Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10B - Fences On Corner Lots MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CIlY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT NOVEMBER 4, 2002 lOB CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 1101.504 PERTAINING TO FENCES ON CORNER LOTS (Case File #02-106) History: The purpose of this zoning ordinance amendment is permit fences greater than 4 feet in height on the side street of a comer lot. This amendment was initiated by direction of the City Council. A resident, who resides on the corner of Carriage :Hills Parkway NE and Nightingale Circle NE, would like to install a fence 6 feet in height along Carriage :Hills Parkway (a front yard). The zoning ordinance limits the height of fences within required front yard setbacks to 4 feet. The City's interest in regulating fence height and opacity is to protect the health, safety, and welfare or community aesthetics and traffic visibility. Property owners desire to install fences to provide a physical barrier and delineate property lines. The zoning ordinance attempts to protect both mterests. The existing ordinance permits fences.within the required front yard to be a maximum of 4 feet in height and 6 feet in height in the required side and rear yards (see Attachment 4). For properties abutting an arterial roadway, fences shall not exceed 8 feet in height along the side that abuts the arterial roadway. Corner lots are not specifically addressed in the fence ordinance. However, the zoning ordinance requires a front yard on each street on a corner lot, and fences in front yards are limited to 4 feet in height. Staff has prepared the following amendment to the ordinance permitting fences on corner lots to be a maximum of 6 feet in height provided the fence abuts the side street lot line (the frontage without the garage), and the side street is designated as a collector roadway in the comprehensive plan (see also Attachment 1). 1:\02files\02ordamend\zoning\02-106 fence\cc report.doc Page 1 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER T T T A fence on a comer lot shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The fence shall not exceed 6 feet in height along the side street lot line. 2. The front yard shall be determined by the location of the garage. The direction the garage is facing shall be considered the front yard. 3. The side street shall be designated as a collector roadway in the comprehensive plan. 4. The fence shall be located behind the nearest front comer of the principal building along the front lot line. The staff also reviewed fence ordinances from other communities and found that other suburban communities allow fences along the side street lot line of a corner lot. Current Circumstances: On October 28, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this amendment. Tim House, 14458 Nightingale Circle NE, spoke about the need for an amendment to allow for the installation of a 6 foot fence along Carriage Hills Parkway (see Attachment 2). The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendment by a vote of 3 to 1. The majority of the Commissioners could not support the amendment because the fence ordinance was recently amended after extensive research; there has not been an overwhelming amount of requests to change the existing ordinance; and allowing 6 foot fences along collector roadways could create an aesthetic issue (I.e., a "tunnel effect") and interfere with public safety. The Issues: The City Council must make a decision whether to amend the ordinance based on the following criteria: . There is a public need for the amendment. The amendment will allow comer lots to have a 6 foot fence along the side street lot line that is a collector roadway, which will allow more privacy in the rear yard. . The amendment will accomplish one or more of the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans or policies of the City. One purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "protect the residential, business, industrial, and public areas of the community and maintain their stability." The proposed amendment will protect the aesthetics of the properties that abut collector roadways. · The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or federal requirements. This amendment is not inconsistent with any State or Federal regulations. 