Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-10-02 minutes PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 2, 2012 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair Marlaine Szurek. Commission Members present- Fiorendino, Kinney, Peterson, Little, and Szurek Also present were Council Liaison (Gary Peterson), Jeff Sargent (City Planner), and Shelley Hanson (Secretary). Motion by Fiorendino, seconded by Little, to approve the minutes from the meeting of September 5, 2012. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: 2012-1001 APPLICANT: Jason Norden LOCATION: 3919 Reservoir Blvd NE REQUEST: Variance on Fence Height for Front Yard INTRODUCTION Sargent explained that at this time, the applicant is requesting a 30-inch height variance to install a 6-foot fence in his front yard per Code Section 9.106 (E)(2)(d). City Staff noticed that the 6- foot fence was being constructed in the front yard and informed the applicant that he would need a variance in order to retain the structure. For this reason, he is requesting the variance. ZONING ORDINANCE The property located at 3919 Reservoir Boulevard is zoned R2-A, One and Two Family Residential, as are all the properties in the immediate vicinity. The Zoning Code Section 9.106 (E)(2)(d) states that screening fences constructed in the front yard may not exceed 42 inches in height. The applicant has constructed a six-foot fence (72 inches) in the front yard, requiring a 30-inch height variance. The house at 3919 Reservoir Boulevard sits within 5 feet of the rear property line, leaving no rear yard on the property. The reason why the applicant constructed the fence was to promote more privacy on his property than he currently has. The 6-foot fence extends along the southern property line from the front of his house and stops when it lines up with the rear of the neighboring house. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area as Residential. The use of fences in residential areas is allowed, and for this reason, the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning & Zoning Minutes Page 2 October 2, 2012 FINDINGS OF FACT (Variance) Section 9.104 (G) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines five findings 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 practical difficulties in conforming to the zoning ordinance. The applicant, however, is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. The applicant’s house was constructed within 5 feet of the rear property line, leaving the property with no rear yard. Being that the applicant would like to create some privacy on his property, he has constructed a 6-foot fence in an area that would be his rear yard if his house was set back the same distance as the neighboring properties. Because the 6- foot fence does not extend into the front yard of the neighboring properties, the applicant is using his property in a reasonable manner. Planning & Zoning Minutes Page 3 October 2, 2012 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. The conditions upon which the variance is based on the fact that the house is placed within 5 feet of the rear property line, leaving the property with no rear yard. This is a unique circumstance, as principle structures are required to be placed no closer than 20% of the lot depth in the R2-A, One and Two Family Residential District. c)The practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property. The applicant bought the house in its current condition. The practical difficulties in this case are caused by the provisions of the Zoning Code not allowing fences in excess of 42 inches in the front yard. 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. The use of fences in residential areas is allowed, and for this reason, the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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 placement of the 6-foot portion of the fence is consistent with the placement of 6-foot fences in relation to the neighboring properties. At no point does the 6-foot portion of the fence extend in front of either of the neighboring properties. For this reason, the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. Sargent reviewed pictures of the site and fence with the members. He noted that if this fence had been installed by his neighbor along the property line, a variance would not be necessary due to the location of the neighbor’s house. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the 30-inch height variance for a fence located in the front yard because of the practical difficulties that are imposed on the property due to the placement of the house on the lot. Planning & Zoning Minutes Page 4 October 2, 2012 Questions from Members: Fiorendino asked if this variance is granted, could the owner construct a six foot fence anywhere else on the property or extend it further into the front yard. Sargent told members that the variance is based on the information submitted. Any other additions or changes to the fencing would require another variance. Kinney looked at the site and noticed it was the only fence in the nearby properties. She didn’t think it was obtrusive to neighbors. Her only other concern was the same one Fiorendino had about whether this variance would allow any extension to the 6 foot high fence. Sargent told her that he was comfortable with the language approving this variance and that it would limit a 6 foot high fence to what is currently there and being approved in this request. Sargent again stated that the property owner was free to enclose his yard with a 42 inch high fence if he chooses, but any additional fencing with a 6 foot height would need an additional variance. Szurek didn’t see a problem with the fence and thought it looked nice. She asked Mr. Norden if he had received any comments from his neighbors. He said his neighbor did comment negatively on the construction of the fence. He explained he bought the house a year ago and is trying to make improvements that benefit his property as well as the area. Mr. Norden went on to say he hopes to extend his driveway closer to the house to provide better accessibility for his handicap son, and that the fence will help to provide more privacy for them regarding this situation. Sargent said he had received a call from someone in the neighborhood who stated she didn’t think fences were allowed on properties along Reservoir Blvd. He explained that is not true, and properties along Reservoir Blvd. are subject to the same fence ordinance requirements as any other property in the City. He reminded members that if this fence had been constructed by the neighbor, a variance would not be required as a 6 foot high fence could be constructed from the front corner of the house back, and that Mr. Norden placed his fence only up to the back side of the neighboring property. Public Hearing Opened. No one was present to speak on this matter. Public Hearing Closed. Planning & Zoning Minutes Page 5 October 2, 2012 Motion by Peterson, seconded by Kinney, that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the 30-inch height variance to install a 6-foot fence in his front yard per Code Section 9.106 (E) (2) (d), subject to certain conditions of approval that have been found to be necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, including: 1.All application materials, maps, drawings, and descriptive information submitted with the application shall become part of the permit. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. The following Resolution will be considered by the City Council th at the October 8 meeting. RESOLUTION NO. 2012-XXX RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ZONING CODE FOR JASON NORDEN WHEREAS , a proposal (Case # 2012-1001) has been submitted by Jason Norden to the City Council requesting a variance from the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code at the following site: ADDRESS: 3919 Reservoir Boulevard NE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall. THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING RELIEF: a 30-inch height variance to install a 6-foot fence in his front yard per Code Section 9.106 (E)(2)(d). WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on October 2, 2012; 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 Commission: 1. 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 practical difficulties in conforming to the zoning ordinance. The applicant, however, is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. Planning & Zoning Minutes Page 6 October 2, 2012 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 practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been created by any person currently having a 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 detrimental 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, maps, 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. th Passed this 8 day of October, 2012 OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 7:18 pm. Respectfully submitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary