Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9D - Fences In Front Yards . CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: APRIL 3, 2000 . '" AGENDA #: 90 f\~ Y PREPARED BY: FRANK BOYLES, CITY MANAGE~ AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FENCES IN THE FRONT YARD WITH MORE THAN 25% OPACITY DISCUSSION: History: One of the City Manager's performance criteria for 2000 is to "effect a minimum of 10 improvements in our ordinances to make them more citizen-friendly, more protective of our natural environments and more protective of our neighborhoods". A Prior Lake resident has contacted me about the City's present requirements for fences in front yards requesting that we consider a revision which would allow a wider array of fencing types. This report requests Council authority to initiate an amendment to the zoning ordinance which is more citizen-friendly without appreciably affecting the public health, safety and welfare. Current Circumstances: The Zoning Ordinance currently allows fences in the front yard if the fence does not exceed 4' in height and 25% opacity. We received the attached e-mail message from a Prior Lake resident suggesting the ordinance be amended to allow a 50% opacity. This percentage will allow picket fences in the front yard. Staff has reviewed the notes from the workshops where the City Council debated the new zoning ordinance. The City Council discussed the issue of height and opacity for front yard fences at some length during the public hearings on the Zoning Ordinance as well. The Council determined at that time the present standard would allow decorative fences in the front yard and still provide public safety protection. Attached for your information are the staff report and minutes of the November 2, 1998 public hearing as well as an excerpt from our notes of the December 7. 1998 workshop confirming the Council's final decision. Public safety appeared to be the Council's primary concern. The height and opacity of fences in the front yard are limited for two primary reasons: public safety and aesthetics. Height is often limited to 4' or less to allow access to the property. This height allows fire fighters to pull a fire hose, ladders and other equipment over the fence to reach the structures on the lot. Opacity is a determination of visibility through the actual fence structure. By limiting the opacity, public safety personnel are generally able to see through the fence structure from their vehicles. When ~l.()Ofilli<i\OOordamd\zoni9lZ\OO-030\0003Qcc.dn.c RaI!~...I 162ouCCl81e CreeK Ave. ::r:c.., Ynor Lake, Nmnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (O'LZ) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER . considering opacity, the Police Chief points out that shrubs are often used with fencing and so the combined effect of the two should be considered. He added that a 50% opacity does not create a public safety problem from a police perspective. From a property owner's perspective, an argument could be made that the fence limits young children and pets from wandering into the streets or away from the household. This point could arguably be seen as consistent with the City's public safety concerns. Height and opacity are also limited for aesthetic reasons. Maintaining a more open fence creates a more open space look from the streets, as opposed to the barricaded look of a wall or solid fence. The Issues: The height and opacity of a front yard fence are policy issues to be determined by the City Council. The staff has no objection to increasing the allowed opacity of the fence. To address the public safety issues, we would recommend the some limitation on opacity, probably 50 percent. We would also recommend that the height be retained at four (4) feet. Conclusion: Any change to the Zoning Ordinance requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission, followed by review and approval of the City Council. Before a hearing is scheduled, the Council should provide staff with specific direction about the preferred approach. ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, providing staff with specific direction on the proposed language. 2. Do nothing. In this case, the regulation remains as it is currently written. 