Loading...
CR 2000-159 Conditional Use Permit- Fence .. I . CITY OF ~ HOPKINS . September 27,2000 Council Report 2000-159 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - FENCE ProDosed Action. Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 2000-71. approving a conditional use permit to construct a six-foot fence. At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Thompson moved and Mr. Rowan seconded a motion to approve Resolution RZOO-20, recommending approval of a conditional use permit to construct a fence. The motion was approved unanimously. Overview. The applicants are proposing to construct a pool in their back yard. The ordinance requires that pools be surrounded by a fence at least four feet high. The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to construct a six-foot fence around their pool on a portion of their lot that allows a fence with a maximum height of only four feet. . The applicants are requesting the conditional use permit for safety concerns with the pooL Primarv Issues to Consider. . What does the ordinance require? . What are the specifics of the fence? . What is the staff recommendation? . What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting? SUDDortin2 Documents. . Analysis of Issues . Site Plan . Letter from applicants . Resolution 2000-71 Nanc . Anderson, AICP Planner Financial Impact: $_ NI A_Budgeted: Y/N Source: - . Related Documents (eIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: --- . CR2000-00 Page 2 . Primary Issues to Consider. . What does the ordinance require? The Zoning Ordinance states the following: Fences for special purposes and fences differing in construction, height or length may be permitted in any district in the city by the issuance of a conditional use permit by the Council upon proof and reasons submitted by the applicant and upon the signing by said bodies that such special purpose is necessary to protect, buffer or improve the premises for which such fence is intended. The special fence permit, if issued, may stipulate and provide for the height, location, construction and type of special fence thereby permitted. . What are the specifics of the fence? The applicants are proposing to construct a pool fence in their back yard. They are proposing a six-foot fence surrounding the pool. The ordinance does not allow a six-foot fence between homes. On the south side of the applicants' home their neighbor's home extends on the lot farther back than the applicants' home do. The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum height of four feet for fences along the side yard between homes. . . What is the stafT recommendation? Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit. There is a distance of 34 feet between the homes, and the neighbors widows are above six feet. . What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting? Ms. Anderson reviewed the applicants' request. Joseph and Deann Speltz, the applicants, appeared before the Commission. They stated that their biggest concern was with the pool is safety. No one appeared at the public hearing regarding this item. Mr. Speltz also had a letter from his insurance company that required a six-foot fence surrounding pools. It was noted that the abutting neighbor is not opposed to the fence. AJternatives. 1. Approve the conditional use permit. By approving the conditional use permit, the applicants will be able to construct the fence as proposed. 2. Deny the conditional use permit. By denying the conditional use permit, the applicant will not be able to construct the fence as proposed. If the City Council considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. . 3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. - - .- F. c. .JACKSON LANe SURVEYOR . RI:GU'''EREO UNDER LAWS 0". STAY!; 0.. ""'NNI:$OY'" , I..ICI:NSEO BY OROINANCI; OF CITY 01" MINNE...'-OLI~ . 3616 EAST S:STH STREET PA. 4.4681 : ii>urlltPo"s <6.':ertificatt N . 1 t ., . .; ~ ~ UTI L'''' ."- ( . I I , ! ...., . 1...\' F /" St:" ('./: 1.:- h..: 'j' , :r , ,--I'" '- . ""'-! ... , c', .______ ." ~ t ! ."l. . ---- ~ ; ~. ; I 2 ~ q. b " ~ :.. So 8Z~ 0;' --') .... , I "'. I '" .. , ------_l.. ..~ .......... I -:::. --~ "'/ I *-5 /, / I I . I , , '.,:; I I :-~J ~l ..~ I , .- / .:..~" ' . .. (,) , - l ,-~ I ,., ... . 0/ .---::-.- . .,-::....~ l ,-'?/ Q)'-./ ... . ~.::. / I I I ~ ':'~l...."""" ./ I I / Q / \ 1/ \xt ./ - -- l, , I I I I 'I t I, . 5" "~. l 5'0 . / ;_.-\"-c... _.. : ..- ..::= . (p' t\ _ fet--\ GE:- I · DEf~~(J ~;~~ E.:: ')=-:(j:\\ I. .. / ~ p..-c y.. 2/:::0 ~ "' -~q \-1- - ~NLt::. ~?(Q(. ~O' -b\v.-\ " .. . ., . n . . . ! ;' ,,,., \.".= "... II""" ; ..,J ." J -J-G- to' 2- ~~/( 23rr.. }'eb. 1961 As SURvEn:O BY ME THIS____O...V OF__.__....O. -----: /:./ .~."'! I " . <. \ ,1- - SIGNED /A ./".> ,r ..., - . -.. . F. C. JACKSON. ~,"70T"" RI;GHSTR"'TIOH. NQ. 3600 ~:.""" _ ___w...._ .-- -- .,-- . . . D 0 . t-T " , - I~ ~ , i I , ~ SJ'. 0 ~ z t 0 -\ , 0 e I I \j\ iZ > \\\ - '\), ~ 0":+ l)\l OJ ~& c tJj (J C ,-r' . :; ~ 2 .D- i\' ...r- ~ "(\\ "'C1 1'l ~ . . 