Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 05City of Lakeville Planning Department M e morandum To: Planning Commission From: Brent Jones, Planning Assistant/Code Enforcement Technician Date: October 13, 2017 Subject: Packet Material for the October 19, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item: Andy Wiegand, 18624 Irvine Trail, Fence Variance Application Action Deadline: December 1, 2017 BACKGROUND Andy Wiegand has submitted a variance application to allow the construction of a privacy fence in excess of 6 feet in the rear yard of his single family home located at 18624 Irvine Trail. The property is zoned RS-3, Single Family Residential District and is located in the southwest corner of 185th Street and Ipava Avenue. In August of 2017, Mr. Wiegand submitted a Zoning Permit application for a wooden privacy fence. The fence was proposed to be 8 feet in height and located 10 feet from the rear property lines that abut 185th Street and Ipava Avenue. City staff informed Mr. Wiegand that the proposed fence did not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, so he inquired about applying for a variance. He met with the Planning Commission at their work session on September 21, 2017 to discuss the situation and received positive feedback. In 2006, the 5 properties directly to the west of the subject property were granted a variance to construct a 6 foot tall privacy fence with a 2 foot setback from the property line that abuts 185th Street. EXHIBITS A. Aerial Photo B. Survey C. Site Plan D. Property Photos (3 pages) 2 PLANNING ANALYSIS Section 11-21-5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that Mr. Wiegand’s fence be set back at least 10 feet from the property line abutting public right-of-way and not exceed 6 feet in height. Any fence exceeding 6 feet in height would be required to meet the required rear yard principal structure setback, which is 30 feet. Mr. Wiegand is fine with having the fence set back 10 feet, but would like the fence to exceed 6 feet in height in some areas because the proposed location of the fence is lower in elevation than 185th Street by approximately 3 feet. Mr. Wiegand feels that a taller fence would help cut down on road noise and allow additional privacy/protection from 185th Street and Ipava Avenue. He previously inquired about raising the elevation of the ground where the fence would be constructed, but that was turned down by Engineering staff due to drainage concerns. Mr. Wiegand is proposing an 8 foot fence along 185th Street W, a 6 foot fence along Ipava Ave, and a 7 foot fence facing the 185th Street and Ipava Avenue intersection to connect the two. When then the 5 properties located to the west of the subject property were granted variances in 2006, the request was slightly different. Those property owners were requesting to encroach into the required setback, which was 15 feet at the time, but did not request to exceed the maximum height of 6 feet. The rationale behind granting the variance was that there had been improvements recently made to the 185th Street and Ipava Avenue intersection, which caused many trees to be removed. Allowing the fences to be located 2 feet from the property line helped replace the screening that had been lost due to tree removal, without the property owners having to lose more of their yard by placing fences 15 feet from the rear property line, as the ordinance required. Variances. Section 11-6-5 of the Zoning Ordinance lists seven criteria that must be met for all variance requests. The seven criteria and staff’s response are as follows: A. That the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The subject property is located in Planning District 5 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for single family homes, which is consistent with the use of the subject property. B. The variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 11-21-5 of the Zoning Ordinance allows fences for double frontage lots that can provide screening and buffering of single family properties from the public street. Because of the difference in elevation between the rear yard and 185th Street, the variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. C. That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the applicant. 3 The lower elevation is unique to the property and not created by the applicant. The applicant wished to raise the elevation but was not allowed to do so because of drainage concerns for the neighboring properties. D. That the purpose of the variance is not exclusively economic considerations. The applicant states that the purpose of the variance is due to the lower elevation of their property compared to the elevation of 185th Street and Ipava Avenue. E. That the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. The privacy fence won’t appear to be taller than other fences in the neighborhood due to the lower elevation of the property. The privacy fence will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. F. That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. The variance to allow the construction of an 8 foot fence will provide sufficient screening from 185th Street and Ipava Avenue, which will eliminate the practical difficulty. G. Variances may not be approved for any use that is not allowed by the Zoning Ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located. Fences are an allowed accessory use for single family homes in the RS-3 District. RECOMMENDATION Planning Department staff recommends approval of the Peterson variance subject to the following stipulations: 1. The privacy fence must be set back at least 10 feet from the rear property lines that abut street right-of-way. 2. The privacy fence may not exceed 8 feet in height along 185th Street, 6 feet in height along Ipava Avenue, and 7 feet in height along the intersection of 185th Street and Ipava Avenue that connects the two, as shown on the site plan. 3. If there are any large gaps in landscaping along the 185th Street side of the screening fence, additional trees will be required in compliance with Section 11-21-9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Findings of fact in support of the variance request are attached. EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D 1 CITY OF LAKEVILLE DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA WIEGAND VARIANCE FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION On October 19, 2017, the Lakeville Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Andy Wiegand for a variance to allow a privacy fence in excess of 6 feet in the rear yard of his single family home located at 18624 Irvine Trail. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the variance application preceded by published and mailed notice. The applicant was present and the Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is located in Comprehensive Planning District 5 (Central Area/Heritage Commons), which guides the property for residential use. 2. The subject site is currently zoned RS-3, Single Family Residential District. 3. Legal description of the property is: Lot 7, Block 1, Spring Hills 2nd 4. Chapter 11-6-5 of the City of Lakeville Zoning Ordinance provides that a variance may not be issued unless certain criteria are satisfied. The criteria and our findings regarding them are: a. That the variance would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject property is located in Planning District 5 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for single family homes, which is consistent with the use of the subject property. b. The variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Finding: Section 11-21-5 of the Zoning Ordinance allows fences for double frontage lots that can provide screening and buffering of single family properties from the public street. Because of the difference in elevation between the rear yard and 185th Street, the variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. c. That the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the applicant. 2 Finding: The lower elevation is unique to the property and not created by the applicant. The applicant wished to raise the elevation but was not allowed to do so because of drainage concerns for the neighboring properties. d. That the purpose of the variance is not exclusively economic considerations. Finding: The applicant states that the purpose of the variance is due to the lower elevation of their property compared to the elevation of 185th Street and Ipava Avenue. e. That the granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Finding: The privacy fence won’t appear to be taller than other fences in the neighborhood due to the lower elevation of the property. The privacy fence will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. f. That the requested variance is the minimum action required to eliminate the practical difficulty. Finding: The variance to allow the construction of an 8 foot fence will provide sufficient screening from 185th Street and Ipava Avenue, which will eliminate the practical difficulty. g. Variances may not be approved for any use that is not allowed by the Zoning Ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located. Finding: Fences are an allowed accessory use for single family homes in the RS-3 District. 5. The report dated October 13, 2017 prepared by Brent Jones, Planning Assistant/Code Enforcement Technician is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Wiegand variance in the form attached thereto. DATED: October 19, 2017 LAKEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION BY: __________________________ Jason Swenson, Chair