3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends Alternative #1. I: \OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-030\00030cc.doc Page 2 . Page 1 of3 From: Dana Wheeler <DWheeler@mape.org> To: 'fboyles@cityofpriorlake.com' <fboyles@cityofpriorlake.com> Date: Friday, 24 March, 2000 11 :04 AM Subject: Fence Ordinance Hi Frank, Thank you for any assistance on this matter. Jean and I would like to see Prior Lake change it's ordinance that pertains to fences. We would like to put up a picket fence on the street side of our house. Our goal is to keep pets and children in our yard so as to keep them safe as well as to restore comfort to our neighborhood friends who are less than excited by Riley's "at their heals welcoming technique (Riley is our friendly and rambunctious dog). At the same time we want to put up an attractive fence that will enhance the value of our home and keep the neighborhood attractive. The current ordinance, revised 5/1/99, has an opacity requirement of 75%. We understand the city chose that level of openness so police and fire personnel could easily see into the yard as a safety factor. We believe that standard is too open. Further, it is not unfair or at the least not citizen friendly because in essence, it mandates the type, design, and materials a citizen must use to erect a fence. The only choices for fence material, presuming the purpose of the fence is to keep something in or out, would be metal fences, chain link fences and wire mesh. Non of which add to the attractiveness of a property. To support our contention that the opacity requirement can be relaxed to the satisfaction of all parties I have attached two photographs of wood picket fences. 80th allow a person to easily see through the fence to what might be behind it. Non of the examples would meet the cities 75% opacity requirement. As I've driven around and looked at a great number of and variety of design of fences I would expect that a 25% to 50% opacity fence would allow the citizen greater flexibility in fence choice and meet the safety concern of city personnel. The only exception being corner lots where the observer must look through two layers of fence if they wanted to see around the corner. In that case, as the attached photo exemplifies, even a 50% opacity fence allows the view to be reasonably clear. Please let Jean & I know of we can be of assistance in furthering this matter. We'd like to put a fence up soon. We know the process requires some time but hope you can assist us in moving the matter along. 03/28/2000 Page 2 of3 <<Picket Fence.jpg>> <<Sample Pickets.jpg>> Picture Attachments: File: Picket Fence.jpg 03/28/2000 Page 3 of3 File: Sample Pickets.jpg 03/28/2000 . ~ RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED AT ZONING ORDINANCE PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 2, 1998 1) ne point o/measurement/or setbacks. The Council discusse this issue at some len uring its work sessions, a ecided setbacks should be mea ed from the furthest p . t of the building, including ves, overhangs and cantilevers. ter hearing testim at the November 2, 1998 ting, the Council concluded e es and verhangs may be pitted as a limited encroac t. To accomplish this, Sec 1 .316, which defines measurements are taken be changed asfollows: MEAS MENT. The measurem of distances when require this Ordinance shall be do in a straight line in the p located at a point 1 foot a e the highest point in the s ce of the ground along the of measurement, from the st exterior . wall of a building aining the use to the prope line of the adj acent s t, district or lot or other boun line. . .. ion 1101.503, which d es permissible yard encroachm chan as follows: YARD ENC ACBMENTS. The folIo . g shall not be encroachments on requirements: 1 Eaves and tie provided such encroac ard' and Fence Height (Section 1101.504). As noted in the previous staffreport, fence height is primarily a matter of City policy. The staff suggested a maximum of 4 feet (48 '') with a maximum opacity of 25 percent. This standard will allow decorative and chain link fences, and will also allow a certain visibility to the front yard. The Council seemed to feel 48 II was an appropriate height; however, there was some concern about the maximum opacity, and how this would affect visibility and safety. We have received two letters on this matter from Bryce Huemoeller on this matter. Thefirst, dated October 28, 1998, expresses support for the 48"fence height. Mr. Huemoeller also included a provision from the Palmetto Zoning Ordinance which allows a 6' height with Council approval. The second letter, dated November 3, 1998, reiterates Mr. Huemoeller's support for the 48 II fence height. The stafffeels this provision allowing a 6 'fence is unnecessary. The ordinance already includes provisions allowing a taller fence in some areas. This additional provision would also require permits for fences, and Council review in some cases. The current ordinance allows a 42"fence in thefront yard with a maximum opacity of 25 percent. Opacity is a determination visibility through the actual fence structure. If the maximum height of the fence is raised, the Council may wish to reduce the maximum opacity. Reducing the maximum opacity to 15 percent will ddress the concerns about visibility and reduce any potential safety hazards. This I: \newzone\rnisc\respons2.doc . opacity will also allow decorative fences. The staff recommends the following language: A fence, QL wall or hedge shaH Hot eJeeeea 3 1/2 feet ifl height if may be located in a front yard. if the fence or wall does not exceed 4 feet in heie:ht and 15 percent opacity. 