PL PACKET 09152009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• r Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 18, 2009 Page 3 1 2 Chair Stromgren noted there are four lots located on Silver Lake Court that abut Silver Lake 3 Road. Two of these properties recently received variances and there are two others that would 4 fall under the same parameters. He requested discussion from the Commission on whether there 5 are other areas that would fall under similar criteria. 6 7 Commissioner Jensen stated his support of a special purpose fence category similar to Spring 8 Lake Park. He stated his position that the notion that a 6-foot height is adequate depends on 9 whether the screening the resident desires works where the fence will be placed. He pointed out 10 that this may be affected by issues such as topography. He stated there are several areas along 11 Silver Lake Road where the grade is low and that there are not many properties that could put a 12 fence out to the sidewalk along Silver Lake Road. He noted current fencing includes designs 13 with lattice, two foot strips, and more opaqueness. He stated he is in favor of a process that 14 allows an easier process for properties owners to make their case for fencing requests. 15 16 Commissioner Jenson stated he agrees with much of Commissioner Jensen's statements. 17 However, in reviewing the history there has been little demand for fencing variances. He 18 questioned if there is a need to fix something that may not be broken. He stated there is a 19 mechanism to variances with a process for public awareness. He noted the City of Prior Lake 20 allows higher fences in back yards that abut a sate highway or county road. This is similar to 21 what happened with the variances on Silver Lake Road with the properties affected by the light 22 from the Laundromat. 23 24 Chair Stromgren noted the City of St. Paul fence requirements state that a variance of the fence 25 height regulations may be granted if, after investigation by the building official, it is found that 26 site, or terrain, or nuisance animal conditions warrant a waiver of the height restrictions. He 27 requested staff input on the legal differences between a variance and a conditional use permit. 28 29 There was discussion on applying conditions such as topography to fencing variances. 30 31 Chair Stromgren inquired whether there were comments or questions from the City Council 32 when the fence height variance was approved. Council Member Liaison Stille stated due to two 33 of the same types of variances being granted in a short time the City Council thought it would be 34 appropriate for the Planning Commission to review and debate this ordinance. The Council does 35 not have a sway one way or another on whether they support a change in the code. They would 36 like the Planning Commission to give thought to this ordinance and see if there are any other 37 areas in the community that could benefit from this and see if it would be worthwhile to change 38 the code to accommodate those areas. 39 40 Commissioner Chaput stated when looking at the history of the two variances, the original 41 variance was granted because the owner wanted to replace the 8-foot fence they had on the 42 property. The second variance dealt with the neighbor of the original variance who wanted an 8- 43 foot fence to match the neighbors and for the same hardships associated with the original case. 44 He stated his position that fence height variances are not common and that there is a vehicle in 45 place to deal with them when they do come up. 46