1:\02files\02ordamend\zoning\02-106 fence\cc report. doc Page 2 ALTERNA TIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: ATTACHMENTS: Conclusion: Based on the above findings, the staff recommends approval of the amendment. Allowing the fence to be a maximum of 6 feet in height is in keeping with fences permitted in side and rear yards. The note about the location of the garage will ensure that a 6 foot tall fence is not located close to a driveway, which may restrict visibility. Staff has included a provision that requires the side street be a collector roadway. The roadway functional classification system map is located in Attachment 3. Collector roadways by definition have 1 to 2 lanes and are designed for long trips within the city and have access to and from arterial roadways. Also, the location requirement, behind the dwelling/ structure, shall serve to protect visibility and aesthetics. The Planning Commission, however, recommended denial of this amendment on the basis that solid fences along side street lot lines could create safety and aesthetics issues. The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt an Ordinance approving the proposed amendment as recommended by staff. 2. Deny the proposed Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. 3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. The staff recommends Alternative #1. to adopt Ordinance 02-XX to amend the zoning foot fences along the side street of a corner lot. 1. Proposed ordinance amendment 2. Letter from Tim House submitted at Planning Commission meeting on October 28, 2002 3. Functional classification of roadways map 4. Existing fence ordinance 5. Draft minutes from October 28, 2002, Planning Commission meeting 1:\02files\02ordamend\zoning\02-l06 fence\cc report. doc 1" Page 3 T T ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 02-XX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1101.504 OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain that: 1. Section 1101.504 of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended to add the paragraph as follows: ~ A fence on a corner lot shall be subject to the followin2 conditions: 1. The fence shall not exceed 6 feet in hei2ht alon2 the side street lot line. 2. The front yard shall be determined by the location of the 2ara2e. The direction the 2ara2e is facin2 shall be considered the front yard. 3. The side street shall be desi2Dated as a collector roadway in the comprehensive plan. 4. The fence shall be located behind the nearest front corner of the principal buildin2 alon2 the front lot line. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this _ day of ,2002. ~- ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of ,2002. Drafted By: City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 L:\02FILES\02ordamend\zoning\02-l06 fence\Fence amendment.doc I \~Ici (51=>6 VYJTro Ie ''0-0 .O[)- ATTACHMENT 2 GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE TIME TO ADDRESS YOU THIS EVENING. MY NAME IS TIM HOUSE, MY ADDRESS IS 14458 NIGHTINGALE CIRCLE, NE, PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372. OUR HOUSE RESIDES ON THE CORNER OF NIGHTINGALE CIRCLE & CARRIAGE HILLS PARKWAY. I AM ~THIS EVENING TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW 6 FOOT PRIVACY FENCES IN THE SIDE YARD FOR PROPERTIES THAT HAVE CIRCUMSTANCES SIMILAR TO OURS (LE. ALONG PRIMARY ROADWAYS, CORNER LOTS, ETC). BY AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE IT Wll..L ALLOW ME TO INSTALL A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE ON MY PROPERTY LINE, WHICH PARALLEL'S CARRIAGE HILLS PARKWAY. I WISH TO INSTALL 140 FEET OF MAINTENANCE FREE VINYL FENCING. THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS WHY I WANT TO INSTALL A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE, THEY INCLUDE: 1. THE HIGH LEVEL OF AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC ON CARRIAGE BILLS PARKWAY. 2. THE HIGH LEVEL OF PEDESTRIANS USING THE SIDEWALK, WHICH IS BETWEEN OUR PROPERTY LINE AND CARRIAGE HILLS PARKWAY, FOR WALKING, CYCLING, ROLLERBLADING, SKATEBOARDING, ETC. 3. RESIDENTS THAT WALK THEIR PETS ON THE SIDEWALK ALLOW THEIR ANIMALS TO USE OUR YARD AS A WASTE AREA. 4. SNOWMOBll..ES USE OUR YARD AS THEIR WINTER PLAY GROUND, WHICH CAUSES THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR PLANTS, BUSHES AND SMALL TREES. 5. AND OF COURSE - PRIVACY BACK ON AUGUST 19,2002 I SPOKE TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT IT PUBLIC FORUM REGARDING THE CITY'S PRESENT FENCE ORDINANCE. AT THAT TIME I PRESENTED TO THEM THAT I HAD HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS OVER THE PAST TWO MONTHS WITH STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE CITY. ACCORDING TO STEVE, THE PRESENT CITY FENCE ORDINANCE DOES NOT ALLOW ME TO INSTALL A SIX FOOT FENCE ON MY PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO MR. HORSMAN, MY SIDE YARD IS CLASSIFIED BY THE CITY FENCE ORDINANCE AS MY FRONT YARD. IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ME, PRIOR TO TALKING WITH :MR. HORSMAN, THAT MY SIDE YARD, WIDCR FRONTS CARRIAGE HILLS PARKWAY, WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS MY FRONT YARD, WIDCH FRONTS THE CULDESAC OF NIGHTINGALE CIRCLE. WOULD THE AVERAGE TAX PAYING CITIZEN OF PRIOR LAKE UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR SIDE YARD COULD POSSmL Y BE CONSIDERED THEIR FRONT YARD? I WAS COMPLETELY SURPRISED THAT MY SIDE YARD IS MY FRONT YARD ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S FENCE ORDINANCE. DURING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, THE COUNCIL BELIEVED A ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGE WAS WORTH DISCUSSION AND DIRECTED THE STAFF TO INITIATE THE PROCESS THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE SECOND PART OF THE CITY'S FENCE ORDINANCE PERTAINS TO THE OBSTRUCTION A FENCE WOULD CAUSE AT AN INTERSECTION.J ON MY PROPERTY, THE "PROPERTY MARKER" FROM THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY TO THE FRONT OF MY PROPERTY, WmCH PARALLELS CARRIAGE HILLS PARKWAY, MEASURES IN ACCESS OF 205 FEET. I WOULD LIKE TO INSTALL 140 FEET OF FENCING, BEGINNING FROM THE BACKYARD "PROPERTY MARKER."/wITH MORE THAN 65 FEET REMAINING TO MY FRONT YARD "PROPERTY MARKER," THIS MORE THAT MEETS THE PROVISION IN THE CITY'S FENCE ORDINANCE THAT STATES: "NO FENCE, HEDGE OR WALL OR VISUAL OBSTRUCTION OF ANY KIND SHALL BE PERMITTED WIDCH IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION 1101.506 (50 FEET CLEARVIEW TRIANGLE)." BY CHANGING THE PRESENT CITY FENCE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW RESIDENTS, INCLUDING OURSELVES, TO INSTALL SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCES ON THEIR PROPERTY LINE, WILL NOT IMPAIR AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LIGHT AND AIR TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, UNREASONABLY INCREASE THE CONGESTION IN THE PUBLIC STREETS, INCREASE THE DANGER OF FIRE, OR ENDANGER PUBLIC SAFETY. MOREOVER, THE CHANGING OF THE CITY'S FENCE ORDINANCE, WILL NOT UNREASONABLY IMPACT_ THE CHARACTER AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UNREASONABLY DIMINISH OR IMPAIR ESTABLISHED PROPERTY VALVES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, OR IN ANY OTHER WAY IMPAIR THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND COMFORT OF THE AREA. r BY CHANGING THE PRESENT FENCE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW US TO INSTALL A PRIVACY FENCE WlLL NOT MERELY SERVE AS A CONVENIENCE TO MY WIFE AND I, BUT WE BELIEVE IS NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE A DEMONSTRABLE UNDUE LACK OF PRIVACY. I CERTAINLY WELCOME THE PLANNING COMMISSION OUT TO OUR PROPERTY, SHOULD THAT BE NECESSARY. WITH THAT SAID, LADIES AND GENTLEMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PLEASE CONSIDER TO AMEND THE PRESENT CITY'S FENCE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW US TO INSTALL A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE ON OUR PROPERTY LINE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. :TTACHMENT 3 mm (ij .~ '5; .~ .9 1: 1:: ..... 1:: u <(<(..... g <(..... :1!:1-o (ij 0 Ql ~.!!! o~ 0 8 ~ .fr .f: ~ ......~.f::g ~ ..... ~ 10 c~~Q)Q;~c=o-t: "! .t: : X ;?'t::: 0 0 .5 m 0 CL ;:t:w u<( ~() () ~ CL z< .. .!! ':E 10 c;; I~ ~ I~II o 10 N o ~" 03 j~ o o o ~~ o o o o C:>~ o ~ 0 o~~c:3 c::>~fJ , o ~~~od -I ...l .r ,-. ~ V'J 11 :f-' r--. :8 Q.." ~:! r::.. I ATTACHMENT 4 1101.504Fences. Fences may be permitted in required yards, subject to the following provisions: (1) The height of fences and walls permitted in required yards shall be limited. The height shall be measured from the ground level to the top of the fence or wall section. Fence posts may extend no more than 8 inches above the required height limit of a fence. In the case where the fence section has variable heights, the height of the fence shall be the average height. Fence heights shall be limited as follows: ~ A fence or wall shall not exceed 6 feet in height if it is located in any side or rear yard. ~ A fence or wall may be located in a front yard if the fence or wall does not exceed 4 feet in height and 50 percent opacity. Fences in the front yard shall be limited to decorative fences, such as picket fences, split rail fences and decorative iron fences. Chain link fences are not permitted in the front yard. (amd.Ord. 00-07 - pub. 6/10/00) ~ A fence or wall shall not exceed 8 feet in height if the yard in which it is placed abuts State Highway 13 or County Roads 21, 42, 82 or 83. ~ A fence or wall exceeding 8 feet in height may be allowed if placed in any side or rear yard separating a commercial or industrial use from a residential use, a school, church or other public building. ~ A fence or wall may exceed 6 feet in height in any side or rear yard when it is installed as part of a bufferyard, but may not exceed 8 feet in height. ~ A fence or wall in one front yard of any through lot may be at the height permitted in a rear yard if it complies with all of the provisions of subsection 1101.506, is used as a rear yard, and the fenced yard used as the rear yard does not adjoin a yard used as a front yard. (2) Where