My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/09/2014
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2014
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/09/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:21:30 AM
Creation date
10/3/2014 11:05:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
10/09/2014
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
506
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The request appears to satisfy all three (3) factors. Fencing and its use for screening is allowed within the R-1 <br />Residential District and is therefore a reasonable use. The circumstances surrounding the Applicant's problem were <br />the result of a County initiated project, not by the Applicant. And finally, the variance would have no effect on the <br />character of the Subject Property's locality. <br />Alternatives <br />Option #1: Approve Resolutions #14-10-208 and #14-10-209 granting a Variance to the maximum height for fences <br />within the front yard setback. The Applicant is requesting permission to reconstitute the screening condition of his <br />removed trees via a six (6) foot tall privacy fence. What prompted this request was not due to actions by the <br />Applicant, but by a construction project initiated by the County. If this option is selected, the Applicant would still <br />have to comply with other fence standards described in Section117-111. Staff recommends the option. <br />Option #2: Deny the request for a Variance. This action would not allow the Applicant to construct a fence six (6) <br />feet in height, but a fence that was only four (4) feet tall. This height would not offer the degree of screening that <br />was present with the trees, which were removed by the County and not by the Applicant's choice. The privacy <br />fencing would only be present along a limited extent of the Subject Property facing a busy intersection. Staff does <br />not recommend this option. <br />As a reminder, for variances, the Planning Commission acts in a quasi-judicial capacity rather than an advisory <br />board. <br />Funding Source: <br />Because of the relationship of this request to the reconstruction of the intersection of CSAH 5 and Alpine Dr NW <br />by Anoka County, all associated costs have been waived by the City. <br />Recommendation: <br />City Staff recommends approving Resolutions # 14-10-208 and # 14-10-209 related to a request for a variance to the <br />height limit for fencing within the front yard setback of a residential property. <br />Action: <br />Motion to adopt Resolution # 14-10-208 approving Findings of Fact #0937 and Resolution # 14-10-209 approving <br />the request for a variance related to a request for a variance to the fence height limit within the front yard setback <br />of a residential property; <br />Site Location Map <br />Exhibit A - Site Plan <br />Details of Proposed Privacy Fence <br />Resolution #14-10-208: Draft Findings of Fact <br />Resolution #14-10-209: Draft Variance <br />Attachments <br />Form Review <br />Inbox Reviewed By Date <br />Chris Anderson Chris Anderson 09/30/2014 03:13 PM <br />Tim Gladhill Tim Gladhill 10/01/2014 05:25 AM <br />Form Started By: Tom Olson Started On: 09/29/2014 04:23 PM <br />Final Approval Date: 10/01/2014 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.