HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090707P & Z MinutesPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
JULY 7, 2009
7:00 PM
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair-Marlaine Szurek.
Commission Members present- Thompson, Fiorendino, Schmitt, and Szurek.
Members Absent: Peterson
Also present were Jeff Sargent (City Planner) and Shelley Hanson (Secretary).
Motion by Fiorendino, seconded bySchmitt, to appNOVe the minutes fi°om the meeting of June 2, 2009. All
ayes. MOTION PASSED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CASE NUMBER: 2009-0701
APPLICANT: Thu Le
LOCATION: 3969 Reservoir Blvd
REQUEST: Variance of 1 ft for Fence
INTRODUCTION
Sargent explained that the applicant is requesting a 1-foot height variance for a fence in the front yard per
Code Section 9.106 (E)(2)(b). The current code requires that a fence extending across or into the required
front yard shall not exceed 42 inches (3.5 feet) in height; however, fences that are less than 50% opaque
may be up to 48 inches (4 feet) in height.
The applicant has an autistic child who has been known to leave the house unannounced and wander into
the neighborhood. The applicant would like to construct a 5-foot high chain link fence to give the child an
area to play in, without the concern that he would flee the premises and enter the neighborhood alone. The
applicant's house is located only 14 feet from the rear property line, which would disable her from
constructing a fence in the rear yard and still give the child adequate space. Minnesota Social Services
suggested the 5-foot fence height as adequate to ensure that the child would not be able to climb the fence
and leave the property.
ZONING ORDINANCE
The property located at 3969 Reservoir Boulevard is zoned R-2A, One and Two Family Residential, as are
the properties in the area. The house on the property in question is located approximately 110 feet from the
front property line. The house to the south is approximately 33 feet from the front property line and the
house to the north is approximately 36 feet from the front property line. Sargent stated the purpose of the
fence ordinance restricting the height of fences in the front yard is to ensure that sight lines are not imposed
on and to promote a positive aesthetic curb appeal in residential areas.
The proposed fence will extend 72 feet from the front of the house, and will stop 3 8 feet from the front
property line. The fence will remain behind the front line of both of the neighboring houses, which would
not impede visibility and would promote a positive aesthetic appeaL
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
Page 2
July 7, 2009
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as residential. A variance to allow a fence for a residential
dwelling would be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan guiding of the area.
FINDINGS OF FACT (Variance)
Section 9.104 (G) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines five fmdings of fact that must be met in order for the
City Council to grant a variance. They are as follows:
a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or
other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the provisions of this
article would cause undue hardship.
The applicant's house is located only 1 S feet from the Nea~ prope~ty line, leaving very little space to
construct a fenced-in a~ea. The house is also set back appNOximately 75 feet fuNther back on the
property than the neighboring houses. The situation of the house on the p~ope~ty is the haNdship in
this case.
b) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land
involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning
classification.
It is extr~emely uncommon for a house's setback to have such a large discrepancy when compared to
the neighboring houses. In this case, the applicant is trying to protect an autistic child fi°om
wandering into the neighborhood.
c) The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this article and has not been created by
any person currently having a legal interest in the property.
The hardship was created by the original placement of the house on the property relative to the
placement of the other homes in the aNea. The 4 foot height requirement for fences is not adequate
to ensuNe that the child would remain in the fenced-in area.
d) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
comprehensive plan.
The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as residential. A variance to allow a fence for a
residential dwelling would be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan guiding of the
aNea.
e) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in
the vicinity.
The fence will not extend beyond the fi°ont line of the houses to the noNth or south of the subject
property. For this reason, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
Page 3
July 7, 2009
Staff recommends approval of the variance.
uestions from Members:
Szurek noted that Social Services had suggested they get a fence installed to help contain the child. She
wondered if a 5 foot high fence would be sufficient to do so. Sargent responded that it was the height
requested by the applicant.
Schmitt asked why a chain link fence was being used since it can be climbed by a small child. Sargent
stated that the applicant felt a chain link fence would have the least impact on the neighborhood.
Fiorendino clarified with Sargent that this is only a one foot variance in height since our Ordinance already
allows a 4 foot high fence. Sargent stated that is correct.
Thompson asked if the City would have any liability if the variance is granted if the boy still gets out of his
yard. Sargent stated he is not an attorney, but said the variance is for the property, not a person and the
Commission is only approving a request for something the applicant is asking for. We are not guaranteeing
the protection of the child anymore than if the request had never been made.
Public Hearin~O~ened.
Veronica Gilbert of 3971 Reservoir Blvd lives next door to this property on the north side. She questioned
where the fence would be placed. She was told it would be placed at least 36 feet back from the front
property line in order to stay in line with neighboring houses that are near that setback. She also questioned
whether a 5 foot high fence would contain the child. She was not opposed to the fence and doesn't think
that it would impact her property in a negative way. She wondered if the commission could grant a
variance that would allow a 6 foot high fence. Sargent explained that the commission can not do that
without the applicant re-applying asking for an increase in height. It is an option for them in the future, but
we have to work with what has been requested.
Public Hearing Closed.
Motion by FioNendino, seconded by Thompson, that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the 1 foot fence height vaNiance per Code Section 9.106 (E)(2)(b) of the City Code,
subject to certain conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary to protect the public inteNest
and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, including:
1. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive infoNmation submitted with the
application shall become pa~t of the peNrrcit.
2. The fence will not be placed closer than 36 feet fNOm the fi°ont property line.
3. The fence shall be a chain link fence.
All ayes. MOTION PASSED.
The following draft Resolution will go to the City Council July 13, 2009.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
Page 4
July 7, 2009
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-XX
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE
FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS
OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZOI~TING CODE
FOR THU LE
WHEREAS, a proposal (Case # 2009-0701) has been submitted by Thu Le to the City Council requesting a variance
from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site:
ADDRESS: 3969 Reservoir Blvd.
LEGAL DESCRII'TION: On file at City HaIL
THE APPLIGANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: A 1-foot height variance for the construction of a
5-foot fence per Code Section 9.106 (E)(2)(b).
WHEREAS, the Planning Coinmission has held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on July 7,
2009;
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission
regarding the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its
Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concern related to traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to
public safety, in the surrounding area;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that the City
Council accepts and adopts the following findings of the Planning Coinmission:
1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, conf'iguration, topography, or other
conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, where strict adherence to the provisions of this
Ordinance would cause undue hardship.
2. The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land involved and
are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification.
3. The difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions of this Ordinance and has not been created by any
person currently having legal interest in the property.
4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive
Plan.
5. The granting of the variance will not be materially detr'vnental to the public welfare or materially
injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity.
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached plans, inaps, and other information shall become part of this
variance and approval; and in granting this variance the city and the applicant agree that this variance shall become
null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to
petition for renewal of the permit.
CONDITIONS ATTACHED:
1. All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall
become part of the permit.
2. The fence will not be placed closer than 36 feet from the front property line.
3. The fence shall be a chain luilc fence.
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
Page 5
July 7, 2009
NEW BUSINESS
None at this time.
OTHER SUSINESS
Staff is working on updating our Ordinance regarding Smoke Shops and Tobacco Sales to bring them in
compliance with the Freedom To Breathe Act. The City Council put a moratorium in effect so staff has
time to study the issue and make recommendations necessary to keep the City current with changes that
have occurred because of laws put in place by the State Legislature.
Staff is also working on possible ordinance amendments regarding outdoor seating for restaurants.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
~
~
Shelley Hanson
Secretary