3) oning at CH Carpenter L mber. The Council recei d a letter from F d Meier at Carpenter Lumber askin at this property be zone -4 on the propos zoning m . The use is permitted with ditions in this district. . district is consi nt with e existing use of the proper . The staff recommends the ning on this site' e change to the C-4 district. 4) Request to in ude HotelsIMotels as a perm ed use in the C-5 (Busines' ark) District (Sectio 1102.1401). Mr. Bryce Huem ler submitted a letter reque ing the 'st of permitted s in the C-5 district be expande 0 include hotels and mote . R Is and motels ca be found in many business parkS. e use generates traffic, and 1 often an asset to e business located within the par . The staff would recom d the following ange: ' PERMITTE USES. The fo11o . g uses are permitted in the "C-5' District: ~ Offices ~ Manufacturin ocessing ~ Warehouse/Storag ~ Business Services ~ Blueprint, Photostat Printing Shops Research and Testing La oratories Hotels/Motels 5) Effe (retaining walls on Bluff back (Section 04.304). Mr. Joe Passofaro raised thNssue of the effect ofretaini walls and rais d landscaping beds on the determinati'oq of a bluff setback. He not the ]' contou . would identify an elevation cha e for a ]' high raised lands ape area, and ect the bluff setback. It is not the inten the bluff regulations to in ude]' high lei dscape beds in a bluff. However, retaining al/s 2-4' or more in height re inplace bee use of the slope of a . e. These features s . uld be included in the dete ination of a . setback. The ncern raised by Passofaro about the lands. e beds does t occur very often. e can attempt to w . e some language addressl this issue, or e can make a case by e decision in the matters based on survey 1 ormation and . e visits. The staff reco ends the langua remain the same, and w ill review this a case by case b 's. The Council s \.ld provide staff with so matter. \ I:\newzone\misc\respons2.doc 2 \\ \ o'l\ ~8 \\tA..\,.,~ M~~ Kedrowski: At this point my concerns are that the rest of the Council has any concerns. Kedrowski: Moqified motion to close the public hearing and the second half of this motion is to move for finding of fact. Mader: Offered amendment to modified the motion to deal with closing the Public Hearing and what kind of direction to give staff. MOTION BY MADER SECOND BY KEDROWSKI TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Upon a vote, ayes by Mader, Kedrowski, and Petersen, nayes by Schenck, and Wuellner, the motion carried. The Public Hearing closed at 8:10 p.m. Council Comments: Kedrowski: No comments at this time. Wuellner: Questioned the opacity requirement with front yard fences. On fence opacity some examples offences that would be 25% or 15% opacity, 15% opacity to me sounds like a rod iron fence every rod is 7" apart and 1" in diameter that seems pretty skimpy fence. At 25% opacity if it were a picket fence it would be a 3" picket, 21" on center it would be a pretty skimpy fence. Why such a concern about opacity and such a low percent for front yard. If there were a picket fence that were even 50% or 35% opacity, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Rye: Tried to clarify the rationale for the requirement. One of the major concerns has to do with public safety. People backing out of driveways, emergency vehicles trying to look at house numbers that sort of thing. The more obstruction you put up the more difficult it is. I think the idea is that front yard fences typically are intended to be more ornamental, decorative but again its a matter of policy. Wuellner: Concerned that it is unrealistic percentage. Mader: Talked of hedge height requirement. Is it still included? In a triangle? Rye: No, there is not. In a clear view triangle at an intersection or alley, yes. Wuellner: Ifwe make it too restrictive, we're going to right back here in 6 months changing it because it isn't reasonable. Rye: The current ordinance has been 42" and 25" opacity for a long time. Somebody brought a fence that happened to be higher than 42". It's Council decision on policy. It gets to be an enforcement issue. 