The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutX-C-01 Variance - Fence Height - Michael Fuchs (2570 Cannon St)City Council Memorandum To:Mayor Fasbender and City Council From:Justin Fortney, City Planner Date:June 16, 2025 Item:Variance #2025-18 –Fence Height –2570 Cannon St -Michael Fuchs Council Action Requested: 1.Review and direct staff to draft a resolution consistent with the findings and action of the Council. The Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals was established with the City Council acting not in their typical legislative capacity but in a quasi-judicial capacity to fill this role.Requests for variances and appeals are considered based on existing laws,evidence, testimony, and determining findings of fact.Approval of a variance requires the support of at least six of seven members. Background Information: The applicants built a fence along their back property line in 1998 that varied from a little over six feet to just under 8 eight feet tall. The maximum allowed fence height since that time has continued to be six feet in residential areas. The applicant’s desire for a taller fence is because of a two foot high retaining wall behind their property. They believe this reduces the effective height of a six foot tall fence. Citizens regularly want taller fencing due to one aspect or another of an adjacent property but comply with the requirements. To grant a variance, the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals must make a series of findings of fact to support the variance. The two most debatable findings in this case are: The variance is based on circumstances not also applicable to other properties and the applicant will encounter practical difficulties rather than an inconvenience without a variance. Please see the attached June 9, 2025 Planning Commission staff report for full details and analysis. Financial Impact: N\A Advisory Commission Discussion: The Planning Commission voted 3-1 (Swedin Nay) to recommend approval of the variance at the June 9, 2025 meeting. Their findings were based on the difference of grade between properties, staff approved a permit for a pool and fence in 1998, and the fence proposed for replacement has been there since 1998. Commissioner Swedin voted in opposition. Swedin stated that a variance should not granted just because it was already installed out of compliance or because the adjacent 堭䌭〱 retaining walls make the fence less safe, when the effective height still meets the city safety standards of four feet tall around a pool. Michael and Barbara Fuchs,applicants, said they want a fence up to eight feet tall so it will effectively block someone for six feet standing on the retaining wall behind their fence. Michael Fuchs said in 1998 he did not include the proposed height of the fence on the application, but he had previously told someone at the city that was his intention. John Rutledge, 1301 Eagle Bluff Dr.commented that justification for a variance should be related to the grade difference rather than because it is already there not meeting city code. He added there are so many things in Hastings that don’t meet code and really shouldn’t be there, which creates challenges. Council Committee Discussion: N\A Attachments: •Planning Commission Staff Report –June 9, 2025 堭䌭〱 To: Planning Commissioners From:Justin Fortney, City Planner Date:June 9, 2025 Item:Variance #2025-18 –Fence Height –2570 Cannon St -Michael Fuchs Planning Commission Action Requested Review and make recommendation to the City Council on the following action requested by Michael Fuchs on property located at 2570 Cannon St: 1)Grant a two foot variance for a privacy fence in a rear yard. Hastings City Code Chapter 155.05.F.4. -Fences and walls or hedges,limits fencing behind the front of the house to six feet tall. Background Information The existing wood privacy fence was constricted in 1998. It is six feet tall except in the rear, it starts at the south corner at six feet tall for aways then slowly gets taller until it is nearly eight feet tall at the north corner. In 1998 the applicant said he recalls discussing the need for a variance with city staff, but the permit was approved without a variance and constructed. Staff located the original building permit for a pool and fence in 1998 (attached). The permit application with site plan did not state the proposed fence height. The applicant noted on the site plan that an existing retaining wall results in a two foot grade indifference. The Planning Department stamped their approval. There are retaining walls behind the fence.The fence increases in height from just over six feet at the south to just under eight feet at the north corner. The applicant also has a retaining wall along part of his back property line. Where that retaining wall stops, the height of the fence quickly reaches near eight feet tall. Update Building Safety Department The Building Official recently commented that privacy fences exceeding seven feet tall require a building permit, plan review, and must either be designed and stamp by a licensed engineer or a design must be accompanied by product rating specifications for region wind load requirements from the manufacture. Zoning The property is zoned R-2 Single Family medium-density Residence along with the surrounding homes. Fences are allowed up to six feet tall behind the front of the house. Planning Commission Memorandum X-C-01 ^ince 1857 MINNESOTA Public Notification Notification of the meeting was sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the proposed property. Staff has not received any questions or comments as of this writing. Variance Definition Variances are a permitted departure from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a particular piece of property. To issue a variance, determination of findings of fact and conclusions supporting the variance must be determined. Variance Review City Code Chapter 30.02(F) establishes the requirements for granting variances. The City Council acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals with recommendation from the Planning Commission considers land use variances including to