Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes07_0828City of Falcon Heights Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2007 PRESENT: Commissioners Long, Lukermann, Mercer-Taylor, Rodich, Noble, Salzberg, Watkins and Councilmember Kuettel. Also present was City Administrator Miller, City Attorney Soren Mattick and Staff Liaison Jones. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rodich at 7:02 p.m. The minutes of the June 26, 2007, meeting were approved. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance for front fence setback at 1423 California. Prior to the opening of the hearing, staff liaison Jones presented the staff report. The applicant, Sandra Roth of 1423 California Street, had taken out a permit to build various fences on the property, including a decorative fence in the front yard. The applicant had also had a survey done on the property and property lines marked with stakes. In the process of acquiring the permit, the applicant had asked for and received comprehensive information on the fence ordinance, including a copy of the ordinance and verbal instruction by staff at the front counter (two witnesses were present). While under construction the front fence was found to be in violation of the code and terms of the permit in being placed too close to the front property line. A one-foot setback from the right of way/front property line is required. Instead the applicant had in error instructed the contractor to build a foot away from the sidewalk, which placed the entire front line of the fence inside the setback zone. The front property line was clearly marked at the time. Rather than move the fence back during construction as advised by staff, the applicant proceeded to complete the project and apply for a variance after the fact. Although staff findings of fact did not find any detriment to the community caused by the fence, the findings also indicated no uniqueness to this property, which is typical of hundreds of residential properties in the neighborhood, and no hardship to the owner in complying with the letter of the code. Uniqueness and hardship being the nucleus of grounds for a variance, staff did not recommend approval. Staff had received five written comments from nearby property owners prior to the hearing, four of which did not favor the variance. The Chair opened the hearing and offered to allow the applicant to speak first, but she declined and asked to speak last. Lynanne Warren, 1426 California, expressed her dissatisfaction with variances previously granted in the neighborhood and other cases where projects were done illegally before variances were applied for. She is not in favor of allowing this kind of precedent to be set and feels that this kind of activity has had a detrimental effect on neighborhood appearance and character. She also said sidewalk snow removal could be a problem with the fence in question. Risé Davis, 1407 California, asked why there is a one foot setback for property lines adjacent to the right of way. She also asked how the front lot line is determined and stated that she, too, would assume it is adjacent to the sidewalk. The city attorney responded that there could have been many reasons why this provision was originally added to the code. Allowance for snow removal might be one, but it is unknown at this date why the required setback was originally placed in the code. The provision has been part of the code for many years. It is something the City could reconsider but it is on the books at this time. Haudy Kazemi, 1879 Tatum, said he was also curious about the ordinance and thought perhaps it should be reconsidered. He felt the nature of the fence should be taken into consideration. Jo Behm, 1417 California, said she would like to see the right-of-way fence setback left in the code. She is concerned that granting a variance after the fact sets a bad precedent and said she saw no hardship in the case. Ron Shaw, 1447 California, asked how far the fence would have to be moved. The answer from staff was approximately 4 inches at one end and 8 at the other. Lynanne Warren repeated her concerns about a perceived deterioration of neighborhood quality. The applicant, Sandra Roth, 1423 California, spoke at considerable length. She addressed other fences in the city, also walls and hedges, and took her neighbors to task, individually and as a group, for their opposition to improvements and changes she is making on her property and the other property she owns at 1410 Larpenteur. She insisted that she had not been informed of the requirements of the code and that staff had not told her she needed to stop building the fence. She said the fence only needed to be moved 2 to 4 inches and that she wasn’t going to get rid of it, which is what she said the neighbors want. Jo Behm came to the podium again to answer certain statements made by the applicant. Then, as no one else came forward to speak, the Commissioner Rodich declared the hearing closed. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Commission discussion was opened. Commissioner Noble began by questioning the value of the existing ordinance. Commissioner Watkins also questioned the purpose of enforcing such a small margin. Mr. Salzberg said the amount of the error/violation does not matter. He also suggested reasons other than snow removal why the requirement might be in the code. For instance, it might be to allow access and foot traffic around extensive excavation in the boulevard and sidewalk area. Mr. Rodich expressed reservations about approving a variance sought as “forgiveness” rather than “permission.” Several commissioners agreed with the essential findings: no uniqueness to the property and no hardship in requiring the letter of the code to be met. Ms. Jones agreed that she did not use the words “cease” or “stop” on her visit to the fence in progress, but she stated that she clearly told the applicant and contractor that the fence was illegal where it was sited and that it would have to be moved. She assumed most people would not interpret this as permission to go ahead. Commissioner Lukermann moved, Commissioner Salzberg seconded, that the Commission recommend denial of the variance, adopting staff findings of fact. Discussion was called for. There was additional discussion, including the possibility of re-evaluating this ordinance as part of the comprehensive plan update. There was consensus that the variance must technically be denied in spite of the small amount of correction required. The question was called and the motion to recommend denial was passed unanimously. Jones announced that the Council will make a final decision on September 12. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Salzberg pointed out that someone is making considerable noise at about 10:30 at night recently and also on occasion at about 2:00 in the morning. (The former is the State Fair; the latter would be the severe thunderstorms that have recently passed through!) ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to a workshop at 8:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Deborah Jones, Staff Liaison With corrections 10/23/07 WORKSHOP: Comprehensive Plan Draft The Commissioners, being provided with the latest preliminary draft of the comprehensive plan, including the portions provided by S.E.H., were invited to ask questions or submit comments to staff. Staff noted commissioners’ comments, including a number of errors to be corrected. There will be opportunity for additional input from Commissioners in a future workshop or individually. The commission will not formally vote until the draft has been through the period of review by adjoining jurisdictions and other required entities, some time next year.