Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/01/2015  Meeting Location: Municipal Center City of 7100 147th Street West Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 APRIL 1, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE AGENDA 7:00 P.M. This agenda is subject to change by deletion or addition to items until approved by the Planning Commission on the date of the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2015 4. CONSENT ITEMS A. Set public hearing for May 6, 2015, 7:00 p.m. to consider rezoning of two properties: Outlot C, Valley Business Park and 5751 - 150th Street W. (Agricultural) (Business Park). PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS --NONE-- 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A.Schesso/Hine Fence Variance Request for a variance allowing for increase in fence height from 3.5 feet to 6 feet where a fence is located along a rear property line, which constitutes the side (PC15-12-V) lot line of an abutting lot. LOCATION: 14334 Embry Path PETITIONER: Troy Schesso and Lisa Hine 7. OTHER BUSINESS A. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates. 8. ADJOURNMENT NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS Wednesday, April 15, 2015 Regular Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. Reserved for a presentation and discussion of a concept and program called Vitalocity Wednesday, May 6, 2015 Regular Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. Public hearing applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April 8, 2015 -Site plan, variance applications due by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, April 27, 2015 NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Thursday, April 9, 2015 Informal 5:30 P.M. Regular Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. Thursday, April 23, 2015 Regular Scheduled Meeting 7:00 P.M. Regular meetings are broadcast live on Charter Communications Cable, Channel 180. Agendas are also available on the City's Internet Web Site http://www.cityofapplevalley.org. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MARCH 4, 2015 4. CONSENT ITEMS --NONE-- 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 18, 2015 Chair Melander opened the public hearing at 7:01 p.m. Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the agenda. Hearing none he called for a motion. Chair Melander asked if there were any changes to the minutes. Hearing none he called for a motion. The City of Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Melander at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Tom Melander, Ken Alwin, Tim Burke, Keith Diekmann, and Paul Scanlan. Members Absent: David Schindler Staff Present: City Attorney Sharon Hills, Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist, City Planner Tom Lovelace, Planner Kathy Bodmer, Fire Chief Nealon Thompson and Department Assistant Joan Murphy. MOTION: Commissioner Burke moved, seconded by Commissioner Diekmann, approving the agenda. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan, approving the minutes of the meeting of March 4, 2015. Ayes - 4 - Nays — 0. Abstained — 1 — Burke. A. Zoning Amendment 1-2 — Public hearing to consider amendments to "1-2" (General Industrial) zoning district concerning bulk fuel storage tanks and heavy industrial uses that may no longer be compatible with the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. (PC15-06-Z) LOCATION: City Wide PETITIONER: City of Apple Valley CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2015 Page 2 of 6 Planner Kathy Bodmer stated petroleum storage tanks are listed as a permitted use in the 1-2 zoning district with no other requirements or standards. The proposed ordinance would allow existing bulk crude oil, petroleum products or other flammable or combustible liquids storage tanks to remain as a permitted use. Following January 1, 2015, a property owner who wishes to add or replace any fuel storage tanks in the 1-2 zone would be required to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP). To protect against leaks, spills and fires, the ordinance requires the construction of secondary containment (berming and impervious lining for surface and groundwater protection) and fire protection. In addition, the property owner would be required to provide a comprehensive emergency response plan indicating how any leak, spill or fire would be managed. The 1-2 zoning district currently allows the heaviest industrial uses in the City, but many of the parcels zoned 1-2 are located in close proximity to residential and institutional properties. Some of the current permitted and conditional uses are no longer in line with the goals and vision of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The 1-2 zone is proposed to be amended by removing some of the obsolete and/or higher nuisance heavy