Chapter 155 Zoning Code that are not contrary to the public interest where owing to special conditions, and where a literal enforcement of the provision of the City Code would result in practical difficulties. Variances may be granted providing the following has been satisfied (staff review appears in bold italics): (1)Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographic conditions of the land involved, a practical difficulty to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out; The properties abutting the rear of the subject property are approximately up to two feet higher. This would not affect the applicant’s ability to install a six-foot-tall fence up to the property line, like other properties in the district. Most yards screened by a six-foot-tall privacy fence can be viewed by many locations outside the property. In this situation, this occurs right at the fence. This may be more of an inconvenience. It is very common for a neighbor’s property to have elevations in some places that are more than two feet higher in elevation than their neighbors fence location. (2) The conditions upon which the petition for a variance is based are unique to the tract of land for which the variance is sought and one not applicable, generally, to other property with the same zoning classification; The conditions are slightly unique to the land. Lots are usually a similar elevation near the rear property lines, but this does occur in some locations.Property owners in those situations have constructed fences at the six feet allowed. (3) The purpose of the variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land; It does not appear there is any financial incentive for the variance. (4)The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the vicinity in which the tract of land is located; Granting of the variance is not likely to be detrimental or injurious to others. X-C-01 (5)The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to property, or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the vicinity; (Prior Code, §11.08) There would be no appreciable negative impairments. (6)The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of ordinance; This depends if the purpose and intent of the ordinance is to allow fencing that is up to six feet tall or just that it looks like it is six feet tall. (7) The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan; The property is guided for residential development. The continued use of residential is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (8) The proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner; The use of the property is not affected by rear fencing heigh. (9) There are practical difficulties in complying with the official control.“Practical difficulties”, as used in connection with the granting of the variance means that: (a)The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; Rear fence height does not affect the reasonable use of the property. (b)The practical difficulty is caused by the provisions of this chapter and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land; Staff does not believe the applicant created the elevation difference.Staff also does not believe there is a practical difficulty complying with the provisions of the chapter limiting fence height to six feet. 1)A practical difficulty is not present if the proposal could be reasonably accomplished under the current Ordinance requirements,The proposal to replace the fence can be reasonably accomplished with the allowable fence height. a.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.The essential character of the locality will not be affected. b.Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.Not stated by applicant. c.Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION Denial of the Variance is recommended subject to the above findings of fact in the Variance Review. Granting a variance without the identification of a practical difficulty could confer similar rights on other properties and creates difficulty in administering zoning regulations uniformly.There have been other property owners that wanted taller fences because their property was lower than adjoining ones, but they met the code requirements. X-C-01 ATTACHMENTS •Location Map •Pictures •1998Building Permit Application •Land Use Application AERIALMAP X-C-01 Left side of house X-C-01 .-;.... X-C-01 Cityof Hastings Building Department 101 East 4th Street City of Hastings Permit Application The applicant herebyagrees to do all work in accordance with theOrdinances of the City of Hastings and the State Building Code.Inrequestforabuildingpermitj^oursignature constitutes permission fora representative of theCityofHastings to enter request. Date. (mated Value of Work (Labor &Materials):S 0 C C connectionwith uponyourprope Project Address ^7^ST Hastings MN 55033 Office (612)437-4127 -Facsimile Machine (612)437-7082ILegalJescription/Geographic Codc/Parcel Number of ph for purposes 17TOwner 1 |1 .: kNameMi^-Bar Fuc-Ls Address ‘2^'10 S- City StateMH Zip Telephone H:(1,^7 J 7 3 7 Fax #: MGeneral [Contractor License#: Name Foo 5-Henry tity StateMM Zip 55117 Telephone#:—Fax#:-31/^ Plumbing Contractor License#: Name Address City State Zip Telephone #:Fax#: Contractor License #• Name Address City State Zip Telephone #:Fax #: X-C-01 X-C-01 City of Hastings Community Development Department Land Use Application Address or PID of Property:257 °Q Applicant Name:im IW Put for sale or rental units? Check Applicable Line(s)Please Note:All Fees and Escrows are due at time of application. Rezone $500 Minor Subdivision $500 Final Plat $600 Special Use Permit $500 *Variance $300 Comp Plan Amend.$500 Vacation $500 Lot Split/Lot Line Adj.$75 House Move $500 Annexation $500 +8 5,000 escrow Prelim Plat $500 +85,000 escrow EAW $500 +$5,000 escrow Site Plan $500 +8 5,000 escrow Interim Use Permit $500 Total Amount Due:$Make checks payable to City of Hastings. Most credit cards accepted,excluding escrow payments. Applicant Name and Title -Please Print Owner Name -Please Print OFFICIAL USE ONLY File #'D'O 2 ~ip Fee Paid:Foc Rec'd By: Receipt #V 7 !S ? Date Rec d:1 1 App.Complete /