PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Request for a Variance to Fence Height and Shed Location at 5650 156th Lane NW; Case of Walter Gleb and Sandy Warner

The City has received an application from Walter Gleb and Sandy Warner (the "Applicant") for a Variance to fence height and required setback for a shed on the property located at 5650 156th Lane NW (the "Subject Property").  The Applicant is requesting a variance for an existing fence higher than eight (8) feet and a shed setback of less than six (6) feet. This variance request arises out of a complaint brought to city staff regarding the two structures.

Staff attempted to notify all Property Owners within a 350 foot radius of the Properties of the Public Hearing via Standard US Mail. The Public Hearing was also published in the City's official newsletter, the Anoka County Union Herald.

The Subject Property is zoned as R-1 Residential (MUSA) and the surrounding parcels are all similarly zoned.  The Subject Property is approximately 0.34 acres in size and is surrounded by other properties of similar size.

In submitting the application for a variance, the Applicant is attempting to correct the concerns brought to the City's attention about the fence height and shed setback. The proper permits for these structures were not originally submitted and will ultimately need to be obtained (Building Permit for the fence and Zoning Permit for the shed).

The fence is eleven (11) feet high from the ground to the height of the panels and thirteen (13) feet high from the ground to the highest point on the posts. The entire structure is fourteen (14) feet wide from end post to end post. Fences taller than eight (8) feet are only possible with the granting of a variance.

The shed is located approximately four (4) feet from the side property line and is located partially in a drainage and utility easement. City code requires a setback of six (6) feet in the R-1: MUSA district, which would, in this case, eliminate the encroachment into the easement.

It is noted that a retaining wall exists on the property and was determined that it complied with city standards as no permit is required for a retaining wall of this height. However it should have required administrative approval due to the proximity to the wetlands on the 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 and not caused by the landowner?
3. If granted, would the variance alter the essential character of the locality?

The fence appears to be a reasonable use as it acts almost as an extension of the wall of the home, rather than being locating directly adjacent to the property line, and is intended to provide some privacy for when the hot tub, which is located on the deck, is being used.  While the shed itself also is a reasonable use, it does appear that it could be relocated such that it would not require a variance.  Neither of the two structures appear to alter the essential character of the locality.

Alternatives for fence structure

Option #1. Approve Resolutions #15-10-246 and #15-10-247 granting a variance to the fence height requirement. The Applicant has provided photos of evidence of construction within the property boundaries and although the proper permits were not originally submitted, the fence is of quality construction and does not pose a nuisance to the neighborhood. Staff supports this option for the fence structure.

Option #2. Approve modified versions of Resolutions #15-10-246 and #15-10-247 with a condition that the fence height be lowered to a specified height.   This would be based upon discussion among the Planning Commission.

Option #3. Do not approve Resolutions #15-10-246 and #15-10-247. Staff does not support this option for the fence as it only spans about fourteen (14) feet in width and is used to provide additional privacy when using the outdoor hot tub.  If this option were favored by the Planning Commission, the fence height would need to reduced to no more than eight (8) feet.

Alternatives for shed location

Option #1. Do not approve Resolutions #15-10-246 and #15-10-247 for shed location setback. There is adequate room to build or relocate a shed to meet proper City Code setback requirements. Staff Supports this option for the shed.

Option #2. Approve Resolutions #15-10-246 and #15-10-247 granting a variance setback location. The shed does not impede stormwater drainage and, in its present location, does not appear to pose a nuisance to neighboring properties.  However, it does appear that there may be viable options to relocate the shed such that a variance would not be necessary. If the shed location is approved, an Encroachment Agreement will need to also be processed to address the easement encroachment as well.  This option would also be based upon discussing of the Planning Commission.
 

All costs associated with this request are the Applicant's responsibility.

Due to the nature, location and materials of the fence, Staff would recommend approving the requested variance for the fence.   While the shed appears to be a quality structure and not necessarily a public nuisance, it does appear that the shed could be sited such that no variance would be necessary (this would also eliminate the need for an Encroachment Agreement as well) and thus, Staff would recommend not approving the variance for the shed location. 

Motion to adopt Resolutions #15-10-246 and #15-10-247, adopting Findings of Fact #0953, and approving a variance to exceed the fence height only on the property located at 5650 156th Lane NW.