PUBLIC HEARING: Consider a Request for a Variance to Allowable Fence Height in the Front Yard Setback Area at the Property Located at 5859 Alpine Dr NW; Case of James and Patricia Hirschman

The City has received an application for a variance to the height limit for fencing within the front yard setback of the property located at 5859 Alpine Drive NW (the "Subject Property"), which is within the R-1 Residential (MUSA) district. The variance would allow the property owner to deviate from standards described within City Code Section 117-111 (R-1 Residential) to construct a six (6) foot high privacy fence along portions of the Subject Property's front yard, exceeding the height limit by two (2) feet. The request was prompted by the loss of trees that stood where the fencing is being proposed. Those trees were removed as a result of the reconstruction of the intersection immediately adjacent to the Subject Property.

Staff attempted to notify all Property Owners within 350 feet of the Subject Property of the Public Hearing. A Public Notice was also advertised in the Anoka UnionHerald.

The Subject Property contains 0.77 acres and is located northeast of the intersection of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 5 and Alpine Dr NW (the "Intersection"). Its a corner lot and therefore has two (2) front yard property lines. All surrounding properties are located with the R-1 Residential (MUSA) district except the parcel to its south, which is zoned B-1 Business.

The Intersection is currently undergoing reconstruction by Anoka County (the "County"). Part of the reconstruction has included the addition of turn lanes, which have increased the road width of Alpine Dr. In addition to relocating the driveway on the Subject Property further east along Alpine Dr, this construction activity necessitated the removal of trees that stood immediately adjacent to the Intersection along the edge of the public right-of-way.

The privacy fence that the Applicant is proposing to install is intended to reconstitute the screening effect that the removed trees once provided. Its location would line the portion of the boundary of the Subject Property's front yard consistent with where the removed trees once stood, as shown in Exhibit A. The Applicant is also proposing to install fencing along remaining stretches of the front yard property line on Alpine Dr that would be four (4) feet in height. The location of the proposed fencing is within the 30-foot front yard setback for properties within the R-1 Residential (MUSA) district, which limits fencing height to four (4) feet.

If approved, the variance would not allow the Applicant to deviate from other fencing standards described in City Code Section 117-111. As part of reconstruction activities, the County will demarcate the public right-of-way boundaries at the Intersection, which will assist the Applicant in properly locating the proposed fencing to be entirely on the Subject Property.

When contemplating a variance request, there is a three (3) factor test for practical difficulties that must be met by the Applicant. The following are the three (3) factors:

1. Is the property owner proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner?
2. Is the landowner's problem due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner?
3. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality?

The request appears to satisfy all three (3) factors. Fencing and its use for screening is allowed within the R-1 Residential District and is therefore a reasonable use. The circumstances surrounding the Applicant's problem were the result of a County initiated project, not by the Applicant. And finally, the variance would have no effect on the character of the Subject Property's locality.

Alternatives

Option #1: Approve Resolutions #14-10-208 and #14-10-209 granting a Variance to the maximum height for fences within the front yard setback. The Applicant is requesting permission to reconstitute the screening condition of his removed trees via a six (6) foot tall privacy fence. What prompted this request was not due to actions by the Applicant, but by a construction project initiated by the County. If this option is selected, the Applicant would still have to comply with other fence standards described in Section117-111. Staff recommends the option.

Option #2: Deny the request for a Variance. This action would not allow the Applicant to construct a fence six (6) feet in height, but a fence that was only four (4) feet tall. This height would not offer the degree of screening that was present with the trees, which were removed by the County and not by the Applicant's choice. The privacy fencing would only be present along a limited extent of the Subject Property facing a busy intersection. Staff does not recommend this option.

As a reminder, for variances, the Planning Commission acts in a quasi-judicial capacity rather than an advisory board.

Because of the relationship of this request to the reconstruction of the intersection of CSAH 5 and Alpine Dr NW by Anoka County, all associated costs have been waived by the City.

City Staff recommends approving Resolutions #14-10-208 and #14-10-209 related to a request for a variance to the height limit for fencing within the front yard setback of a residential property.

Motion to adopt Resolution #14-10-208 approving Findings of Fact #0937 and Resolution #14-10-209 approving the request for a variance related to a request for a variance to the fence height limit within the front yard setback of a residential property;