HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A - Fences On Corner Lots
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
r~-4
DECEMBER 2, 2002
9A
CYNTHIA KIRCHOFF, AICP, PLANNER
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 1101.504 PERTAINING TO
FENCES ON CORNER LOTS
(Case File #02-106) .
History: The purpose of this zoning ordinance amendment is to permit
fences greater than 4 feet in height in the front yard setback along the
side street of a comer lot. This amendment was initiated by direction of
the City Council.
A resident, who resides on the comer 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, which is also a side yard abutting a
street). The zoning ordinance limits the height of fences within the
required front yard setback to 4 feet and opacity to 50 percent.
On November 4, 2002, the City Council reviewed the subject zoning
ordinance amendment and tabled the item to direct staff to schedule it
for a City Council work session to clarify yard requirements and the
implications of the amendment. The City Council discussed the
implications of the existing and proposed ordinance at a work session
held on November 18, 2002. At this meeting the Council directed staff
to revise the amendment to include language requiring the fence to be
located behind the principal structure along the front lot line, and to be
outside the 50 foot sight triangle on those comer lots with garages that
have direct access to the collector roadway.
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 current ordinance permits fences within the required front yard to be
a maximum of 4 feet in height and 50 percent opacity and 6 feet in height
in the required side and rear yards (see Attachment 4). For properties
1:\02fi1es\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
abutting an arterial street, fences shall not exceed 8 feet in height along
the property line that abuts the arterial street.
Comer lots are not specifically addressed in the fence ordinance.
However, the zoning ordinance requires a front yard setback on each
street on a comer lot, and fences in front yards are limited to 4 feet in
height and 50 percent opacity. (Note: Attachment 4 illustrates current
standards for fence height and opacity on two types of comer lots. The
dashed lines indicate the possible location of a fence.) On through lots
(or those that front two streets running parallel), a 6 foot fence can be
located in one front yard provided it does not encroach into the 50 foot
sight triangle and is located within that portion of the lot used as a rear
yard.
Staff prepared the following zoning ordinance amendment permitting
fences on comer lots to be a maximum of 6 feet in height (see also
Attachment 1). Language incorporating the direction provided by the
City Council at the work session is underlined.
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. For a comer lot with driveway access on a collector
street. the fence shall not be constructed within a sight
triangle described as beginning from a point at the
intersection of the extension of the existing curb lines of
the street or pavement edge and driveway, and
extending 50 feet along the edge of the street and along
the length of the driveway to the garage front. This
defines two sides of the triangle. The third line is a line
connecting the end points of the two sides described
above.
4. The side street shall be designated as a collector street
in the comprehensive plan.
5. The fence shall be located behind the rear comer of the
principal building or detached accessory structure along
the front lot line.
Attachment 5 illustrates how the ordinance amendment would impact
fence installation for the traditional comer lot and the comer lot with the
access on the collector street. The dashed line on the illustration
indicates the possible location of a 6 foot solid fence. (Note: Mr. Tim
House has responded to the additional language in an emaillocated in
Attachment 8.)
Current Circumstances: On October 28, 2002, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on this amendment. Tim House,
I :\02fi1es\02ordamend\zoning\02-1 06 fence\cc report-doc
Page 2
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 streets could create an aesthetic
issue (i.e., a "tunnel effect") and interfere with public safety. Meeting
minutes are included in Attachment 7.
The Issues: The City Council must make the determination 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 abuts a collector street, 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 streets.
· The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or
federal requirements.
This amendment is not inconsistent with any State or Federal
regulations.
The City Council may want to consider extending the right to install a 6
foot fence in the side yard abutting a street on a comer lot to any such
lots within the City, rather than just limiting it to properties abutting
collector streets.
Conclusion: Based on the above findings, the staff recommends
approval of the amendment.
Allowing a fence 6 feet in height along the side street of a comer lot
abutting a collector street is in keeping with the height permitted in side
and rear yards on "typical" lots and in the front yard used as a rear yard
on through lots. The side street must be a collector street, which tends
to have more traffic than a local street. (Note: Collector streets by
definition have 1 to 2 lanes and are designed for long trips within the city
and have access to and from arterial streets. For the street classification
map see Attachment 6.) The fence must also be located behind the rear
1:\02fi1es\02ordamend\zoning\02-106 fence\cc report.doc
Page 3
","_,~,...'_"., '_.-_'.'hV"'_.__'__'_'_"~<,",-,,o_~<,~o~,"_~~_,,__,_.~~-....~_*.......,.,,~~___._
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
corner of the principal building or a detached garage so as to limit the
"tunnel" effect of 6 foot fences along collector streets.
Also, the amendment would also allow a corner lot with a side loading
garage or driveway access on the collector street to have a 6 foot fence
provided it is located outside of the 50 foot sight triangle.
The Planning Commission, however, recommended denial of this
amendment on the basis that solid fences abutting collector streets 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.
A motion and second to adopt Ordinance 02-XX to amend the zoning
ordinance to allow 6 foot fences along the side street of a corner lot on
properties abutting collector streets.
