CR 06-134 Conditional Use Permit - Fence
C\TY OF
m
HOPKINS
November 29, 2006
Council Report 06-134
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - FENCE
ProDosed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to 'adopt Resolution 06-79. denying a
conditional use permit for a special purpose fence at 220 Interlachen Road.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting Mr. Skiermont moved and Ms. Flynn seconded a motion
to adopt Resolution RZ06-28, recommending denial of a conditional use permit for a special
purpose fence at 220 Interlachen Road. The motion was approved unanimously.
Overview.
The applicants, Trygve and Dee Pederson, the owners of 220 Interlachen Road are wanting to
construct a solid six foot fence along the back and south side of their home. F OUf- foot fences
are allowed between homes and six-foot fences in the back yard. All fences are required to
be 25 percent open. A fence that differs in construction from what is allowed is permitted
with a conditional use permit.
Primarv Issues to Consider.
. What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated
the subject site?
. What does the ordinance state regarding a special purpose fence?
. What are the reasons for the fence?
. What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
SUDDortin!!: Documents.
. Analysis of Issues
. Fence Plans
. Resolution 06-79
O1\Oma ~ CMJ\~
Nancy1S. Anderson, AICP
Planner
Financial Impact: $_ N/ A_Budgeted:
Related I?ocuments (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
Y/N
Source:
CR06-134
Page 2
Primarv Issues to Consider.
What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan
designated the subject site?
The subject property is zoned R-1-C, Single Family Medium Density. The Comprehensive
Plan has designated the site as low density residential.
What does the ordinance state regarding a special purpose fence?
Special purpose fences. Fences for special purposes and fences differing in construction,
height or length may be permitted in any district in the City by the issuance of a conditional
use permit and by the Council upon proof and reasons submitted by the applicant and upon
the signing by said bodies that such special purpose is necessary to protect, buffer or improve
the premises for which such fence is intended. The special fence permit, if issued, may
stipulate and provide for the height, location, construction and type of special fence thereby
permitted.
What are the reasons for the fence?
The purposes for the proposed fence are no different than the purposes for other fences
within the City. The ordinance requires that there is a special purpose. The applicants are
replacing their fence, which is in disrepair. The applicants' reason is to cover or hide an
existing white fence, shown in the attached material, and for a noise barrier from pool
equipment. A legal fence 25 percent open can be constructed with a solid base and lattice on
the top to block the noise and hide the existing fence.
What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed fence. The applicants, Dee and Trygve Pederson,
appeared before the Commission. Mrs. Pederson stated that they wanted a solid fence for a
noise barrier from the swimming pool, to cover the white fence, and to block the neighbor's
garbage can. Mark Van Ert of221 Oakwood appeared before the Commission. Mr. Van Ert
owns the property to the rear of 220 Interlachen, which includes the swimming pool. Mr.
Van Ert spoke against the solid fence. Mr. Van Ert was concerned with the precedent it
would set in the neighborhood. Roger Nolby of 210 Interlachen appeared before the
Commission. Mr. Nolby spoke in favor of the fence.
Alternatives.
1. Approve the special purpose fence. By approving the conditional use permit for a special
purpose fence, the applicant will be able to construct the fence as proposed. If the City
Council considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this
CR06-134
Page 3
alternative.
2. Deny the special purpose fence the fence. By denying the conditional use permit for a
special purpose fence, the applicant will not be able to construction the fence as
proposed.
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is
needed, the item should be continued.
---------------
~ 0-- <l
):-0- \- e:.. (\ 0--<:/ keJ'
- -~ -
\
\
\
---- ~ - _.-
~~~----- .
~
" ,,\
\
I
~ \
,~\ \
-, '
\\
\ \
\ \
\ \
~ \
@\\
( \
'\ i
\ ~-- - ------ -'
~~
\1'" ., "":'" ~--'"
f \' ,,~<'-- CD f \ J<v-{' e..- ~
-
0-. \. \
I .
(p Y---;~~
~C-v
--
,.. --
-
--------
-------~---
\ ~ "" 1.,," .( >
rI\~\~ ~~~o
~'
\---~
L(}..;(\
'0 (A. ax t.-
ot )
A O( ~
O ~\~ \.- lJo,c.; ....i".
[L-C . (.,0 \. ,"y\,.)
\.3.(;- >( ~1.' '1 ,~'.J'- vi'
~'
SD \~ 0--
-
.
Y (\ veL
.
fL . \/
u c\.. c ~~,
.
.
.
.
'/ u\ vc-L
c.LL
-t=- c ," c e~
S'
hboy-.s
/
GJ'
s
11'"\ -c
y
(g)
[) \.,\,
OLAV S \ elL.- 'j 0, veL
(])
.
't
.
. ~_C:: J
."~,, .:, J ~ 1 \\.s
l 4(, > '".v,'" . ~" >
. ,'/ ' .' <. '" .....;.., '"~' ~ ..
. ... ..........- .r." ....
. -
. Jo
""'-
........
_1.
.
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 06-79
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING
DENIAL OF A SPECIAL PURPOSE FENCE AT 220 INTERLACHEN ROAD
WHEREAS, an application for Conditional Use Permit CUP06-5 has been made by Trygve and
Dee Pederson;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a conditional use permit was made by Trygve and Dee
Pederson;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed and
published notice, held a public hearing on the application and reviewed such
application on November 28,2006: all persons present were given an opportunity
to be heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and
4. A legal description of the subject property is as follows:
Lots 26 and 27, Block 13, FA Savages Interlachen Park
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Conditional Use Permit
CUP06-5 is hereby recommended for denial based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the proposed fence does not have a special purpose.
Adopted this 5th day of December 2006.
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk