a two-foot east and north (side and front) setback. Because the northeast corner cannot be used as parking, the required setback would be the same as for the side of the property—five feet. The area in which a variance would be needed is highlighted in purple on the attached site plan. Setback Requirements: The parking lot and driveway setbacks for a property zoned B-3, Highway Business Commercial, are as follows: Driveways: Parking Lots Front: 5 Feet Front: 30 Feet Sides: 5 Feet Sides: 5 Feet * Rear: 5 Feet Rear: 5 Feet *The Code indicates that where a non-residential use abuts a residential use, the parking lot setback shall be 20 feet. The west side of the parking area south of the PAK building abuts residential and thus would be subject to the 20-foot requirement. The area immediately adjacent to the west side of the building would be considered driveway and thus subject to the five-foot setback. Variance Considerations: For a variance to be approved, there needs to be demonstrated 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 with staff 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. The lot at 2832 County Road 10 has very little change of elevation over the property which causes practical difficulties dealing with stormwater runoff. The poor grade has always been a condition of the site. In addition, if subject to the five-foot setback, the width of the drive aisle on the northeast and east side of the building would not be sufficient for emergency vehicle access. Miller Wright Report September 7, 2005 Page 3 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. While the five-foot setback requirement does pose a practical difficulty, the Planning Commission will need to determine if it rises to the level of a hardship. The building is situated approximately 31 feet from the east property line, which means--less the five-foot setback and five-foot sidewalk--there is only 21 feet in which to provide vehicle access. A standard drive aisle width is 24 feet wide. c. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Before the expansion, the only access to the rear of 2832 County Road 10 was gained on the west side of the building, an area only 13 feet in width. With the recent expansion, there is 21 feet available for access on the east side, however fire code requires a full 24 feet. 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 a variance to promote suitable emergency vehicle access should not be a special privilege. e. That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic conditions alone shall not be considered a hardship. A variance of three feet to allow a two-foot driveway setback along the northeast and east property lines would allow for the construction of a vehicle access drive consistent with fire codes. f. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title or to other property in the same zone. A reduced two-foot setback for the PAK Building drive aisle would not be a detriment to any adjoining property. 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. None of these risks or adverse effects would be likely as a result of the variance request. Criteria Summary Staff believes there to be sufficient hardship associated with this property to warrant approval of a variance request to allow for a two-foot driveway setback along the northeast and east property lines of the PAK Building, as illustrated on the attached site plan. Miller Wright Report August 17, 2005 Page 4 Other Issues: In addition to the northeast and east sides of the property, Mr. Perrozzi requested setback variances at the south and west sides of the property. Without a parking plan or anything to demonstrate that reduced setback is necessary at the south property line, staff would recommend no variance be granted in that location. As to the west side of the parking lot, the Planning Commission may rule that the pre-existing zero-foot setback may remain even if the parking lot is reconstructed, as the reconstruction is necessary to correct damage that occurred associated with the CVS development. In addition, the Planning Commission may further rule that the parking lot may be reconstructed in the same manner as before, which is to say, without the required barrier curb. In return for those concessions, staff would recommend that any work alongside the west side of the building be fully code compliant, which is to say, if the area is repaved, a five foot setback shall be observed and the required barrier curb installed. Ultimately, staff would prefer that this section be converted to pervious surface (greenspace) area as it would no longer be needed for access—the east side alone, with a variance to allow for the 24-foot wide drive aisle, would be adequate. Recommendation: Review and consider the testimony of staff and the applicants. If the Commission believes all of the criteria have been satisfied and an approval is in order, Resolution 810-05 is available for your action. If the Commission feels the request does NOT satisfy the hardship criteria, staff would bring to your next meeting (September 21, 2005) a resolution of denial. If the Commission should need additional information before action can be considered one way or the other, staff will arrange to have such additional information prepared and submitted at your next meeting for your review. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director Zoning Map Pond CVS PAK Photographic Documentation Front of building, from northeast corner of lot East side of building, looking south. The CVS curb is at the five-foot setback, about 36 feet from the PAK building. East side of building, looking north South side of building, looking west toward residential properties MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 810-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH THREE FEET INTO THE SIDE AND FRONT YARD DRIVEWAY SETBACK AT 2832 COUNTY ROAD 10; PLANNING CASE VR2005-010 WHEREAS, the applicant, Miller Wright Enterprises, has applied for a variance for a reduced driveway setback at 2832 County Road 10; and, WHEREAS, 2832 County Road 10 is zoned B-3, Highway Business and is legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1 Velmeir CVS Addition Ramsey County, Minnesota WHEREAS, Section 1104.01 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the minimum front and side setbacks for driveways in the Highway Business district is five (5) feet; and, WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a reduction in the front and side driveway setback to improve vehicle movements and enhance access to the rear of the building; and, WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the following materials relating to this request: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Location Map 4. Site Plan 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 variance on Wednesday, August 17, 2005; 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. Resolution 810-05 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following finding of facts related to this request: 1. The property is zoned B-3, Highway Business District. 2. The front and side driveway setback in the B-3 District is five (5) feet. 3. The applicant is requesting a reduction of the front and side driveway setback to improve vehicle movements on the site and to satisfy fire code access requirements. 4. The subject property cannot provide fire code-compliant access to the rear of the property but for a reduction of the front and rear driveway setback. 5. Granting a variance to promote emergency vehicle access would not confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners. 6. The applicant did not cause or create the conditions which warrant variance approval. 7. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Title in that there does not appear to be any adverse effects resulting from approval of the variance. 8. A three (3) foot reduction of the driveway setback is the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship. 9. The proposed variance would not impair supply of light and air to adjacent properties 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon its review of the documentation, testimony presented at the public hearing, and the identified findings of fact, does hereby approve a three-foot reduction to the driveway setback on the northeast and east side of the property at 2832 County Road 10, as illustrated on the attached site plan, labeled Exhibit A. Adopted this 7th day of September, 2005. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Pak Building Two-Foot Driveway Setback Owners may Reconstruct Parking Lot to Previous 0’ Setback Any Work Proposed Along West Side of Building Shall Be Code Compliant Resolution 810-05 Exhibit A Site Plan Item No: 5B Meeting Date: September 7, 2005 Type of Business: Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Jim Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision of 7851 Spring Lake Road; Planning Case MI2005-005 Introduction: Donald Olson has requested approval to subdivide the lot located at 7851 Spring Lake Road. As proposed, the subdivision would split off the rear 255 feet of 7851 Spring Lake Road, creating a land-locked lot. Mr. Olson resides at 2933 Oakwood Drive, directly south of the proposed new lot, and would like the new lot added to his Oakwood Drive parcel to provide more backyard space. The proposed subdivision is in the form of a Registered Land Survey, which is slightly more involved that a simple Certificate of Survey. In this case, there are four tracts of land created by the subdivision. Tract A runs the length of 7851 Spring Lake Road and ranges in width from 7 feet to 16 feet; it would be deeded to the owner of 7865 Spring Lake Road. Tract B is an eight foot wide strip along the front of 7851 Spring Lake Road; this wood be deeded to the City as Right of Way. Tract C is the improved remainder of 7851 Spring Lake Road while Tract D would be the unimproved remainder of the lot, to be added to 2933 Oakwood Drive. Discussion: The property at 7851 Spring Lake Road is presently 42,253 square feet, or 0.97 acres. The lot is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and is designated as low-density residential on the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map. A minor subdivision of this lot would be consistent with the Zoning Code, Subdivision regulations (with conditions) and the Comprehensive Plan. The resulting areas of the proposed tracts are as follows: Tract Proposed Use Area (Sq Ft / Acres) A To be deeded to 7865 Spring Lake Road 5,526 / 0.13 B To be deeded to City for right of way 730.4 / 0.02 C Remainder of 7851 Spring Lake Road 14,809 / 0.34 D To be added to 2933 Oakwood Drive 19,139 / 0.44 Zoning Requirements While the new lot to be created with this subdivision (Tract D) would exceed the minimum area requirement for a buildable lot, it is not considered “buildable” as it would not front an improved street. There is right of way that extends up to the proposed Tract D, however this is a 25-foot wide platted emergency vehicle access to the Knollwood Green Townhome Community on County Road 10 and was never intended as anything but emergency vehicle access. Approval of the subdivision would be contingent upon Tract D being added to 2933 Oakwood Drive along with a deed restriction acknowledging it cannot be developed