3. Written justification for request including discussion of how any potential conflicts with existing nearby land uses will be minimized. We are requesting this variance due to the fact that we're building a pool. Our number one concern is safety; specifically access to the pool. According to the ordinance, when a fence along the property line intersects with a neighboring home, the fence must drop to a height of 4 ft. We were told this is primarily for the purpose of not blocking the neighbor's view and closing off yard space. We have taken extreme consideration in erecting this fence. We not only went to each of our neighbors (immediately north, south, west and several doors down) to discuss putting up the fence but we also did in-depth investigation on the type and quality of fence. We and our .' neighbors will be living with it for a very long time. We understand why the ordinance was written and that it is written to cover the majority of situations in a community. We can appreciate the reasoning behind the ordinance where lots might be smaller and closer together as in standard city lots, however, the lots on our street are larger, more open and have far greater distance between houses than the average city lot. The distance between our houses is 34 feet and the length of the lot line is 179 feet. When it comes to pools, we believe safety should come first and the intent of the ordinance should take into consideration just that. Our justification for the variance is detailed below. 1. Obstructing Neighbor's View . . Constructing a 6 ft. high fence will not obstruct our neighbor's view at all. Because of the grade variation along the line of construction, a 6 ft. fence is over one foot below the bottom of the neighbor's windows. We measured our neighbor's windows and they start 6'_2" (to bottom of the sill) above ground level. (See photos.) You can clearly see from the photos that my husband (6'tall) is well below the bottom of the windows when standing on the line of the fence. You can also see that standing directly next to the neighbor's windows they start above 6 ft. . There are four windows on the side of our neighbor's house; 3 bedroom and 1 bathroom. Even though there isn't a "view" issue as outlined in A, above, these would be the least likely rooms in a house that anyone would spend time looking out. Generally, people want more privacy in these rooms; especially in a rambler. In addition, our neighbor's trees are already obstructing the view. 2. Lot Size . Previously mentioned, our lot as well as our neighbor's are considerably larger that the average city lot. Constructing a 6 ft. fence will not cause a closed in or confining feeling in this instance. . See attached plot drawing. 3. Accessibility to Public . We understand that a 4 ft. fence is all that is required around a pool. We also understand that . this is sufficient to stop a toddler from wandering in. However, we don't feel it is sufficient for the active, inquisitive 7+ year old child that my want to visit the pool. We have a 7 and 9 year old and they would be able to get over a 4ft. fence quite easily. . . . Constructing a 4 ft. fence at the designated point would only heighten the interest of passers by as it is the most visible and accessible point from the street. We feel that a 6 ft. fence would ward off any interested party. . Requiring self locking hardware with key (also part of the ordinance) seems to defeat the purpose of safety when an older child or adult could easily climb over a 4 ft. fence. We believe the required hardware is appropriate with a taller fence. 4. Neighbor's Approval . Our neighbor at 334 Burnes Drive, has eight grandchildren that visit the house on a weekly basis. We've talked to her in depth about the pool, safety etc. and she supports the 6ft. fence 100%. Her signature is at the bottom of this page in support of this variance. Our neighbors to the north, Paul and Shirfey Bengston also have a pool. They also feel strongly that a 4 foot section of fence is not appropriate. They can be reached at 935-6538 for further discussion. They have been pool owners for over 23 years. We value their insight and judgment when it comes to pools. . We have done quite a bit of investigating and have looked at many pools; in particular our neighborhood. There are a number of pools in the neighborhood and all have at least a 5 ft. tall fence around them. We only ask that we can have that same opportunity for safety. In closing, we are concerned, responsible homeowners in the Hopkins community. Having a pool . is a new venture for us and with it comes some anxiety as well as a heightened awareness of safety and security. We have lived in Hopkins and this house for 11 years and plan on being here a long time. We have always worked to maintain an attractive residence and now we want to provide the safest residence as well. We have fears and concerns as new pool owners and can honestly say our conscience will not ever be at ease if we have a section of 4 ft. fence. We ask that you take our request under the utmost consideration and grant the variance. Thank you. ~-S: f~:::' ~Uffi;W Ap<Ltzr ~'Z-~-OO Enclosures 1. Drawings (2) 2. Photos S) t1~. 13~~ '3 a 'f- ~ ,LQ.,U 9'<3 ~ - 8'd g7 . ? /;;. 3 / ~GCO , . CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: 2000-71 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SIX FOOT FENCE WHEREAS, an application for Conditional Use Permit CUPOO-6 has been made by Joe and Deann Speltz~ WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for a conditional use permit was made by Joe and Deann Speltz on August 24, 2000; 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed and published notice, held a public hearing on the application and reviewed such application on September 26, 2000: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; . 3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered~ and 4. A legal description of the subject property is as follows: Lot 1, Block 1 Campbell Fourth Addition NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Conditional Use Permit CUPOO-6 is hereby approved based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the proposed fence is being constructed because of safety concerns with the swimming pool. 2. That the proposed six-foot fence between the homes does not block the light or air between the homes. Adopted this 3rd day of October 2000. . Eugene 1. Maxwell, Mayor ATTEST: Terry Obermaier, City Clerk