HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A, PC 09-024 - Appeal Fence at 1777 Glenview Avenue: ■
�.� EN :
HILLS
Re uest for Council Action
q
Prepared By: Meagan Beekman, City Planner Council Meeting Date: January 25, 2010
Planning Case 09-024 for an appeal to overturn Staff s decision that a fence located at 1777
Glenview Avenue meets the requirements of the Zoning Code.
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Recommendation:
1. Motion to deny Planning Case 09-024 for an appeal to overturn Staff s decision that a fence
located at 1777 Glenview Avenue meets the requirements of the Zoning Code.
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................�-----.........._.-------.........----.------............__.__.._......_..--�-----..............._._.........----------..
Supporting Documents:
1. January 25, 2010, Planning Case Report to the City Council
2. Draft Planning Commission Minutes from January 6, 2010
3. January 6, 2010 Planning Case Report to the Planning Commission
r.� EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 25, 2010
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case #09-024
Appeal
Mr. and Mrs. Schneider
1774 Gramsie Road
Back�round
Greg and Patty Schneider live at 1774 Gramsie Road. Their property abuts Mr. and Mrs.
Maloney's property to the rear. Mr. and Mrs. Maloney were issued a fence permit to construct a
fence along their rear property line on June 9, 2009. I reviewed and approved the permit.
Mrs. Schneider �rst contacted the City on September 14, 2009, to inform staff that Mr. and Mrs.
Maloney had begun the installation of the fence and that it encroached over the property line
onto her and her husband's property. John Mennenga, the Building Inspector, and I went out to
the property that afternoon to do a visual inspection. Mr. Schneider met us on site and indicated
to us surveyor's monuments in the ground that he did not dispute the location of. Together we
tied string around the monuments and strung the rear property line. Based on our visual
inspection it appeared that approximately four to six of the fence post footings encroached over
the property line by 1/2 to 1 inch, and that dirt from the digging of the fence holes had
accumulated along the rear property line and encroached as well, in some areas up to a foot.
At that time Staff discussed the issue and agreed that the dirt, and any other damage to the
Schneider's property, needed to be remedied and the lawn returned to its original condition.
Those portions of the fence post footings that encroached over the property line also needed to be
removed so that no encroachment existed. The City verbally informed Mrs. Schneider of the
Staff's position on September 15, 2009. Staff also verbally informed Mrs. Maloney and sent a
letter on the same day.
Qn the morning of September 17, 2009, Staff received calls from both Mr. and Mrs. Schneider
informing us that construction had once again commenced on the Maloney's fence and that the
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for January 25, 2010
IlAhdocsl lah IA�IdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases12009109-024 Schneider Appeal (PC Denied)101-25-10 - Regular Meeting - Memo - Appeal.doc
Page 1 of 3
height of the fence exceeded six feet. They also sta.ted that the �nished side of the fence did not
face their property, but rather the Maloney's. They requested that Staff conduct a site inspection
on the fence as soon as possible. Staff spoke with Mr. and Mrs. Maloney and the person
constructing the fence and visited the property that afternoon. After a visual inspection of the
construction method of the fence Staff became satis�ed that the fence would look the same on
both sides when it was completed. Additionally, Staff determined that the height of the fence
panels did not exceed six feet and that the fence panels were placed as near to the ground as was
possible given the natural undulation of the topography.
On September 18, 2009, Mr. and Mrs. Schneider requested that the Community Development
Director and the City Administrator visit the site to determine if the fence met the requirements
of the Zoning Code. The Building Of�cial also accompanied them on the visit. The Building
Of�cial determined that the fence materials were of a high quality cedar and that both sides of
the fence panels were constructed of rough sawn cedar boards. At that visit, Staff determined
that there was no discernable difference between the two sides of the fence such that one side
could be determined to be the front versus the back. Additionally, Staff concurred with the
earlier interpretation that the height of the fence panels did not exceed six feet and that they were
placed as near to grade as possible. This was in keeping with how the Zoning Code has been
implemented in the past. Staff also noted that the portions of the footings that had encroached
over the property line had been removed and the dirt raked back onto the Maloney's property.
Staff did note on this visit three boards facing the Schneider's yard that had some sort of a stain
on them. Staff asked the contractor to replace these three boards and he agreed. There is some
slight natural variation in the wood color, but all of the boards will turn to a gray color over time.
All of the fence boards have a"rough cut" finish on both sides, but there are no treatments to
either side of the wood.
Staff informed Mr. and Mrs. Schneider of the appeal process and deadlines for submitting
application materials. On December 4, 2009, Staff received a request from Mrs. Schneider to
view the fence once again in its completed state. On December 10, 2009, James Lehnhoff, Dave
Scherbel, and Meagan Beekman conducted a site visit and met with Mr. and Mrs. Schneider. At
that time Staff maintained the previous decision that the fence met the requirements of the
Zoning Code and explained to Mr. and Mrs. Schneider how to submit an appeal. Their
application request for an appeal of Staff's decision is attached (Attachment B).
Recommendation
The Planning Commission reviewed the appeal at their January 6, 2010, meeting and
unanimously recommends denial of the request to overturn Staff s decision that the fence meets
the requirements of the Zoning Code.
Requested Action
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for January 25, 2010
IlAhdocsllcch IAHdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases12009109-024 Schneider Appe�zl (PC Denied)101-25-10 - Regular Meeting - Memo - Appeal.doc
Page 2 of 3
Motion to deny Planning Case 09-024 for an appeal to overturn Staff's decision that a fence
located at 1777 Glenview Avenue meets the requirements of the Zoning Code.
Deadline for A�enc_y Actions
There is no deadline for the City to act on this request.
Attachments
A. Draft Planning Commission Minutes from January 6, 2010
B. January 6, 2010 Planning Case Report to the Planning Commission
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for Janua�^y 25, 2010
IlAhdocsl lah IAHdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases12009109-024 Schneider Appeal (PC Denied)101-25-10 - Regular Meeting - Memo - Appeal.doc
Page 3 of 3
ac r�r�en
. .. .
ra annln omr�r�lsslon lnu es
ror�r� anua
�
_ _ ____ _
��
EN HILLS
January 25, 2010, City Council Meeting
A. Planning Case 09-024; Appeal of Staff Decision; 1774 Gramsie Road; Mr.
and Mrs. Schneider — Not a Public Hearing
City Planner Beekman stated that the applicants are requesting the Planning
Commission make a recommendation to overturn Staff's decision that a fence
located at 1777 Glenview Avenue meets the requirements of the Zoning Code.
She provided background information regarding the construction of the fence and
detailed the concerns of Mr. and Mrs. Schneider. The Planning Commission is
being asked to evaluate the fence based on three regulations within the Zoning
Code. If the Planning Commission recommends overturning Staff s decision then
it will be added to the City Council's January 25, 2010 meeting agenda.
Chair Larson opened the floor to Commission questions.
Chair Larson clari� ed that the fence is not constructed on the property line and
that Staff believes the fence is in compliance with the City's Code.
City Planner Beekman stated that the way the fence was constructed the panels
are six inches from the property line. The Schneider's stated that the footings
encroached on their property but Staff found that the footings themselves did not
encroach onto the Schneider's property but rather some of the overflow concrete
from the footings had. She clari� ed that the installer for the fence did correct this
problem.
Commissioner Holewa asked City Planner Beekman to explain how the height of
the fence is determined and what the height of this fence is.
City Planner Beekman explained that the height of the fence has been determined
by Staff in the past by measuring the height of the panels placed as close to the
ground as is possible or reasonable.
Chair Larson asked if the materials used in the fence are similar on both sides.
Mr. Dave Sherbel, Clty BU11d.111g Of�1Cla1, stated that the fence was constructed of
a high quality cedar and that both sides of the fence are of similar materials and
looks similar so that a front or back to the panels could not be easily determined
and the fence is well built. He also explained that the way the fence steps down is
within the City's Code and is acceptable.
Commissioner Modesette clarified that the footings themselves were not
encroaching on the Schneider's property and the concrete overage that had been
encro aching had b e en � x ed.
City Planner Beekman stated this was correct.
A. Planning Case 09-024; Appeal of ,Staff Decision; 1774 Gramsie Road; Mr.
and Mrs. Schneider — Not a Public Hearing (continued)
It was the consensuses of the Planning Commission to not have the parties
involved speak to the Commission since this was not a public hearing and all the
evidence had been adequately provided by both parties in regards to the case at
hand.
Chair Larson stated that Staff had acted in good faith and there was no reason to
.
assume any mallce.
Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded b_y Commissioner Modesette to den_y
a request to overturn Staff s decision that the fence located at 1777 Glenview
Avenue meets the requirements of the Zonin� Code.
Commissioner Holewa stated that he had visited the site and there was no
difference in the two sides of the panels.
The Motion was called to a vote.
The motion carried unanimousl_y (5-0).
ac men
.
anua annln as e e o
�
. . .
o e annln omz�r�lsslon
.��
EN HILLS:
January 25, 201 �, City Council Meeting