industrial uses and allowing the City Council, when an 1-2 use is within 1,000 feet of residential or institutional property, to require berming, landscaping, orientation of activities, or a combination of methods, to minimize impacts to those properties. Commissioner Diekman questioned the kind of storage tanks in the Industrial areas that could attract manufacturing and medical in the future, the type of gas used there and how that would play into this. He also inquired about the screening within 1,000 feet and that gas cannot escape if screened too tightly. Fire Chief Nealon Thompson provided information on compressed gases; explaining that when a leak occurs a compressed liquid is covered to a gas and escapes to the atmosphere, it does not leak into the ground. There would be no concern for horizontal or vertical travel into the ground. He reviewed the types of gases and tank sizes. Commissioner Alwin asked where else besides Magellan there were tanks in the City. Fire Chief Thompson stated that there are tanks at Lampert Lumber and Dick's Valley Service currently in the 1-2 zoning district. Commissioner Alwin asked if they exist today could they still grow and be grandfathered in and be replaced with a conditional use permit. He inquired if tanks could be added on additional parcels. Ms. Bodmer answered that it would still be a conditional use so any property owner would be able to obtain a CUP if they meet the conditions. Chair Melander asked for explanation of what an atmosphere tank is. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2015 Page 3 of 6 Fire Chief Thompson clarified that atmospheric tanks of combustible or flammable liquids are those stored a normal atmospheric pressure. It is the same as a gasoline tank or portable tank that is used to fuel a lawnmower. Propane tanks that are used for gas grills are pressurized and not stored at atmospheric pressure. Tom Byers, manager of Government and Media Affairs for Megellan Midstream Partners, described the important role of the Megellan tank farm and that daily supplies come from the Apple Valley site. Safety remains Megellan's top priority. He commented that they would like to meet with Apple Valley staff to review the ordinance because they do not support two of the proposed ordinance changes that staff is recommending. Chair Melander closed the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. 6. LAND USE/ACTION ITEMS A. Primrose School of Apple Valley — Request for rezoning and zoning amendments, subdivision, and site plan permit authorization to allow for construction of a 11,700-sq. ft. day care facility on 1.65-acre lot. (PC15-03-ZSB). LOCATION: Northeast corner of Pilot Knob Road and 155th Street West PETITIONER: Primrose School Franchising Company City Planner Tom Lovelace stated the applicant is proposing to rezone the property to allow for the development of a day care facility on the east 1.65 acre of an existing outlot. This would require the creation of a new subzone in "PD-856" and the preparation of ordinance amendments that identify uses, area requirements, and performance standards for the future subzone. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing Outlot B, APPLE VALLEY EAST FAMILY 2ND ADDITION into a 1.65-acre lot, with the remaining 3.8 acres platted as an outlot. All existing easements would remain dedicated with this replat. A ten-foot drainage and utility easement, centered on common east/west property line shall be dedicated with this plat. In addition, all requirements set forth in the City's subdivision ordinance shall be adhered to. The applicant has submitted a request of the vacation of a portion of the north 10 feet of ri ht-of- way for 155th Street West. Final approval of this development proposal would be contingent upon the approval of the vacation as requested. If the vacation is approved, staff would recommend that a condition of approval would be the establishment of a drainage and utility easement over that portion of vacated right-of-way. He commented the north/south drive lane would directly abut the west property line and that staff had concerns that this drive aisle is not set back from the property line. This is something that would generally not be allowed in similar developments. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2015 Page 4 of 6 The site abuts public streets to the north, east, and south, each having a sidewalk or pathway directly adjacent to the property. Internal sidewalk connections should be made to the public sidewalks and pathway abutting the property. He stated the applicant submitted revised plans that addressed parking spaces devoted to overnight bus parking, parking for bicycles, berm and landscaping screening and grading and utility plans. Jacob Fick, South Shore Development, described optional site layouts for the property to the west. John Finnemore, Primrose School Franchising, provided additional information. Discussion followed. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Burke, recommending approval the rezoning of Outlot B, APPLE VALLEY EAST FAMILY 2ND ADDITION from "PD-856" (Planned Development) to "PD-856/zone 3" (Planned Development) and preparation of ordinance amendments that identify uses, area requirements, and performance standards for the subzone. Ayes - 5 - Nays — O. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Burke, recommending approval of a preliminary plat that creates one lot and one outlot subject to the following conditions: • Approval of the final plat shall be contingent on the approval of the vacation of the north 10 feet of the 155th Street West right-of-way. • A 10-foot wide drainage and utility easement, centered on the west property line shall be required. • Cross-access easements shall be recorded with the subdivision that will allow use of the drive approaches on Embry Path and 155th Street West by the proposed lot and any future lots to the west. • The City may require the installation off the 155th Street West intersection on Outlot A at the property owners expense if it is determined that the Embry Path intersection cannot safely and sufficiently handle the day care facility's traffic, as determined by the City Engineer. Ayes - 5 - Nays — O. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Burke, recommending approval of the site plan/building permit authorization to allow for construction of an 11,700-square foot building on a 1.65-acre lot, subject to the following conditions: • The drive aisle shall be set back five feet from the west property line. • The ground mounted HVAC systems shall be screened by either a masonry wall or an opaque landscape screen. • The four significant trees located in the drainage and utility easement adjacent to the north property line shall be relocated outside of the easement. CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2015 Page 5 of 6 • A five-foot wide sidewalk shall be installed along the north side of the drive lane, from Embry Path to the building's main entrance. • The trash enclosure's exterior finish shall be architecturally compatible with the building. • A detailed planting price list shall be required for verification of the City's 2 1/2% landscaping requirement at the time of submission of plans for a building permit. • The Colorado Spruce trees shall be replaced with Black Hills spruce trees. • Revisions shall be made to the plans per the City Engineer's recommendations as identified in his memo dated March 13, 2015. Ayes - 5 - Nays — 0. B. Uponor Annex Expansion — Consider site plan review/building permit authorization to allow for redevelopment and expansion of Uponor Annex building (former American Student Transportation building) for 86,000 sq. ft. office and manufacturing facility. (PC15-08-B). LOCATION: 5925 — 148th Street West PETITIONER: Uponor North America Planner Kathy Bodmer stated Uponor North America owns the former American Student Transportation building at 14800 Everest Avenue. Uponor requests site plan review/building permit authorization to renovate the existing 36,000 sq. ft. bus garage and expand it by 50,000 sq. ft. to create an 86,000 sq. ft. office and manufacturing facility. When completed, the facility would consist of 80,000 sq. ft. of manufacturing and 6,000 sq. ft. of office. The existing overhead garage doors would be replaced with windows and concrete block. The exterior of the 50,000 sq. ft. addition would be constructed with exposed aggregate tip-up concrete panels. Two new access points would be added to the parcel to allow for truck deliveries to nine delivery bays on the west side of the building. Two delivery bays would be added to the south side of the building. Uponor plans to seek LEED certification for the manufacturing facility. Uponor also requests approval to expand the east employee parking lot on the main campus by 67 spaces. A new access would also be constructed to Upper 147th Street to provide improved employee access to the north side of the main campus. She stated the Public Works Director and City Engineer had reviewed the new access request and had no issues. Discussion followed. Dan Hughes, Uponor North America, introduced Uponor's project team: Greg Lawler, Darin Burckhard and Matt Wenthe. He provided additional information and was available to answer any questions. MOTION: Commissioner Diekmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Alwin, recommending approval of the Site Plan/Building Permit subject to conformance with all City codes and City Engineer's memo of March 12, 2015. Ayes - 5 - Nays — O. 7. OTHER BUSINESS CITY OF APPLE VALLEY Dakota County, Minnesota Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2015 Page 6 of 6 A. Review of upcoming schedule and other updates. Community Development Director Bruce Nordquist stated that the next Planning Commission meeting would take place Wednesday, April 1, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. 