as a single family home site. Olson Subd. Report Sept 7, 2005 Page 2 Park Dedication Requirements Every subdivision of land is subject to park dedication requirements. The City Code in Chapter 1202 indicates that up to 10 percent of the land value be dedicated to the City to help offset future park impacts associated with the development of land. This subdivision will not result in any additional dwelling units nor will it intensify development. In return for the deed restriction and lot combination requirement as stated on the previous page, staff will recommend to the City Council that no park dedication fees be applied to this subdivision. Easements With every subdivision of land, the City requires that drainage and utility easements be dedicated around the perimeter of the lot. In December of 2001, the City approved a subdivision of the land directly south of the subject property, and it was this subdivision that created Mr. Olson’s lot at 2933 Oakwood Drive. Easements were taken around the periphery of 2933 Oakwood Drive and similar easements should be taken around the periphery of Tract D, except at the south of Line of Tract D where it will be joined with Mr. Olson’s existing lot. Because easements may not be dedicated on certificates of survey or registered land surveys, dedication is accomplished by a separate document recorded at the same time the new deeds are recorded. The survey however may show the location of these easements and bear text stating essentially the following: “The proposed public drainage and utility easements shown herein have been dedicated by a separate document and recorded with Ramsey County.” The Registered Land Survey should be revised to show the above text and to reflect proposed 10-foot public drainage and utility easement areas along the north, east, and west property lines of Tract D. Staff will prepare these documents with descriptions provided by the applicant’s surveyor. Technical Issues The Registered Land Survey has been sent to the City Attorney’s office for review and to the City’s engineering technician and director of public works for consistency with the City’s subdivision and utility needs. It has been pointed out to the applicant that it would be preferable to have the west line of Tract D shifted to the west by approximately five feet to be consistent with the north-south property line to the south. The Public Works department confirms that it would prefer the shifted lot line if the subdivision is to move forward. Finally, the City Attorney indicates the applicant will need to provide a Title Commitment for the parcel. Public Comment Minor subdivisions of land do not require or necessitate a public hear or notification. With the proposed subdivision, no development would occur, even so, staff sent notices to the adjoining property owners so that they would be aware of the proposal. Olson Subd. Report Sept 7, 2005 Page 3 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Resolution 811-05, a resolution recommending approval of a minor subdivision of 7851 Spring Lake Road with conditions. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Photo looking north toward Tract D, taken from the front yard of 2933 Oakwood Drive. Zoning Map 2933 Proposed Lot Split Proposed Registered land Survey 2933 Oakwood Drive Photographic Documentation View of the home at 7851 Spring Lake Road. MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 811-05 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 7851 SPRING LAKE ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MI2005-005 WHEREAS, Don Olson has requested approval of a minor subdivision of 7851 Spring Lake Road, property zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, legally described as follows: The South 75 feet of Lot 26, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 89, Ramsey County, Minnesota and That part of the North 140 feet of Lot 25, Auditors Subdivision No. 89, lying northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 25; thence south 00 degrees, 49 minutes 41 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the West line of said Lot 25 a distance of 16.41 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 87 degrees 04 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 460.64 feet to the east line of said Lot 25 and there terminating. Subject to a five-foot strip easement along the rear line of public utility use, such as setting of poles, stringing of wires, trimming or removing of trees, if necessary for the line clearance and laying of underground conduits WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Registered Land Survey (attached as Exhibit A) which would create four tracts of land described as follows: Tract Proposed Use Area (Sq Ft / Acres) A To be deeded to 7865 Spring Lake Road 5,526 / 0.13 B To be deeded to City for right of way 730.4 / 0.02 C Remainder of 7851 Spring Lake Road 14,809 / 0.34 D To be added to 2933 Oakwood Drive 19,139 / 0.44 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant’s request for a minor subdivision and has determined that it is in conformance with Chapters 1104, 1201, and 1202 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the applicants’ request for a minor subdivision is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the minor subdivision of 7851 Spring Lake Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall arrange to have a Title Commitment prepared and submitted prior to the approval of the subdivision by the City Council. Resolution 811-05 Page 2 2. The RLS shall be revised to show the west lot line of Tract D shifted to the west approximately five feet to be consistent with the west lot line of Mr. Olson’s property at 2933 Oakwood Drive. 