Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20100201 - VIII-B-1 Memo To: Mayor Hicks and City Council Members From: Justin Fortney, Associate Planner Date: February 1, 2010 SubjectResolution : – Tabled from 1-19-2010 - Variance #2010-2- Variance to the height of a fence at 2025 Forest Street (Richard Bond) REQUEST Richard Bond is proposing to build a 10-foot tall fence along a portion of his rear lot line and requests the following actions to allow it: 1. Variance from City Code Chapter 155. 05(F)(4), Fences walls and hedges, The maximum allowable height of a residential fence is 6-feet. The applicant is applying for a 4-foot height variance to build the proposed 10-foot fence. RECOMMENDATION – Planning Commission At the January 11, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the variance. Two residents spoke in opposition to the 10-foot fence request, they did not object to an 8.5-foot fence. The Commission based their decision on the lack of hardship because the applicant could block the view and noise of traffic in other ways. Commissioners determined there were alternatives to the variance that could accomplish the same goal (i.e. berming with a 6-foot fence or large natural plantings). Please see the attached minutes for further information. RECOMMENDATION – Staff Staff recommends approval of a 2.5’ variance (for an 8.5’ fence). Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, including: 1) The lot backs directly up to a busy county road (County Road 46) 2) The roadbed of County Road 46 is approximately 2.5 feet above the elevation of the rear property line. Notification of Adjoining Property Owners Notification was sent to adjoining property owners. Two neighbors spoke in opposition of the full 10’ fence that was presented at the Planning Commission meeting. Daniel Lindner (2021 Forest St) and Bruce Larson (2017 Forest St) ATTACHMENTS ? Resolution ? Location Map ? Aerial Photograph ? Photographs ? Planning Commission meeting minutes relating to this application (1/11/10/) ? City Council meeting minutes relating to this application (1/19/10/) BACKGROUND INFORMATION Comprehensive Plan Classification, zoning, and land use The use conforms to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The subject and adjacent properties are designated U-I – Urban Residential. The subject and adjacent properties are zoned R-2 – Medium Density Residential. Single- family homes are a permitted use in the R-2 District. History The home was constructed in 1958. The applicant states that since he purchased the property, County Road 47 has become very busy and noisy. He would like to build a 10- foot tall cedar fence to reduce the noise and sight of passing vehicles and he believes that a 6-foot tall fence as allowed would not be tall enough. The roadbed of 47 is higher than the applicant’s property, particularly in the rear where he plans on locating his fence. Review Criteria The following criteria have been used as findings of fact in granting variances to zoning provisions: A. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. B. The literal interpretation of the City Code would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of Chapter 10. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. D. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by Chapter 10 to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. No non-conforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. HASTINGS CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO._________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST OF RICHARD BOND TO HASTINGS CITY CODE CHAPTER 155.05(F)(4) TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE EXCEEDING SIX FEET IN HEIGHT AT 2025 FOREST STREET LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 70, WESTWOOD ADDITION, SECTION 2 Council member _______________________ introduced the following Resolution and ___________________ moved its adoption: WHEREAS , Richard Bond, owner of 2025 Forest Street, has petitioned for a four foot variance to the six foot height limit of the Chapter 155.05(F)(4) of the Hastings City Code to construct a ten foot high fence. The property is legally described as LOT 70, WESTWOOD ADDITION, SECTION 2 WHEREAS , on January 11, 2010, the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission of the City of Hastings, as required by state law, city charter and city ordinance; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the request to the City Council subject to the findings of fact contained herein; and WHEREAS The City Council has reviewed the request and concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS AS FOLLOWS: That the City Council hereby denies the variance request as presented based on the following: 1)Literal interpretation of the City Code would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. The applicant is able to construct a six-foot tall fence on the property and is able to minimize noise and visual impacts of County Road 46 through berming and\or landscaping. Council member __________________ moved a second to this resolution and upon being put to a vote adopted by _____ present. Ayes: ____ Nays: _____ Absent: ______ ATTEST: _______________________________ Paul J. Hicks Mayor _______________________________ Melanie Mesko Lee City Clerk I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above is a true and correct copy of resolution presented to and st adopted by the City of Hastings, County of Dakota, Minnesota, on the 1 of February 2010, as disclosed by the records of the City of Hastings on file and of record in the office. Melanie Mesko Lee City Clerk (SEAL) This instrument drafted