8. ADJOURNMENT Hearing no further comments from the Planning Staff or Planning Commission, Chair Melander asked for a motion to adjourn. MOTION: Commissioner Alwin moved, seconded by Commissioner Scanlan to adjourn the meeting at 8:53 p.m. Ayes - 5 - Nays - 0. R- pectfully Submitted, .1 Murphy, Planning De LIA/L artment ssistant Approved by the Apple Valley Planning Commission on City of Apple Vall PROJECT NAME: Outlot C/Community Cares Property Rezoning PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rezone two properties from "A" (Agricultural) to "BP (Business Park) for consistency with 2030 Comprehensive Plan designation of "IND" (Industrial) STAFF CONTACT: Margaret Dykes, Planner APPLICANT: City of Apple Valley DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development Department PROJECT NUMBER: PC15-XX-XX Action Requested 1. Adopt the draft resolution setting a public hearing for May 6, 2015, to consider the rezoning the following properties from "A" (Agricultural) to "BP (Business Park) for consistency with 2030 Comprehensive Plan designation of "IND" (Industrial): a. Parcel 1: Outlot C, Valley Business Park b. Parcel 2: 5751 150 Street W. Project Summary/Issues In 1994, the Apple Valley Economic Development Authority (EDA) acquired a 28-acre site generally located northwest of the intersection of Pilot Knob and County Road 42 from L.G.S. Concord/ Citizens Utility to facilitate the creation of an industrial business park. This 28-acre parcel, now called Valley Business Park, was platted in 1999. Immediately to the south of Valley Business Park is a 3.54-acre unplatted parcel that had been an old farmstead. The property is now owned by Community Cares, Inc. (5751 150 Street W.). en Valley Business Park was platted, a 0.18-acre outlot, Outlot C, was created to provide this property with access to Energy Way. Outlot C is owned by the Apple Valley Economic Development Authority. Both properties are guided "IND" (Industrial), but zoned "A" (Agricultural) The City Attorney has reminded staff that the zoning of a property must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. State statute (Minn Stat 473.865, Subd. 3) states that if the zoning of a property conflicts with a comprehensive plan as the result of an amendment to the plan, the zoning regulation shall be amended so as to not conflict with the comprehensive plan. The surrounding properties are zoned "BP" (Business Park). City staff is requesting the Planning Commission set a public hearing so that the subject properties can be rezoned so that they are consistent the Comprehensive Plan. Budget Impact None noted at this time. Attachment(s) 1. Draft Resolution 2. Area Map 4. Existing Zoning ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SECTION: 3. Comprehensive Plan Map 5. Proposed Zoning Map 4A April 1, 2015 Consent Existing Conditions Property Location: Legal Description: Comprehensive Plan Designation Zoning Classification Existing Platting Current Land Use Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation Other Significant Natural Features Adjacent Properties/Land Uses OUTLOT C/COMMUNITY CARES PROPERTY REZONING PROJECT REVIEW Generally southwest of Energy Way and Pilot Knob Road Parcel 1 (Owned by Apple Valley EDA): No address assigned. Outlot C, Valley Business Park. "IND" (Industrial) Zoning/Land Use Parcel 2 (Owned by Community Cares, Inc.): 5751 150U1 Street W. That part of the East One Half of the Southeast quarter of Section 26, Township 115, Rage 20, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of Section 26, Township 115, Range 20, said point being 264 feet east of the Southwest Corner of the East One Half of the Southeast quarter of said Section 26, thence northerly and parallel to the west line of said East One Half of Southeast Quarter a distance of 165.00 feet; thence westerly and parallel to the south line of said Section 26, a distance of 48.00 feet, thence North 285.00 feet; thence East 360 feet; thence South 450.00 feet, more or less to the south line of said Section 26; thence westerly along said south line a distance of 312.00 feet, more or less to the point of beginning. Both parcels are zoned "A" (Agricultural) Parcel 1: Platted. Parcel 2: Unplatted. Parcel 1: Vacant. Parcel 2: Unoccupied single family house with accessory buildings Parcel 1: 0.18 acres Parcel 2: 3.54 acres Relatively flat Moderate trees, lawn None identified NORTH SOUTH EAST Valley Business Park Comprehensive Plan Zoning/Land Use Fischer Aggregate mine Comprehensive Plan Zoning/Land Use Knob Ridge Business P Comprehensive Plan "IND" (Industrial) "BP" (Business Park) and Residential