Frank Boyles, City Manager
1. Proposed ordinance amendment
2. Letter from Tim House submitted at Planning Commission meeting
on October 28, 2002
3. Current fence ordinance
4. Site plans illustrating current ordinance
5. Site plans illustrating amendment
6. Street classification map
7. October 28,2002, Planning Commission meeting minutes
8. Email from Tim House dated November 27, 2002
1:\02files\02ordamend\zoning\02-106 fence\cc report. doc
Page 4
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 following 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 2arage.
The direction the garage is facing shan be considered the front
yard.
3. For a corner lot with driveway access on a collector street. the
fence shall not be constructed within a sight triangle described as
be innin from a oint at the intersection of the extension of the
existin curb lines of the street or avement ed e and drivewa ,
and extending 50 feet along the edge of the street and along the
len h of the drivewa to the ara e front. This defines two sides
of the triangle. The third line is a line connecting the end points of
the two sides described above.
4. The side street shall be designated as a collector street in the
comprehensive plan.
5. The fence shall be located behind the rear corner of the principal
building or detached accessory structure along 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_1 06 fence\F ence amendment doc
\~c Ie \ C5 'P0 ~'Y)--r-co
/D .~b .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, ETe). BY AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE IT WILL
ALLOW ME TO INSTALL A SIX FOOT PRIVACY FENCE ON MY PROPERTY
LINE, WIDCH 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 IDGH LEVEL OF AUTOMOBILE TRAFFIC ON CARRIAGE
HILLS P ARKW A Y.
2. THE IDGH LEVEL OF PEDESTRIANS USING THE SIDEWALK,
WIDCH 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. SNOWMOBILES USE OUR YARD AS THEIR WINTER PLAY
GROUND, WIDCH CAUSES THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR
PLANTS, BUSHES AND SMALL TREES.
5. AND OF COURSE - PRlV ACY
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
CONVERSA nONS 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 CLASSlFIED BY THE
CITY FENCE ORDINANCE AS MY FRONT YARD.
IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ME, PRIOR TO TALKING WITH M:R. HORSMAN,
THAT MY SIDE YARD, WIDCH FRONTS CARRIAGE HILLS PARKWAY,
WOULD BE CLASSlFIED 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 POSSffiLY 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.f ON
MY PROPERTY, THE "PROPERTY MARKER" FROM THE BACK OF MY
PROPERTY TO THE FRONT OF MY PROPERTY, WIDCH 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.
"
BY CHANGlNG THE PRESENT FENCE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW US TO
INSTALL A PRIVACY FENCE WILL 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
COM:MISSION, 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.
~
ATTACHMENT 3
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 1 st
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.
~
w
w
a::
~
en
. r ~
6' SOLID ~ENCE J \ g
~ - I ~
, - - - -~-- ;
",-. " "
4' 50"10 OPAQUE FENCE -"
~ ~
1- _ _ _ _ _ _'---------- /-
- - - - ~ -- - - - - - ~
~-::~~-s~Z-z;L~?:;-Z0"~:~Z TRAIL #;~::~:~-:;;....~ .:;:;:i.
//~ .' .-.
. I
COLLECTOR STREET
\\
II
I
TRADITIONAL CORNER LOT
- --
~~
I~
<!J
z
::i
~
w
3=
c
I
I
I
I
I
1
CORNER LOT W / ACCESS ON COLLECTOR STREET
-,
I
I
ATTACHMENT 4
<!J
z
:~ i ~
~ ~ a::
6' SOLID FENCE l en
___u__~ ' ;
" ------ I /~
", I '
, I / I
4' 50"10 OPAQUE FENCE I / I : ,
;_ _ _ _ __ _'~ _ _) \ _ / I ~~'SIGHTmANGLE
'~~~~=C-:~E~:_~1!'1 ~~-=-j~
COLLECTOR STREET
SITE PLANS IllUSTRATING CURRENT ORDINANCE
r - --
II
I
- - - - -- - ._- - - - - - ---
TRADITIONAL CORNER LOT
ATTACHMENT 5
I
I
I
I
i
I
i~, "SOUD
I FENCE
: \
:I~ =--=- --=_-= ___=-=-=_,- -T-RJAIL · ~..____~ ~
-'==::~~~o :':~~.$~~=1
COLLECTOR STREET
~
Z
::;
-' I
w
;:
c
I --
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
W
W
~
t/)
-'
C3
o
-'
CORNER LOT W / ACCESS ON COLLECTOR STREET
,- - - - - - - - - - - - --,
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
~
z
:J
-'
w
;:
C
I-
W
W
cr
l-
t/)
-'
C3
o
-'
I
I
Jj~ 6' SOLID
- FENCE
J
I
------
T~~~E~
Ii
/
.::.....:..-.:c~~ .~ ..........;_:~~
. e..... "_.'. '. , .~, . _ ..." ,'.; ;.-
..~~--_.__....-"' "~....~~
I
" ~- . "......