a fence or wall 6 feet in height or less is used as part of an animal kennel or run, it may not be located in any required side or front yard, and it shall be located at least 10 feet from any rear lot line. (3) Temporary snow fences shall be permitted in any yard from November 1st to April 1 st. (4) No fence, hedge or wall or visual obstruction of any kind shall be permitted which is not in compliance with subsection 1101.506. (5) Any fence or wall over 6 feet in height constructed as a result of this subsection shall be constructed of a nonmetallic material and shall be 90% opaque. It shall be considered a structure, shall require a building permit, and shall meet all Minnesota State Building Code requirements for a structure. (6) No fence may be located in any public right of way. Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002 ATTACHMENT 5 was in the public interest to vacate. It was basically their opinion, the City would be causing problems for themselves. Criego: · The other issue is that it is not a hardship to add a stall and a half to an existing 2 car garage does not warrant a variance, whether it is to the front, back or side. A two car garage is sufficient. If there is a need for additional storage then the property is certainly large enough to adapt. Stamson: · Concurred. That has been the Commission's stand in the past. Have denied a third car garage on more difficult lots. · In the interest of being fair, the criteria the Commission has consistently used has not been met. The Commissioners agreed to deny the request. MOTION BY ST AMSON, SECOND BY RINGSTAD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 02- 019PC DENYING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. DRAFT Stamson explained the appeal process. C. Case #02-106 Consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance concerning the height and opacity of fences on corner lots. Planner Cynthia Kirchoff presented the Planning Report dated October 28, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The following zoning ordinance amendment is based upon a request from a resident, who resides on a corner lot abutting Carriage Hills Parkway. The property owner would like to construct a fence 6 feet in height along Carriage Hills Parkway; however, the current ordinance only allows a 4 foot fence in front yards. On September 23,2002, the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of amending the fence ordinance concerning corner and riparian lots. Overall, the Commission felt as though the existing ordinance is adequate, and did not recommend changes to the ordinance. However, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to allow comer lots to have a fence six feet in height along a side street. Whether or not corner lots shall be given the right to have a 6 foot tall fence along a side street is a policy issue. The current ordinance provisions were generally intended for aesthetic as well as visibility purposes. Provided the fences are only placed along arterial L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNl 02802.doc 9 , Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002 and collector roadways, these intentions should be carried through with this proposed amendment. The staff has no objections to the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment will offer visual protection for the "rear yard" of corner lots located on collector roadways. Questions from the Commissioners: Criego: Did City Council recommend this change or the applicant? Kansier said it was brought before the City Council by Mr. House in an open forum. The City Council asked to bring it to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Comments from the Public: Tim House, 14458 Nightingale Circle, explained everything staff presented is what he is looking for. House read a statement for the record iusupport of the amendment. The public hearing was closed. Comments from the Commissioners: n;D ~, ~T r;,..-;.:l ~:: i~~, _ l~:'>",,~;: :.,:; .,,:~ Atwood: . Suggested reopening the discussions the Commission had back in September when the decision was made not to change the ordinance. . Not of the mind to change the ordinance at this time. Ringstad: . Felt the Commission did not want to do anything at that time and open it up to a public meeting, which is occurring tonight. . Could support the change. . City Council brought it back for a public hearing. After hearing Mr. House speak, would be in favor. Criego: . Couple of concerns: 1) of safety; If this amendment takes place, it could be a case where stopping at any of the stop signs moving onto a parkway like that could cause visual problems. That needs to be addressed. 2) Aesthetics of fence and the type of fence along those parkways are important along with the maintenance of them. · Historically the Commission and staffhave considered corner lots as two front yards. If there are 4 foot fences, as the applicant indicated, it seems to be appropriate on the sides also except for one thing - it eliminates all his concerns except for passerbys looking into his yard. It would stop the dogs and snowmobiles. That may have more of a pleasing appearance than a 6 foot 100% privacy fence. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNI02802.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002 . These issues need to be discussed. · Understands Mr. House's desires but have to look at safety and the aesthetic value. Atwood: · Part of the Commissioners discussions in September revolved around a case by case basis. To change the entire City ordinance for one person is not right. Criego: · The issue was around - is there one unique situation or is it a City problem? To the best of the Commissioners knowledge there were no other issues raised to change. Stamson: . Strongly opposed to allowing 6 foot privacy fences for any side yard that fronts a street. The ordinance asks ifthere is a public need for the amendment. The ordinance now allows ample opportunity to put in a fence to stop foot traffic or plant landscaping to provide privacy. . After discussing this issue in September, drove around town and observed a number of people who addressed the problem within the ordinance. . Lives on a collector street myself. In places like Apple Valley, must have allowed this with privacy fences which creates a tunnel effect with mismatched fences along the street. It is not aesthetically pleasing. It is wrong to think that doesn't have an effect on the city as a whole and the neighborhood. . The fence ordinance was rewritten a few years ago and the Commission went through this extensively. Several meetings, workshops and polling other cities. At that time, we didn't feel there should be a fence allowed in the front. . Lots of discussion on this issue. · Strongly against amending this ordinance. , R AFT Ringstad: . Questioned surrounding city surveys. Stamson and Criego responded there many discussions and the Commissioners felt strongly on this issue. Atwood: . Well aware of the mismatched fences in Apple Valley and how unappealing it is. Criego asked Stamson to summarize his thoughts: . The Commissioners and staff extensively researched this issue two years ago in writing the current ordinance. Very comfortable with the existing ordinance. . There has not been a rush of calls to City Hall to change. It works well. . Additionally there is ample opportunity to address all the concerns presented by dual frontage lots in the current ordinance. Drive around town and see all the residents who have 4 foot fences with landscaping meet all the criteria. These issues can be addressed. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNI02802.doc 11 r Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2002 · As a City as a whole, the Commissioners have to maintain the standards that have been set forth. This one goes against what is to be achieved. What is in place has worked very well. . Also, there is a safety issue. Criego: . Most corner intersections will have stop signs, if people start putting up privacy fences there is a probability the eyesight will be cut down on cars and those particular streets are traveling 30 to 40 mph. The longer distance to view oncoming cars is important. . Agreed with Stamson. As a city-wide ordinance this will affect every property. . Stamson explained 3 corner lots and vision problems created with privacy fences. MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL DENY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE. Vote taken indicated ayes by Stamson, Criego and Atwood, nay by Ringstad. MOTION CARRIED. A recess was called at 8:06 pm. The meeting resumed at 8:14 p.m. DRAFT D. Case #02-115 Consider amendments to Sections 1101.1000 (Definitions of Temporary Uses) and 1101.510 (Allowable Temporary Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated October 28, 2002, on file in the office of the City Planning Department. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to temporary uses within Non-Residential districts. This amendment was initiated by direction of the City Council. The proposed amendment has two parts. The first part is an amendment to Section 1101.1000, adding a definition of temporary uses. The second part is an amendment to Section 1101.510, expanding the types oftemporary uses permitted in nonresidential districts and establishing a procedure for those types of uses. Staff recommended the amendment as proposed. Questions from the Commissioners: Criego: What brought up this ordinance change? Kansier said the City was asked to see if a daycare facility could be use in a district for a temporary use. L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNI 02802.doc 12