properties "MBC" (Mixed Business Campus) Sand and gravel mine: "SG" (Sand & Gravel) Residential properties: "A" (Agricultural) ark "IND" (Industrial) "BP" (Business Park) ST =I= McCor 'ck Computer Comprehensive Plan Zoning/Land Use "IND" (Industrial) "BP" (Business Park) T ID # 01-81100-00-030 01-02600-76-020 CITY OF APPLE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2015 - A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEA " G FOR A REZONING ADOPTED this 1 day of April, 2015. FOR 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENTCY WHEREAS, pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976, the City of Apple Valley is required to prepare a comprehensive plan, establishing future land uses throughout the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to 2006 amendments to said Act, the City adopted the updated Apple Valley Comprehensive Guide Plan on January 13, 2010; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473, Section 473.865, Subdivision 3 states that if an official control conflicts with a comprehensive plan as a result of an amendment to the plan, the official control shall be amended by the City so as to not conflict with the amended comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Apple Valley Planning Commission finds that consideration of rezoning action upon the subject properties listed below is warranted in order to remove any inconsistencies between the comprehensive guide plan land use map, and the zoning map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Apple Valley, Dakota County, Minnesota, that a public hearing before said Commission be set for May 6, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. to consider rezoning from "A" (Agricultural) to "BP" (Business Park) the following described parcels of land: LEGAL DESC TION Outlot C, Valley Business Park That part of the East One Half of the Southeast quarter of Section 26, Township 115, Rage 20, Dakota County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point 264 feet east of the Southwest Corner of the East One Half of the Southeast quarter of said Section 26, thence northerly a distance of 165.00 feet; thence westerly a distance of 48.00 feet, thence North 285.00 feet; thence East 360 feet; thence South 450.00 feet, more or less to the south line of said Section 26; thence westerly along said south line a distance of 312.00 feet, more or less to the point of beginning. Thomas 0. Melander, Chair ATTEST: Pamela J. Gackstetter, City Clerk Community Cares Property 3.54 ac. Outiot C 0.18 ac. OUTLOTC COMMUNITY CARES LOCATION MAP .1.■•■•■■ OUTLOT C/ COMMUNITY CARES COMP PLAN MAP "IND" (Industrial) COMMUNITY CARES SITE OUTLOT C / COMMUNITY CARES ZONING MAP "A" (Agricultural) i in i f! ° La awp ; Ur- " r tf '1 6. 4 " L11; Miami . i.. � Xi6e, -0 : 111 V.W tv iriri7imiLIFFNI 1 OUTLOTC/ COMMUNITY CARES PROPOSED ZONING MAP Proposed Zoning: "BP" (Business Park) COMMUNITY CARES SITE vily ,c4 l ir. 6 litiettivrei ir --4 : 1 A ip s...neri .Fdttfil.l liiirPu 144 &4'''''* L 2 . tpl 17,11S> .. 4.441121%.' Uu 'irkm.k.g. ...„...,,,..., - .-......- %-t_l. NI in 71,77G-! ao; ,7,7 a V ifirkr";7 1;i: _Asilkilili_grZ, in-71111S‘ ,itirra,:i 15"..111iiP•raid. .7.6,4fig LW ill 1:ea 1 ilaiH CAM lawAL- i .... ..., .....-....... _ Tr-R¼• , • I Iiii i fir '''' avocaRviv.:.L.1,7„-%ry „, Ars ii 00. 0006 .0000 00.0 City of Apple H \Miley PROJECT NAME: Schesso/Hine Fence Variance ITEM: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 1, 2015 SECTION: Land Use/Action Items PROJECT DESCRIPTION Troy Schesso and Kim Hine, 14334 Embry Path, request a variance to the maximum height of a fence from 3.5' to 6' within a 17' sight triangle where a rear yard abuts a neighbor's side yard. This variance would allow the fence to be 6' tall along the side and rear lot lines. STAFF CONTACT: Kathy Bodmer, Planner APPLICANT: Troy Schesso and Kim Hine, Owners APPLICATION DATE: March 23, 2015 60 DAYS: May 21, 2015 DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: Community Development Department PROJECT NUMBER: PC15-14-V 120 DAYS: July 21, 2015 Proposed Action Troy Schesso and Kim Hine, 14334 Embry Path, request a variance to the maximum height of a fence from 3.5' to 6' within a 17' sight triangle where a rear yard abuts a neighbor's side yard, based upon the practical difficulty that they need to have a six foot (6') fence for a dog and that extending the fence around the corner will allow them to preserve one of four mature evergreen trees on the northeast corner of the property adjacent to Ebony Lane. The Staff reviews variance applications based strictly upon the requirements of the state statutes and the City Code which require that the applicant establish that there are "practical difficulties" present in order for a variance to be granted, and that logical alternatives are not