.::"'..~"~..- .c-~~,,,'.~c..,.. c -", .~. _'. . _......~=-. ",,",':-':.",,::>...
-"'.-'."- ~.- / -.-..... TRAIL 1..__. "
- ... -' . --"..........;../.,_.~~_.------l""~~""'"."....
/ I 50' I
~ /'-.lr
COLLECTOR STREET
SITE PLANS ILLUSTRATING AMENDMENT
HMENT 6
ro :ffi ~ 0
'a; m (l) t>
t:: t:: ... 1:: Q)
<(<( 0 <(... ="0
'-.....5 ~Ol-oro
ro o~ ~..!!l 00 B u 0
o..Cc roCCl> ()...o::
.0 .- ro lip::'- c Q) 0 ~ ~
c ~o...cCl>~C = C ... 0
ct ~~ O~ ~8 8 ~ ~ z<
o
~~~n~1
t~
;:53
i1~
.~ a
ct.__
o
o
o
~o
o
o
o
o
60
~
a
-'
<:l"I
s::
.;:
""-
OJ)
'Eo!
~~
:f-'
r-
'-
"'ii
~
O-IU
~.x
u.s
r--
,-.1
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
ATTACHMENT 7
the public's 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, 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. 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 F AMIL Y DWELLING.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
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 comer 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 comer 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 comer 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\MNI 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 in support of the amendment.
The public hearing was closed.
Comments from the Commissioners:
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 until it was opened
at 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 staff have 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 except for one thing - it eliminates his concerns except
for passersby 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.
. These issues need to be discussed.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNI 02802.doc 10
Planning Commission Minutes
October 28, 2002
· 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 - 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 the
ordinance.
Stamson:
· Strongly opposed to allowing 6 foot privacy fences for any side yard that fronts a
street. The ordinance asks if there 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. Apple Valley must have allowed this with privacy
fences which created 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
were done. At that time, the Commissioners didn't feel there should be a fence
allowed in the front yard.
· Lots of discussion on this issue.
· Strongly against amending this ordinance.
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:
· 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 meeting all the criteria. These
issues can be addressed.
L:\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminuteslMN I 02802.doc 11
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 comer intersections will have stop signs, if people start putting up privacy
fences there is a probability the view of oncoming cars will be reduced 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 comer lots and vision problems created with privacy fences.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL DENY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGE.
V ote 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.
D. Case #02-115 Consider amendments to Sections 1101.1000 (Definitions of
Temporary Uses) and 1101.510 (Allowable Temporary Uses) ofthe 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 oftemporary 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 nursery school facility could be established in a Business Office district for a
temporary use. It is not a permitted use at this time. There is currently
construction going on in their facility.
L\02FILES\02planning comm\02pcminutes\MNl 02802.doc 12
Frank Boyles
ATTACHMENT 8
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Tim House [thouse@norexonline.com]
Wednesday, November 27, 2002 11 :23 AM
'jhaugen@cityofpriorlake.com'
'fboYles@cityofpriorlake.com'
Fence Ordinance Amendment
Dear Mr. Haugen:
On behalf of my self and my wife Diane, we would like to thank the City
Council for all their efforts to amend the present City Fence Ordinance.
Although I was unable to attend the Fence Ordinance Workshop on Monday,
November 18th due to business travel, Cindy in your Planning office brought
me up to speed with the results of the meeting. It is my understanding the
end result will allow us to install a six foot fence on Our property line,
beginning from the backyard property marker and extending to a line from the
back of our house.
According to Cindy, the City Council we take a vote on the Amended Fence
Ordinance during the City Council meeting scheduled for December 2nd.
Although we are grateful for the change in the Ordinance, we would like to
know if a small provision could be added to the Amended Fence Ordinance.
While the new Fence Ordinance will give us some privacy to our backyard, we
had hope the new Fence Ordinance would allow us to extend our future fence
to the front Our garage rather than the back of our home.
The provision we would like to see added to the new Fence Ordinance pertains
to homes that reside on a cUl-de-sac and not a thru street. Our home
resides on Nightingale Circle and we are one of only six homes in the
cul-de-sac. It is our hope that the City Council will allow six foot fences
to extend up to the present City Fence Ordinance that states "No fence,
hedge or wall or visual obstruction of any kind shall be permitted which is
not in compliance with subsection 1101.506 (50 feet clearview triangle)."
By adding this provision to the new Fence Ordinance would, in our opinion,
not increase the congestion on Nightingale Circle or endanger public safety.
Jack, I will certainly would like to have the opportunity to discuss this
provision prior to the City Council's vote on Monday. I will plan on
arriving to the fire station at 6:45 p.m. on Monday to hopefully talk with
you and answer any questions regarding the added provision. I realize this
Fence Amendment has been a long process in the making, which we are
grateful, however, if the City Council would add the "50 feet clearview
triangle," for homes residing on cul-de-sac's, to the new Fence Amendment,
we would be extremely thankful.
Respectfully,
Tim House
952-447-8898
thouse@norexonline.com
1