The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-14-07 Item 4C, Planning Case 07-011 Site Plan Review at 4518 Pleasant Drive , ~ ~HILLS Request for Council Action Prepared By: James Lehnhoff Oept; ~~~r:n_I'!!l!~i_~Y",~,~"Y."_"~~~~I!t____ ,_ Council Mtg. Date: 5-14-07 Final Action Needed By: 6'~2::ij7--- Agenda Item. 4.C Budgeted Amount Actual Amount: Funding ~r1~r~iQtL~fii:r~~~~1W;i*JI:;ji'l2ijKi._,.".,_.,.,,"..""_,..~"_~_,.________________________________..__.."',.,_,," n.'_'____n_m_.._n__'___m__________n___n___________.,___.,...,_,.,.",._,____'____m___n____n__._'n'_'_'_...........",...___.___________.",_."'.. !Approve Planning Case 07.011 for a Site Plan Review at 4518 Pleasant Drive Based on the Findings of Fact and the Submitted Plans as: jAmended by the Four Conditions in the May 14, 2007, Planning Case Report. ~glJEK~:~Ji~If@J~~~~ilitl}}05Lji:.L_____________,_.___.__....""'_""'______n__m__n____________.__mm. _____ _,__ ___ __'m_____"______nn__nn_______..,",.",.",._....."'-__'_nn____________",.,,"''""'n'_'-_"___'-___n____n_''..._"_,'-. !Approve Planning Case 07-011 for a Site Plan Review at 4518 Pleasant Drive Based on the Findings of Fact and the Submitted Plans'''iis1 IAmended by the Four Conditions in the May 14, 2007, Planning Case Report as recommended by the Planning Commission. ~_~!p~~S!Iw~~1(~mi~t{?~}Bi8Vl ! X :Memo/Letter: May 14, 2007. Memo to the City Council 'Resolution No.: jOrdinance No.: j Engineering Recommendation: Attomey Recommendation: : X :Other: 4c:.E-Oraft""p'j'aii-nlng-Commisi;ion'mifiLiies'- _ 4~:~.;n~_~<!~':1.i~_9_~~~~.,~~p~~9_! -011. !&\!liiijj~1@masMiijG:Booi'[.e@r;l::I':CC:~':: . None. ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: May 14, 2007 CC Agenda Item 4.C TO: Mayor & City Council J_ L,hnhoff, Ci<y P"'~,r!I Planning Case #: 07-011 Rob & Jennifer Scott 4518 Pleasant Drive Site Plan Review FROM: SUBJECT: Request Approve Planning Case 07-011 for a Site Plan Review at 4518 Pleasant Drive Based on the Findings of Fact and the Submitted Plans as Amended by the Four Conditions in the May 14, 2007, Planning Case Report. Backl!:round The applicant's property, 4518 Pleasant Drive, is located approximately 575 feet south of the Highway 96 and Lexington Avenue intersection. Their eastern (rear) property line is adjacent to the Lexington Avenue right-of-way. To increase privacy and decrease noise from Lexington A venue, the applicants are proposing to construct an eight foot fence along the eastern (rear) side of the property facing Lexington Avenue. A six foot high fence would be constructed along the southern and northern property lines; however, that does not require a site plan review. The applicants have submitted a letter fully explaining their request along with a picture of the proposed fence (Attachment 3B-I of the report to the Planning Commission). The Zoning Code typically limits fence height to six feet; however, the average elevation of the house and proposed location of the fence are approximately five feet below the elevation of Lexington Avenue. Since the elevation of the road would be almost even with the top of the fence, the applicant's are concerned that a six foot high fence would provide little privacy or noise protection from Lexington Avenue. The Lexington Avenue right-of-way begins approximately seventy feet from the rear of the house, and the road surface beings approximately 110 feet from the rear of the house. The slope up to Lexington Avenue is almost entirely within the right-of-way. \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhi/lslPlanningIPlanning Cases\2007\07-0/1 Scott Site Plan Review (PENDING)I05/407 - CC Reporl- Scott Site Plan Review.doc Page I of4 The applicant's did contact Ramsey County to determine if a fence could be built on the hillside in the right-of-way going up to Lexington Avenue. A fence in the right-of-way would provide significantly more privacy and likely negate the need for an eight foot high fence. Unfortunately, Ramsey County does not permit private fences within their right-of-way. The Zoning Code has a provision to allow deviations from the fence regulations through the site plan review process in unusual circumstances (Section 1325.05 Subd 4.M): Deviations from [the] requirements for fences, walls and landscape screening may be permitted after Planning Commission review and Council approval of a site plan with documentation showing the unusual circumstances justifying the proposed deviation and plans for the proposed fence, wall or landscape screening. This provision is intended to allow flexibility in meeting the purpose and intent of this subdivision without the necessity of proving a hardship as is required in the variance procedure. The objective of this provision is to improve the livability, appearance and security of properties and their relationships to one another. Since the Zoning Code has specific provisions for deviations from the normal fence regulations, the variance evaluation criteria do not apply. Findinl!s of Fact The Planning Commission offers the following thirteen findings of fact for review: L The proposed fence is eight feet high, which would exceed the normal six foot height limit. An approved site plan review is required to construct the fence. 2. The average elevation of the subject property is approximately five feet below the elevation of Lexington Avenue. 3. The slope up to Lexington Avenue is primarily located within the Ramsey County right-of-way. Ramsey County does not permit private fences within their rights-of- way. 4. Due to the elevation change between the property and Lexington A venue, a six foot high fence would not be as effective at decreasing noise and pollution from Lexington Avenue. 5. The proposed fence could meet all other requirements of the fence regulations in Section 1325.05 Subd 4 ofthe Zoning Code. 6. The proposed fence would not impact traffic or parking conditions. 7. The proposed fence would likely reduce noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, and air pollution for the subject property without impacting Lexington A venue or neighboring properties. 8. The proposed fence will not impact drainage or population density. 9. Given the proposed elevation of the fence and the existing elevation ofthe road, the increased fence height is unlikely to have a negative visual impact on Lexington Avenue or adjacent properties. The proposed fence would be compatible with other fences along Lexington A venue that are used for privacy purposes. \\Metro-inet.uslardenhills\PlanninglPlannmg Cases12007\07-01 J Scott Site Plan Review (PENDING)\051407 - CC Report ~ Scott Site Plan Review.doc Page 2 of4 10. The park dedication fee does not apply. I L The proposed fence would not impede the orderly development of the neighborhood or the City within the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 12. Due to the high traffic, noise, and pollution on Lexington A venue as well as the decrease in elevation from Lexington Avenue to the proposed location of the fence, this is an unusual situation that may warrant a deviation from the fence regulations. 13. The proposed fence would likely improve the livability, appearance and security of the subject property without harming adjacent properties or Lexington Avenue. Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 07-011 and unanimously (6-0) recommends approval ofthe Site Plan Review based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the following four conditions: l. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approvaL Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City CounciL 2. The applicant shall locate the utilities near the proposed fence before the fence permit is issued. The applicant shall comply with any setbacks set by the utility company. 3. The fence shall not encroach on the Ramsey County right-of-way without prior written permission from Ramsey County. The applicant shall be responsible for locating the lot lines prior to the issuance ofthe fence permit. 4. The applicant shall keep the fence maintained and promptly repaired if any damage occurs to the fence, including graffiti. Options I. Approve the proposal as submitted. 2. Approve the proposal with conditions. 3. Deny the application with reasons for denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies the request." 4. Table for additional information. Deadline for Al!encv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 2, 2007. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, the City must act on this request by June 2, 2007 (60 days), unless the city provides the petitioner with written reasons for and additional 60 day review period. The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. IIMetro-inet.uslardenhil/sIPJanninglPlanning Caxes\2007\07-0J I Scott Site Plan Review (PENDfNG)105/407 - CC Report - Scott Site Plan Review.doc Page 3 of 4 Attachments 4C-l 4C-2 Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 2007, Report to the Planning Commission - http://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhillslPlanninglP/anning Cases\2007\07-01} Scott Site Plan Review (PENDING)\051407 - CC Repon- Scott Site Plan Review.doc Page 4 of4 Attachment 4 C-l Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2007, City Council Meeting ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 2, 2007 2, B. PLANNING CASE 07-011 - SITE PLAN REVIEW, ROB & JENNIFER SCOTT; 4518 PLEASANT DRIVE Mr. Lehnhoffstated the applicant was requesting a site plan review to construct an eight- foot high fence along their eastern (rear) property line adjacent to Lexington A venue. He noted to approve this application, the Planning Commission and Council must only find that this situation is unusual and the proposed deviation will enhance the property without harming the adjacent properties, the City, or Lexington Avenue. He indicated this was not a variance application, and the applicant does not need to demonstrate "undue hardship" for the City to approve this application. He noted staff believed this was an unusual situation and the fence would increase the livability of the property without impacting Lexington Avenue or the adjacent properties. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: I. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. The applicant shall locate the utilities near the proposed fence before the fence permit is issued. The applicant shall comply with any setbacks set by the utility company. 3. The fence shall not encroach on the Ramsey County right-of-way without prior written permission from Ramsey County. The applicant shall be responsible for locating the lot lines prior to the issuance of the fence permit. 4. The applicant shall keep the fence maintained and promptly repaired if any damage occurs to the fence, including graffiti. Commissioner Holewa stated he lived in the area and the traffic was increasing. Commissioner Modesette questioned whether eight feet was tall enough to be effective. Mr. Lehnhoff stated he had informed the applicants that they could request a higher fence but the applicants stated that the fence they wanted was manufactured at only eight feet. Commissioner Larson noted if they approved an eight foot fence here, they had the same situation all along Lexington Avenue. Chair Sand stated they were just dealing with this particular lot at this time and it was because of the unique elevation circumstances and as far as he was concerned it might not be relevant to any future applications. He noted he could see wanting a fence for safety purposes. Commissioner Stodola moved, seconded by Commissioner Holewa to approve Planning Case No. 07-011, for a Site Plan Review at 4518 Pleasant Drive based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the four conditions in the May 2, 2007 planning case memo. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Attachment 4C-2 Report to the Planning Commission Available online at: http://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us May 14, 2007, City Council Meeting