DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS - Bryan K. Schafer, Planning and Community Development Director
Title
APPROVE A TWO-FOOT VARIANCE TO THE SIX-FOOT MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT FOR THE R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY) DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR AN EIGHT-FOOT HIGH FENCE, LOCATED AT 249 OAK PARK DRIVE NE. BEV FOLSTROM. (CASE FILE NO. 17-0027/LSJ)
Schedule of Actions
|
Planning Commission (Public Hearing) |
08/08/17 |
|
City Council (Variance) |
09/07/17 |
|
Action Deadline |
10/08/17 |
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the variance. The applicant’s neighbor had several comments about the existing fence and what is proposed. It was unclear if he was in support of or against the approval of a variance for an 8-foot fence.
Background
In 2016, the applicant, Bev Folstrom, applied for and received a conditional use permit for garage space between 1,000 and 1,200 square feet. Ms. Folstrom has followed the proper procedures for constructing the accessory structure and is in compliance with the ordinance at this time.
Ms. Folstrom and her neighbor have ongoing disagreements about several issues. To try and provide privacy between her lot and her neighbor’s lot, Ms. Folstrom has placed several items along her interior side yard lot line to act as a buffer between her and her neighbor. A picture of these items has been provided for your review.
The applicant and her neighbors have been involved with several code enforcement complaints and police calls. To try and create even more of a buffer between her and her neighbor, Ms. Folstrom is requesting a variance to install a fence that is two-feet higher than the City’s maximum fence height requirement in the side yard of 6-feet. She would like to construct a maintenance free board on board fence that is 8 feet in height in her side yard along her interior lot line.
The City’s Zoning Ordinance is very specific about how to deal with variance requests. The Ordinance states the following with regard to variances:
(1) Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity.
(2) The literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance.
(3) That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
(4) That the granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other owners of lands, structures or buildings within the same district.
(5) That the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. Economic considerations alone shall not be considered a hardship.
(6) A variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this ordinance, or to other property in the same zone.
(7) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion of public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
When assessing this variance request, staff does not feel that it would be appropriate to recommend approval of the variance. This does not mean that staff underestimates the problems that have originated between these two properties. Staff would suggest that the City Council make a decision that they feel would best meet the needs of the City and the neighborhood. Staff has outlined options for either approval or denial for the Council to review and use if appropriate. The resolution that has been drafted is for a denial of the variance based on the Planning Commission’s recommendation. If the Council chooses to approve the variance, the following rationale could be used:
1. Exceptional circumstances apply to this property that do not apply to other
properties in this general neighborhood. The exceptional circumstance is
that two property owners have general disagreements that are causing a
disruption in the neighborhood.
2. The variance being requested is the minimum variance which would help
alleviate the problems.
3. The variance will not impair an adequate supply of light to the neighboring
property as the fence is not taller than the house/garage in this area.
Recommendation
By motion, approve the Resolution.
Attachments
Zoning and Location Map
Survey with Proposed Fence Location
Picture of Current Screening
Body
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Bev Folstrom as Case File No. 17-0027; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held by the Blaine Planning Commission on August 8, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Blaine Planning Commission recommends said Variance be denied; and
WHEREAS, the Blaine City Council has reviewed said case on September 7, 2017.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Blaine that a variance is hereby approved per Section 27.05 and 33.09(f)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a 2-foot variance to the 6-foot side yard fence height requirement at 249 Oak Park Drive NE, based on the following rationale:
1. Approval of a variance would not be detrimental to the City’s zoning ordinance.
2. Approval of a variance for a taller fence is believed to be the solution for solving or ending this neighbor disagreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the materials used in the fence to be maintenance-free vinyl to minimize fence maintenance access issues.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Blaine this 7th day of September, 2017.