by: City of Hastings 101 4th St. East Hastings, MN 55033 (JJF) tall 10’ Approximate representation of fence Hastings Planning Commission Minutes (Bond portion) January 11, 2010 Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. Bond, Richard 1. –Variance #2010-02 – Fence Height – 2025 Forest Street. Associate Planner Fortney provided the staff report. The home was constructed in 1958. The applicant states that since he purchased the property in 1970, County Road 47 has become very busy and noisy. He would like to build a 10-foot tall cedar fence to reduce the noise and the sight of passing vehicles and he believes that a 6-foot tall fence as allowed would not be tall enough. The roadbed of 47 is higher than the applicant’s property, particularly in the rear where he plans on locating his fence. Staff recommends approval of a 2.5-foot variance based on the following findings of fact and hardships. First, the lot is peculiar in that it backs directly up to a busy county road with a raised roadbed. Second, the applicant could incur a hardship if not granted a 2.5-foot variance to make up for the roadbed being 2.5 feet higher than the property. Daniel Lindner, neighbor (2021 Forest St) Said that a 10-foot tall fence would be too tall and would block his view. He added that the traffic and the noise is not too obtrusive. Lindner said a fence 8.5 feet tall would be fine with him. He presented the commission with pictures of how his view would be adversely affected. Bruce Larsen, neighbor (2017 Forest St) said that a 10-foot tall fence is way too obtrusive, but an 8.5-foot tall fence would be fine. Richard Bond, applicant said he has lived in the home since 1970 and at that time Highway 47 was a low volume road that had maybe 1,000 cars per day. He said the county told him 47 would be a road that would connect Hastings with Northfield, but since then it has connected too many other places and now carries 9,100 vehicles per day. He said the proposed fence would be 10-feet high and 40 feet long. He added that it would not be straight across but rather arced in the same shape as his bushes. He stated that an 8.5-foot fence would not be sufficient because he could still see the tops of the cars going by. He added that the fence is premade in 6, 8, or 10-foot tall section and cutting a 10- foot tall section down to 8.5 feet would create a lot of waste. Chair McInnis said he wasn’t convinced that even a 10-foot tall fence would solve all of his issues. He suggested that planting of tall trees like Blue Spruce would do more to solve the issues. He added that his home backs-up to County Road 42 and trees help greatly to block sound and the sight of passing vehicles. Bond said he thinks a 10-foot tall fence would meet the same criterion that an 8.5-foot tall fence would. Bond stated that he had trees in the past, but they where not the type to block traffic or noise. Commissioner Vaughan asked if the applicant could build a 4-foot tall berm and place a 6-foot fence on top of it to accomplish what the variance is intended to do. Hinzman said he could, but the slope of the berm may dictate how close it could be to the rear of the property. Bond asked if he was granted a variance for 8.5 feet and he later re-measured the distance between the street and property to find that there is a difference of 3-feet, then could he build a 9-foot fence. Fortney responded no because the Council will be granting a specific amount of variance from the ordinance requirement and it is not subject to variables. McInnis asked if the applicant would build the fence if it were limited to 8.5 feet tall. Bond said no because it wouldn’t work. Motion by Commissioner Stevens to recommend approval a variance up to 8 feet higher than the road, Seconded by Commissioner Zeyen. McInnis said that would allow a fence that is 11 feet tall and he would not support that. Fortney said that the findings staff had included in the staff report only suggested that a variance of 2.5 feet could be justified. Zeyen stated that he withdraws his motion. No other seconds were made so the motion failed. Vaughan said the allowable 6-foot high fence requirement was well thought out and the applicant has various other options besides a variance. Motion by Commissioner Vaughan to recommend denial of the variance based on the following findings, Seconded by Commissioner Bullington. Findings: The applicant lacks a hardship because screening of County Road 47 could be accomplished by other means including berming with a 6-foot fence and large plantings. Upon vote taken, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried. Hastings, Minnesota City Council minutes (Bond portion- unofficial) January 19. 2010 Resolution—Deny Variance #2010-02: Fence Height at 2025 Forest Street (Richard Bond) Planning Director Hinzman stated that the request is for a ten foot fence, which would require a four foot variance from the City’s six-foot fence limit. The Planning Commission has recommended denial of the variance. Staff recommends a 2.5 foot variance to install an 8.5 foot fence, acknowledging the approximate 2.5 foot depression in the back yard. The Council discussed options for alternative screening, including trees. Moved by Councilmember Alongi, seconded by Councilmember Schultz to approve a 2.5 foot variance to build an 8.5 foot fence. 5 Ayes; Nays, one. Councilmember Balsanek voting against. Motion fails, as variances need six votes for approval. Moved by Councilmember Balsanek to deny the request. Motion failed for lack of a second. Moved by Councilmember Alongi, seconded by Councilmember Slavik to table the item to the February 1, 2010 meeting. 6 Ayes; Nays, none.