HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes13_0723City of Falcon Heights - Planning Commission Meeting of July 23, 2013 - Page 1 of 3
City of Falcon Heights
Planning Commission Minutes
July 23, 2013
PRESENT: Commissioners Black, Brown, Fite, Gustafson, Wartick, Council Member
Harris, Staff Liaison Jones, City Attorney Tom Scott.
ABSENT: Commissioner Minns and Council Member Harris (with notice)
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chair, Commissioner Black, who noted
that a quorum was present. The minutes of the May 28 meeting of the Planning Commission
were approved as submitted.
Public Hearing on a Fence Height Variance for 1918 Autumn Street.
Zoning and Planning Director Deb Jones the staff report on the case. The applicants are
requesting a variance to extend a back yard privacy fence along their north property line into
the front yard at the 72 inch back yard height. The city code limits fences in a front yard to a
height of 36 inches from grade. The applicants want to extend their privacy fence to match
the extent of a privacy fence on the lot to the north, which ends nearly 8 feet forward of the
front of their house. The reason the neighboring property at 1906 Prior can have a 72 inch
fence adjoining the front yard of 1918 Autumn is because it lines up with the front of their
house at 1906 Prior. Due to the curve of the street, the two houses are set at an angle such
that the front wall line of 1918 Autumn meets the shared side property line more than seven
feet behind the front wall line of 1906 Prior. This configuration is rare in Falcon Heights.
Even on the few curved streets, house fronts tend to be in line. There may be one or two
other instances where the discrepancy is as much as 7 to 8 feet, but this situation very rare, if
not unique. Jones read the staff findings, in reference to Section 113-62. In summary, staff
found that the variance applied for does qualify under all provisions of Section 113-62. The
only recommendation made by staff is that any variance granted not exceed the length by
which the adjacent fence borders the yard of 1918 Autumn.
This is the first variance to come before the Planning Commission since State law and the
City ordinance changes of 2011. Jones expressed appreciation to Mr. Scott for being present
to assist the Commission with questions they might have under the new laws.
The Chair opened the public hearing. The only person to speak was the applicant, Judy
McCleery of 1918 Autumn. She showed pictures of the two fences, which are very different
in appearance and stated that she and her husband want to extend their fence no further than
the front of the next-door fence.
The only other input received from the public was a letter from Stephen and Joanne
Sunderland of 1906 Prior Avenue, the adjacent property to the north. They are opposed to the
granting of the variance. At their request, the letter is attached to these minutes.
In anticipation of general questions about variances in Falcon Heights, staff had prepared a
history of variances approved and denied since 1988 in the City. Copies were distributed. In
general there have been few variances over the last 10 years and none since 2009.
City of Falcon Heights - Planning Commission Meeting of July 23, 2013 - Page 2 of 3
There being no other persons wishing to speak, the hearing was closed.
Planning Commission Discussion and Action
Mr. Scott read the statutory definition of “practical difficulty” addressed in the third of the
staff findings, as this is the most substantial change to the law since the last variance
considered in Falcon Heights. (Staff found that practical difficulties do exist in this case.)
In order to meet the “practical difficulties” standard, the variance must meet three criteria:
The use proposed by the applicant must be a reasonable use of the property that is not
permitted by the ordinance.
The plight of the landowner must be due to circumstances unique to the property not
self-created by the landowner.
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality
Mr. Scott pointed out where the neighbor’s letter might relate to the “reasonable use” and
“uniqueness” parts of the definition.
Commissioner Gustafson asked if there were any other cases where fences on adjacent
properties are six inches apart or less. Jones said there probably dozens. More commonly,
owners of adjacent properties agree on a common fence. In response to a question from
Commissioner Fite, Jones cited two other fence height variances since 2001, both at homes
adjacent to commercial properties. There has not been another case like this during her time
with the City.
Commissioner Black asked if the fence at 1906 Prior was built according to code. Jones said
yes, as far as she knew, but it was a “grey area” with respect to the finish of the fence. A
fence is required to have the “finished” side facing outward. Although the supports are on the
owner’s side, there is no stain or finish on the “outward” facing side of the existing
neighbor’s fence. Black pointed out that staining the outside of the fence would require going
onto the neighboring property.
Commissioner Gustafson asked about the length of the extension. Jones said that a standard
module of a manufactured fence would go past the adjacent fence. Staff recommends
strongly that the height variance should not go past the end of the adjacent fence, even if it
means inconvenience and expense in customizing the pre-manufactured module. The
Planning Commission may set very specific limits on its recommendation – and usually does,
in most variance cases she has been involved with. It would not be an “anything goes”
situation, with the applicants able to extend their six foot fence all the way out to the front
property line. Commissioner Black asked for and received confirmation that the height
variance would in no way impact the right of either property owner to build a 3 foot fence in
the front yard, as allowed by ordinance.
Commissioners continued to discuss the details of the case, mostly relating to language of
both the variance ordinance and the fence ordinance. In response to a concern raised by
Commissioner Black, Jones said that the houses on the block are set back a generous distance
from the street, and extending the applicant’s fence would not make a significant impact on
City of Falcon Heights - Planning Commission Meeting of July 23, 2013 - Page 3 of 3
the visual character of the neighborhood – especially because there is a fence there already.
In response to Commissioner discussion on hour to limit the extent of the variance, Jones
reminded Commissioners that the limit does not have to be a numerical distance but can be a
reference to an existing structure, namely, the neighboring fence, and staff strongly
recommends making that the limit of any variance recommended. That is the “minimum
action required to eliminate the practical difficulties;” 8 feet would be too far.
Brown moved, Gustafson seconded, that the Commission recommend approval of the
variance in fence height limited to extent of the neighboring 72 inch fence. There is some
discrepancy in the application. The applicant confirmed that the 8 feet applied for is intended
to be an approximation, that the variance is asked to the end of the adjacent fence only. With
that limit clarified, the motion passed on a unanimous vote.
The Council will take action on this application in August.
Information and Announcements:
Thursday, July 25 is the annual Ice Cream Social, 6 to 8 p.m. in Community Park.
Jones provided an update on the Hermes site. The Metropolitan Council has approved the
text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which means the urban farm can operate on the
site. The sale on the property closed recently. The replatting approvals are still in process.
The next step would be permits.
The Council has not yet considered the chicken ordinance, due to a heavy schedule of other
agenda times, but it is on the agenda for July 24.
Commissioner Gustafson reminded everyone that the Night to Unite is coming up August 6.
Many block parties are planned around town.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. to a brief workshop
introducing the Commission to a draft ordinance which is expected come up for
consideration later this year regarding zoning rules for private generation of solar energy.
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah Jones, Staff Liaison