Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8C - Requirement For Fences MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT JUNE 5, 2000 8C JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR ()] CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE OO-~ APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES LOCATED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD (Case File #00-030) History: A Prior Lake resident contacted the City Manager, via the attached e-mail, about the City's present requirements for fences in front yards requesting that the City consider a revision which would allow a wider array of fencing types. The request suggests the ordinance be amended to allow 50% opacity, which would allow picket fences in the front yard. On April 3, 2000, the City Council initiated an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which is more citizen-friendly without appreciably affecting the public health, safety and welfare. Current Circumstances: Section 1101.504 of the Zoning Ordinance allows fences in the front yard if the fence does not exceed 4' in height and 25% opacity. 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. 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 considering opacity, the Police Chief points out that shrubs are often used with fencing and so the 162a&W~gf~O~!~~<A"t~ni~'g?-~r?~OrO~~~J:1$finnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Falt8I2) 447-4245 ;'\:\ EQI~'i\L OPPORTU~ITY E\IPLOYER. TIT'Tj 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 Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing on May 8, 2000. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendment. A draft copy of the minutes is attached to this report. The Issues: The height and opacity of a front yard fence are policy issues. The staff has no objection to increasing the allowed opacity of the fence. To address the public safety issues, we would recommend some limitation on opacity, probably 50 percent. We would also recommend that the height be retained at four (4) feet. The proposed language is shown on the attached draft ordinance. 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; or . 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; or . The adoption of the amendment is consistent with State and/or federal requirements. The Planning Commission and staff feel the proposed amendment will accomplish both the aesthetic and public safety objectives of the Zoning Ordinance, and still allow decorative fences. However, the Planning Commission modified staff s recommendation to note these fences should be limited to decorative fences, which include picket fences, split rail fences, and iron fences. The intention of this language is to make it clear that chain link fences are not permitted in the front yard. The Council should consider whether it is comfortable with this policy position. The specific language is included in the attached ordinance. 1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-030\00030c2.doc Page 2 ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: Conclusion: Both the Planning Commission and the staff recommend approval of this amendment. The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt Ordinance oo-xx approving the proposed amendment as recommended. 2. Deny Ordinance OO-XX. 3. Defer this item and provide staff with specific direction. Manager 1:\OOfiles\00ordamd\zoning\OO-030\00030c2.doc Page 3 T'T..n CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 00- 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: Section 1101.504 (1) of the Prior Lake City Code is hereby amended as follows: (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 ~ SO 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. ~ 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. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication, Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 5th day of June, 2000. 1:\OOfiles\OOordamd\zoning\OO-030\ordOOxx.doc PAGE I 16200 Eagle Crt'ek A,,'e. S.E.. Prior Lake. \L:lnesota=J=J372-1714 Ph. (6121 447 -Lj,230 / FC\:\ (I:' 12) 44 '7 --+2-~:-) '..". =-:l~t_ .\L OP~'I?T: -'\lTY E:.:r~:_} -. I n ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the 10th day of June, 2000. Drafted By: City of Prior Lake Planning Department 16200 Eagle Creek A venue Prior Lake, MN 55372 1:\00 Ii 1 es \00ordamd1zon i ng\OO-O 3 O\ord OQxx. doc PAGE 2 " From: Dana Wheeler <DWheeler@mape.org> To: 'fboyles@cityofpriorlake.com' <fboyles@cityofpriorlake.com> Date: Friday, 24 March, 2000 11 :04 AM Subject: Fence Ordinance Page 1 of3 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 inour 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. Both 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 1 )II II .'.- '-~~"'_~'_____"'~'_'''___'_~H~._,_.,~.___~.,__..."._________.__~_._~,___._.._.___...._ Page20f3' . . ~ <<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 11111 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2000 INCLUDING A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO THE CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED. The plat will go before the City Council on May 15,2000. C. Case #00-030 Consider an Amendment to the Zoning Ordin the requirements for fences located within the front yard. u il debated the new pacity for front he Zon' Ordinance as well. d>allow decorative fences Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Repo file in the office of the City Planner. The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an a relating to the requirements for fences located wit initiated by the City Council on April 3, 2000. Staff has reviewed the notes from the wor zoning ordinance. The City Council disc yard fences at some length during the pubii The Council determined at that time the pres: in the front yard and still provo blic safet fence arepp~!g.y issues. The staff had no objection e fence butt recommended some limitation on ended the height be retained at four (4) StamsoIl;.i~~idt for a chain-link fence dinance clarifying "decorative". His concern was id most front Y/f fences are for decorative reasons. It has not been an issue. There were no ents and the public hearing closed at 7:45 p.m. Comments from the Commissioners: Atwood: . Agreed with staff on the opacity, reasonable and necessary. . Felt the definition of decorative fencing should be addressed. Stamson: I :\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn050800.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes May 8. 2000 . No problem with the 50% opacity. It is reasonable. . The intention was decorative fencing. . Does not want to allow chain-link fences in the front yard. Cramer: . Remembers this discussion regarding decorative fences. . Agreed with staff the fence should remain at 4 feet for safety reasons. . 50% opacity is okay. Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION uncil on JJ:m,e5, 2000. mendme~~!!tQ,~ections 1101.400, 1102.306, and 1101.~~3iofthe Zoning Ordinance relating ~;fequired sideyard setback for cee 109 t in length if the RS, R-1, R-2 and R-3 ~!>ack encroachments to the required lakeshore and Kansier suggested making a recommendation excluding chain-Ii fence is not a decorative fence. Or add language stating front a decorative fences such as picket fences, split rail fences, iro Staff can bring the recommendation before the City D. ansier presented the Planning Report dated May 8, 2000, on lanner. c hearing is to consider two amendments to the Zoning endment pertains to the required setback for walls greater than 40' in length in!,. S, R-l, R-2 and R-3 districts. This amendment also includes a revision to the d~finition of a building wall. This amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission in response to several variance requests to the setback requirement. The second amendment clarifies the allowed encroachments into the required lakeshore and bluff setback requirements. This amendment was also initiated by the Planning Commission in response to an appeal to the decision of the Zoning Administrator denying an encroachment into the bluff setback. Comments from the Public: 1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn050800.doc 8 II 11