3. The RLS shall be further revised to indicate proposed 10-foot easement areas along the east, north and west lines of Tract D. The RLS shall bear the following or substantially similar language: “The proposed public drainage and utility easements shown herein have been dedicated by a separate document and recorded with Ramsey County.” 4. The Deed created for Tract D shall bear the following or substantially similar language: “Tract D does not constitute an independent buildable lot and shall not be developed for any purpose other than typical accessory uses implied or expressly permitted by the Mounds View Zoning Code.” 5. The Applicant shall execute a new public drainage and utility easement document for areas highlighted on Tract D of the RLS. 6. The applicant shall arrange to have the deeds prepared and recorded with Ramsey County within 60 days of City Council approval or this approval shall be considered null and void. Extensions may be granted at the discretion of the City in the case of extraordinary unanticipated delays outside of the applicant’s control. 7. At the time of deed recordation, Tract D shall be combined with the property at 2933 Oakwood Drive; Tract A shall be combined with 7865 Spring Lake Road; and Tract B recorded as right of way dedication to the City of Mounds View. Proof of deed recordation and combination shall be provided to the City of Mounds View within 10 days of recordation. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 7th day of September, 2005. __________________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ______________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 5C Meeting Date: Sept 7, 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 7685 Groveland Road; Planning Case VR2005-012 Introduction: The applicants, Donald and Christine Gullickson, are requesting a variance to replace an existing non-conforming fence in the front yard of their property located at 7685 Groveland Road. The property is located at the southeast corner of County Road I and Groveland 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 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 helps to buffer and screen from County Road I, 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 7685 Groveland Road 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. Gullickson Variance Sept 7, 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 and sits six feet below the improved grade of County Road I, 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 historically 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 would not be impacted, as the fence itself would be no taller than the grade of the roadway it fronts. 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. Gullickson Variance June 15, 2005 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 Gullickson’s property. No resident or property owner 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 812-05 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, 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 815-05 ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View (2003) COUNTY ROAD I Picket Fence Six-Foot Fence to be Replaced Photographic Documentation View of the Gullickson Fence, taken from County Road I, looking southwest Looking south toward Gullickson property, broken fence section. Photographic Documentation This photo taken from the north side of County Road I, looking south, standing at about the same elevation of where the Gullicksons’ fence would be. The street is elevated almost six feet above the Gullicksons’ backyard; you can make out only the top few inches of the Gullickson’s six-foot tall fence on the other side of the road. One of the reasons why tall fences are not allowed in front yards is to promote, or not overly restrict, visibility. From this view, it is quite clear that the six-foot fence does not impede any kind of visibility. The Gullickson backyard backs up to backyards on Silver Lake Road, thus lot-to-lot visibility is not impacted. Gullicksons’ 6-Foot Fence County Road I Roadway Permitted Fence Location for Corner Lots MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 812-05 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 7865 GROVELAND ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2005-012 WHEREAS, the applicants, Donald and Christine Gullickson, have applied for a variance to replace a six-foot tall fence in the front yard at their property at 7865 Groveland Road; and, WHEREAS, 7865 Groveland Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: West ½ of Lot 1, Spring Lake Park Knolls 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 I; 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 812-05 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, 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. 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 which is elevated almost six feet above the subject property. 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 helps provide screening and buffering from County Road I. 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 7865 Groveland Road 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 812-05 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 7865 Groveland Road as shown on the attached site plan labeled Exhibit 1, contingent upon the following: 1. The applicants shall obtain 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 7th day of September, 2005. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jim Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) EXHIBIT A Location where a Six-Foot Tall Fence May Be Erected