11 I 698.DOC der: Still would like to hear from our safety officials on the actual impact before we finalize on the ordinance. 7 111698.DOC . '-"'" . \\ \~ ~ 8 \o\-tf>.N-'I~ t^~~~ Schenck: Setback points for measurements a fairly good compromise. Do we allow side yard setback averaging? Rye: Yes, you can sum the total separation to allow for the flexibility. Mader: Was that on all lots or just riparian lots or those in lakeshore district? Rye: It was all residential lots. Schenck: I am very comfortable with the 48" fence height and 25" opacity. I agree with Wuellner that 15% is not enough and I think we need to look at that. On C..H. Carpenter definitely the hotel/motel in C-5 I'm not sure that we discussed and that I have a through understanding of the Bluff setbacks. What is a cloud on title? How a property owner knows. when they have a cloud on title? Rye: A cloud on title is anything that potentially interferes with sale of transfer to the property. Mader: Is that term showing up in our zoning ordinance? Rye: No. Kedrowski: Why would you - this is unusual. Schenck: One of the stipulations that we're putting in the Bluff setback is a hold hannless for the City which effectively creates a cloud on title. Is that correct? Pace: No, because it has nothing to do with the transfer ability. Schenck: What concerns me is that people will wake-up in the morning and their property which may have been legal today tomorrow will be legal non-conforming. In two of the areas of concern in the riparian is Shady Beach Trail and Waters edge Trail. If the winds that hit us in May would have partially destroyed those homes, would those homes be able to be rebuilt on the foot prints if this ordinance would be in effect at that time? Rye: If the lots met the requirement for substandard lot of record. Schenck: Looking at the proximity of some of those homes and some of the variances that may have been received that essentially those parcels would not be rebuildable without hoping for variances. Rye: I can't really respond to that without knowing specifically what the circumstances are of each lot. There is a variety oflot sizes. I don't think there is a blanket statement that says yes if they were all destroyed that they could rebuild depending on function of lot size, if non-conforming in terms of flood plain elevation for example that's a whole different situation. Schenck: Concerned about this. Want people to understand before something happens to their home. 8 FINAL ZONING ORDINANCE DISCUSSION ITEMS RESULTS OF CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION On December 7, 1998, the City Council discussed the remaining issues within the proposed Zoning Ordinance. The Council reached consensus on each of fuese issues. These decisions are discussed below. The Ordinance will be revised to incorporate the proposed changes. A. Fence Height (Section 11 01.504). The City Council determined that a maximum height of 4 feet (48") with a maximum opacity of 25 percent was appropriate. This standard will allow decorative and chain link fences, and will also allow a certain visibility to the front yard. The language in the ordinance will be amended to reflect this decision. Setback from Ordinary Hig ater Elevation (Section 1104.302). The consensus the Council was to require a 7 etback from the Ordinary Hi Water Mark on Gen I Development Lakes. The or . ance also includes a provis avera which would allow the setbac be reduced to 50' from Ordinary High Water ark depending on the setbacks 0 structures on the adjacen C. irements (Section 1104.304). re were five different issues related to the blu rovisions of the Shoreland Ordin ceo Each of these . sues, and the Council's con sus, is discussed below. demnification Requiremen fro the ordinance. 2) Side d Setback. There is no spec c provision relating to side yard setbac in the Sh land Ordinance. The stan d side yard setbacks will remain as written. 3) Distance from To of Bluff. the numerical definition of a "visual break" will ain as currently written. e setback in the current ordinance is 25' from the of bluff, while the DNR st d is 30' from the top bluff. The Council det ined the setback should be anged to 30', as re:red by the DNR rules, wi the understanding that the van e procedure is avaif Ie in cases which can demo trate a hardship. " 4) Surveys ith l' Contours. The req . ement for a survey with l' co urs is essentially administrative requiremen. The l' increment provides a 16200 E~f~P:~~J:~~'19~o ake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER