The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20100315 - VIII-B-1Memo To: Mayor Hicks, and City Council From: John Hinzman, Community Development Director Date: March 15, 2010 Subject: Resolution -Variance #2010-13: Grant 2.5 Foot Fence Height Variance - Richard Bond (2025 Forest Street) REQUEST The City Council is asked to grant a 2.5 foot variance from Hastings City Code Chapter 155.05(F)(4) to allow construction of a 8.5 foot high fence at 2025 Forest Street as requested by Richard Bond. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted 5-1 (Vaughn voting no) to grant the variance at the March 8, 2010 meeting. The recommendation was based on the current elevation of the land as it now exists. The Commission also recommended that the total height of the proposed fence not exceed the height of the adjacent white fence located between 2025 and 2021 Forest Street. No one from the public spoke for or against the item during the meeting. Resolution will be presented at the meeting. ATTACHMENTS • Resolution - To be presented at the meeting • Planning Commission Minutes -March 8, 2010 • Location Map • Aerial Photograph • Photographs BACKGROUND INFORMATION The applicant had previously applied fora 4-foot variance to construct a 10 foot fence, which was denied by the Planning Commission and the City Council for lack of a hardship to support a variance that large. Notification The original 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). Notification has been sent again regarding the 2.5-foot variance with no comments being received as of yet. 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 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. RECOMMENDED ACTION Approval of a 2.5-foot variance is recommended based on the following findings of fact and hardships: 1) The lot is peculiar in that it backs up to a busy collector road with a raised roadbed. 2) 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. With the following condition The 2.5-foot variance only applies section of fence at the rear of the property. Planning Commission Minutes -March 8, 2010 Bond, Richard -Variance #2010-13 -Fence Height - 2025 Forest Street. Fortney presented the staff report. No citizens spoke to the issue. Conunissioner Bulliiigton asked what other types offences are i11 the area of the subject property. Commissioner Slaten listed the types that he saw in the area. He summarized by saying there was no consistency in rear yard fences along Highway 47. Slaten said staff and the Comnussion should discuss modifying the ordinance to allow taller, but more consistent fencing along 47 from spring to the municipal garage. Bullington agreed with Slaten and added that addii7g greenery to the area would also be beneficial. Peine said if there were a grant to plant a large number of trees along the corridor it would be even more attractive. Bullington said if the applicant could build the 8.5-foot fence on top of a future berm he would be in favor of denial. Fortney stated the Commission could include a condition that the fence be placed only at the current elevation. Peine said he would be in favor of that and in its currently proposed location. Vaughan said he believes the 6-foot fence requirement should not be set aside and believes it would be adequate in this situation by including large vegetation. Motion by Commssioner Slaten to approve the proposed variance based on staffs findings of fact with the following conditions. Seconded by Commissioner Peine Upon vote taken, Ayes 5, Nays 1 (Vaughan). Motion carried The 2.5-foot variance only applies to the proposed fence along the back of the property in the location specified in the staff report and if the fence is placed at the current ground elevation. Staten accepted the following friendly amendment from Zeyen: The proposed fence may only be 2.5-feet taller than the existing white vinyl fence to the east. Site Location Map ~~ ~r~-~ Site Location W ~ '~- ~'` 5 ~ ~~~ ~~ II ~ v~ L Site Location_ . b:.p _. ~~ ~ - n .iJ.~ ',,.~ ~~: r+ , k~~'.':' ~~ ~ht +„ r,~ ,.e.. f ~~' a4n iii '~`.• ~. ~~: a .:.. ~i~ ~ ~'_~'~! 9y ~ i ~ ~ '.,gip ""~ ,. ~' a .'' .~ `_ . ~~-~. ~ Y,•, ~' y ~.~ r , ~M., J ~~ ~~ r +~< ~`' ~. ~.ir ., '`~ ;~. ,_ ~„' s HASTINGS CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO._________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS APPROVING 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 two and one half (2.5) foot variance to the six foot height limit of the Chapter 155.05(F)(4) of the Hastings City Code to construct an eight and one half (8.5) foot high fence. The property is legally described as LOT 70, WESTWOOD ADDITION, SECTION 2 WHEREAS , on March 8, 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 5-1 to recommend approval 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 approves the variance request as presented based on the following: 1) The lot is peculiar in that it backs up to a busy collector road with a raised roadbed. 2) The applicant may not be able to put the property to a reasonable use if not granted a 2.5- foot variance to make up for the roadbed being 2.5 feet higher than the property. 3) The raised roadbed condition was not created by the landowner. 4) The 2.5 foot variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because the property elevation is 2.5 feet lower than the raised roadbed and the upper elevation of fences in the locality, if the variance is granted, will remain at similar elevations. 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 th adopted by the City of Hastings, County of Dakota, Minnesota, on the 15 of March 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)