available. The definition of a practical difficulty is the following: the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning provisions of the code; the plight of the applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the applicant; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The City Code also states that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Because the owner has options other than a variance, staff is not recommending approval of the variance. If the Planning Commission concurs with staff's findings, a motion to recommend denial of the requested variance based u s on the act that the s etitioners failed to provide a practical difficultp that justifies the granting of the variance is recommended. However, if the Planning Commission wishes to recommend approval of the requested variance, it could use the following motion along with additional findings for recommending approval of the variance: • Recommend approval of a variance allowing the maximum height of a fence to increase from 3.5' to 6' within a 17' sight triangle where a rear yard abuts a neighbor's side yard, subject to compliance with all City Codes and the following conditions: o The property owner shall construct the fence in a manner that allows a minimum clear access of 3' around the private utility pedestal boxes located on the northeast corner of the property. The property owner shall install a minimum of one new tree to replace any removed trees. • The variance is recommended for approval based upon the following findings: • The owners have four mature evergreen trees on the northeast corner of their property. o A variance from the fence regulations would allow them to preserve one of the trees. o The view from the neighbor's property at 14322 Ebony Lane will not be impacted. Project Summary/Issues Troy Schesso and Lisa Hine wish to extend their 6' privacy fence along the side and rear lot line. However, while the petitioners' fence would be located along their property's rear lot line, it would be located along the side lot line of the neighbor's property to the north. The zoning code states, when a property's rear lot line constitutes the side lot line of the neighbor's property, that the height of a fence within a 17' triangle area may not exceed 3.5' in height. The previous owner of the property installed a 6' privacy fence along Ebony Lane and terminated it when it reached the 17' sight triangle. In its place, the previous owner installed four evergreen trees which are now over 20' tall. The current owners wish to extend the 6' privacy fence along the side lot line around the comer and around the rear lot line. This requires a variance from the fence height requirement through the 17' sight triangle. In the future, the owners plan to construct a detached garage on the northwest comer of the property with a driveway access on the northeast corner of the property off of Ebony Lane. The 17' sight triangle is described as follows: starting at the intersection of the shared side/rear lot line and the abutting lot's front line, then 17' along the common lot line, then diagonally to a point 17' from the point of beginning along the street lot line to the point of beginning (see diagram attached). The owners have two alternatives available which would allow them to avoid a variance: the first would be to simply reduce the height of the fence and make it 3.5' tall within the 17' triangle. The rest of the fence could be 6' tall. The petitioners state that the fencing is for a dog and that the shorter fence is not an option for them. The second alternative would be to angle the fence so that the 17' sight triangle remains open. An example of an angled fence is located two blocks east and south of the petitioner's property. The owners state that angling the fence would require the removal of the mature evergreen trees located in the corner. They state that the variance would help them to keep one of the existing mature trees. Without the variance, all of the trees would likely need to be removed to angle the fence. The primary concern the City has regarding fence heights in the 17' sight triangle would be ensuring that the neighbor can see safely to exit his/her driveway. In this case, the driveway is on the other side of the neighbor's lot. In addition, the 20'+ trees are a larger obstruction to the view than a 6' fence would be. The variance would not impact the neighbor's visibility. The neighbors have submitted a letter in support of the requested variance. Two private utility pedestal boxes are located on the northeast comer of the property. Private utility companies have the right to remove any structures in the drainage and utility easement and would not be required to repair or replace the structure. The owners would be wise to ensure that any fence is notched or designed in a way that provides a minimum clear access of three to five feet (3'-5') around the pedestal boxes. The petitioners must make the case that they would be denied reasonable use of the property without the variance. The question is, are they "prevented" from meeting the requirements of the zoning ordinance because of something unique on the property, or do they simply want more use of their property? Because the owner has options other than a variance, staff is not recommending approval of the variance. The fence could be angled around the trees if saving trees were the objective. In addition, other fences in the neighborhood have met the sight triangle requirement. In terms of property improvements consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, a variance in this situation would not significantly improve the property. Budget Impact None. Attachment(s) 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Fence Location Hand Out 5. Lot Survey 6. Lot Survey Subject & Neighbor Lots 7. Street Views 8. Photos 9. Neighbor Letter Existing Conditions Property Location: Legal Description: Comprehensive Plan Designation Zoning Classification Existing Platting Current Land Use Size: Topography: Existing Vegetation Other Significant Natural Features Adjacent Properties/Land Uses Development 14334 Embry Path' Schesso/Hine Fence Variance Lot 9, Block 2, PILOT KNOB ESTATES 1 ADDITION LD-Low Density Residential (0-6 units/acre) R-3 Single Family 11,000 s.f. Platted lot. Single family residential. 13,659 sq. ft. (0.31 acres Flat Urban landscape. NORTH Three of four existing significant trees will be removed in order to install the 6' tall privacy fence and a future driveway. The Natural Resources Management Ordinance requires replacement of removed trees if the removed trees equal 10% or more of the total tree inches on the site. SOUTH EAST PROJECT REVIEW 14322 Ebony Lane Comprehensive Plan Zoning/Land Use 14331 & 14335 Embry Path (Twin Home) Comprehensive Plan Zoning/Land Use 14344 Embry Path LD-Low Density Residential (0-6 units/acre R-3 Single Family 11,000 LD-Low Density Residential (0-6 units/acre R-5 Two Family 15,000 s.f. WEST Comprehensive Plan Zoning/Land Use 14322 Embry Path Comprehensive Plan Zoning/Land Use LD-Low Density Residential (0-6 units/acre) R-3 Single Family 11,000 s.f. LD-Low Density Residential (0-6 units/acre) R-3 Single Family 11,000 s.f. Definition of "Practical difficulties": • The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning provisions of the code; • The plight of the applicant is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the applicant; and • The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. • Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In order to grant a variance, the City considers the following factors to determine whether the applicant established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provision(s) of this Chapter: 1. Special conditions apply to the structure or land in question that are particular to the property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district or vicinity in which the land is located; 2. The granting of the proposed variance will not be contrary to the intent of this chapter; 3. The special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the owner/applicant; 4. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate practical difficulties in complying with the zoning provisions of this Code; and 5. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty. 0 as 0 z EAST VALLEY PLAZA 0 2 uJ w WAY 1-) ESSEX TR EMBER WAY 1401h PAT 0 144th ST W DUBLIN Erickson Park uJ C z eC 0 DUL I E Delaney Park ISD 196 AMAIN OFFICES DAK01 VALLE LEARNT CENTE 0 0 SCHESSOIHINE FENCE VARIANCE SCHESSO/HINE FENCE VARIANCE w AERIAL MAP P 9 = r-44-43e, T ST Ei :7 / , ,,-- ER: , , / .', 1 -.7 ---„,._—_, ,._,.._. c '... , — p-- • - ----gi- Eri,A3 I \ --- \ 1,42Nti pA :i . /-----__ , I 1 144TH ST W SCHESSOMINE FENCE VARIANCE ZONING MAP Fence Location — Rear Yard to Side Yard § 155.351 FENCES; PERMITS AND LOCATION. CORNER LOT (A) (D) Residential district fences. In all areas of the city zoned residential and not a farm, no boundary line fence shall be erected or maintained more than 3% feet in height except that: (4) Fences along a rear property line which constitutes the side lot line of an abutting lot shall not exceed eight feet in height and shall not exceed 3% feet in height within a triangular area described as follows: beginning at the intersection of the common rear /side lot line and the abutting lot's front lot line; thence 17 feet along the common rear /side lot line; thence diagonally to a point 17 feet from the point of beginning along the side street lot line; thence to the point of beginning. L Proposed 6' Privacy Fence 9 1 644. �uPrtoti.l Lot Survey Lo'T' 9 s BLaGK.. z pt*T sc.1.ta13, QS"ca.TGi 1 a.� rt g. 03 1 14 " I' i 11 Existing 6' Privacy Fence 17' Site Triangle 140ax14 SALE 3a' sivia0414 L\6SUMED ok ems. 1 . iAe'e tI t * A i Lot Survey— Subject Lot and Neighbor Lot 14334 Embry Path and 14322 Ebony Lane 17' Triangle Area iy` aQ,r 140R74 R'4T 4LdLE "= ;a ¢.sf t. 00 Ad f. SE1.SJW4 D6 UMEO 6oT =9 }[: • al. F tclso8 rrAT6i _•_0D811076�' it MONUMcNT tpAer N woo 17 tot-8 *t Dauer/a._ ::GO1lNT Y, IY3 _ MMK�SoTa. 7 Street Views (Google) Existing Fence Ebony Lane Existing Fence Ebony Lane Photos Petitioner Photos 1 FENCE EXAMPLES \ .. "Stepped Down fence (fence height reduced to 3.5' in front yard) "Clipped Corner" fence (fence angled out of the 1 7' sight triangle) March 20, 2015 I the Owne Borders the property of 14334 Embry Path, Apple Valley MN 55124 support and have no issues with the Owners Troy Schesso and Lisa Hine putting in a 6 foot fence in the City restricted area of our adjoining properties. If you have any questions regarding this you can reach me at d who resides at SCHESSO/HINE FENCE VARIANCE Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 2015 Request Variance to increase privacy fence height • from 3.5’ to 6’ within the 17’ triangle where a fence is located along a rear property line which constitutes the side lot line of an abutting lot at 14334 Embry Path, by Troy Schesso and Lisa Hine. Location –14334 Embry Path Zoning: Fence Location §155.351 FENCES; PERMITS AND LOCATION. (D) Residential district fences.In all areas of the city zoned residential and not a farm, no boundary line fence shall be erected or maintained more than 3½ feet in height except that: (4) Fences along a rear property line which constitutes the side lot line of an abutting lotshall not exceed eight feet in height and shall not exceed 3½ feet in height within a triangular area described as follows: beginning at the intersection of the common rear/side lot line and the abutting lot’s front lot line; thence 17 feet along the common rear/side lot line; thence diagonally to a point 17 feet from the point of beginning along the side street lot line; thence to the point of beginning. Fence Height Restriction When rear yard abuts a side yard, maximum fence height 3.5’ within 17’ triangle. Area Map Aerial Photo Oblique View SITE Lot Survey 17’ Site Triangle Proposed 6’ Privacy Fence Existing 6’ Privacy Fence Lot Surveys 51’ Future Construction Plans Street Views Street Views Photos Definition of “Practical Difficulties”  Theapplicantproposestousethepropertyina reasonablemannernotpermittedbythezoning provisionsofthecode;  Theplightoftheapplicantisduetocircumstances uniquetothepropertynotcreatedbytheapplicant;and  Thevariance,ifgranted,willnotaltertheessential characterofthelocality.  Economicconsiderationsalonedonotconstitutepractical difficulties. Findings for a Variance 1.Specialconditionsapplytothestructureorlandinquestionthatare particulartothepropertyanddonotapplygenerallytootherlandor structuresinthedistrictorvicinityinwhichthelandislocated; 2.Thegrantingoftheproposedvariancewillnotbecontrarytothe intentofthischapter; 3.Thespecialconditionsorcircumstancesdonotresultfromthe actionsoftheowner/applicant; 4.Thegrantingofthevariancewillnotmerelyserveasaconvenience totheapplicant,butisnecessarytoalleviatepracticaldifficultiesin complyingwiththezoningprovisionsofthisCode;and 5.Thevariancerequestedistheminimumvariancenecessaryto alleviatethepracticaldifficulty. Alternatives Alternatives Aerial Photo Recommendations Do the petitioners have a “practical difficulty”? • Are they prevented from meeting the • requirements of the zoning ordinance because of something unique on the property? Recommendations If the Planning Commission finds that the • petitioners have not presented a practical difficulty, the following motion would be needed: Recommend denial of the variance request based  upon the fact that the petitioners did not have a practical difficulty and there are alternatives available. Recommendation Findings: 1.The owners have four mature evergreen trees on the northeast corner of the property. 2.A variance would allow them to preserve one of the trees while at the same time allow for future construction of a detached accessory building and driveway; without the variance all trees would need to be removed. 3.The view from the neighbor’s property would not be impacted. 4.Other? Recommendation Action To Recommend Approval: Recommend approval of a variance allowing the • maximum height of a fence to increase from 3.5’ to 6’ within the 17’ triangle where a rear yard abuts a neighbor’s side yard, subject to compliance with all City Codes and the following conditions: 1.Thepropertyownershallconstructthefenceinamanner thatallowsaminimumclearaccessof3’aroundtheprivate utilitypedestalboxeslocatedonthenortheastcornerofthe property. 2.Thepropertyownershallinstallaminimumofonenewtree toreplaceanyremovedtrees. Questions?