Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8B - Restriction on Fences AGENDA # PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: ANAL YSIS: STAFF AGENDA REPORT 8B R. MICHAEL LEEK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 96-07 AMENDING TITLE 5, SECTIONS 5-5-10, OF THE CITY CODE AND SECTIONS 6.11 (E) OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6 BY ESTABLISHING RESTRICTIONS ON FENCES IN LAKESHORE SETBACK AREAS IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT MARCH 4,1996 The purpose of this item is to consider an amendment to the City Code and Zoning Ordinance which would establish restrictions on fences in lakeshore setback areas. Based on a complaint received by the City Council, staff was directed to research whether or not other communities limited fences in the lakeshore setback area. The Building Department staff contacted 13 communities. The results of this survey are set forth in the report to the City Council dated December 4, 1995, a copy of which is attached to this report. At the meeting of the same date, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment consistent with the approach adopted by the City of Maple Grove. The attached draft follows that approach. On February 12, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendment. The testimony received at that hearing is set forth in the minutes of the meeting, a copy of which is attached. Testimony was received in favor of the proposed amendment, as well as testimony opposing the proposed amendment because it would restrict the right to construct privacy fences. The Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council n.Q1 amend the Ordinance to restrict fences in the lakeshore district. The stated reasons for the recommendation were that the proposed 16200 lE~ECfeeQ~. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY OF PRIOR LAKE ORDINANCE NO. 96-07 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5, SECTIONS 5-5-10, OF THE CITY CODE AND SECTIONS 6.11(E) OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6. The City Council of the City of Prior Lake does hereby ordain: Title 5, Section 5-X-X of the City Code and Section 6.11(E) of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 are hereby amended to read as follows: 6.11 SCREENING E.(1) Shoreland District Lakeshore Setback Fences. Fences to be located within any portion of the seventy-five (75) foot lake shore setback area of the Shoreland District lot must comply with the special provisions of this Section. Fences constructed within the lakeshore setback area shall not exceed a maximum of five (5) feet in height, and shall maintain see-through visibility at least equal to a chain-link type fence. Fences existing on the date of passage of this section which do not meet the above criteria shall become legal, nonconforming, and will thus be subject to Section 6.1 of this ordinance. Fences required by Title 4 Chapter 4, Residential Swimming Pools, of the City Code are exempt from the requirements of this section. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake this 4th day of March, 1996. ATTEST: City Manager Mayor Published in the Prior Lake American on the _ day of Drafted By: City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 , 1996. 2 Ordinance. It is a width that is workable as far as fire and safety access as well being able to maneuver large trucks. · Question: In a residential area where you may have a commerical conditional use permit, how does that apply? Garross explained this amendment is written for the specific uses and not tied to the zoning district itself. Wuellner: · Question: Is there a limit to the number of driveways commercial or residential property can have? Garross explained it was not. V onhof: · Question: All the other provisions that provide for driveways, like setbacks would still apply? Garross replied "Yes". Loftus: · Garross explained this issue has been around for the year or two and should have been addressed earlier in the Zoning Ordinance. It came about recently because of the commerical development and new buildings and will be used quite often. Kuykendall: . Comment on minimum slope of one half percent. . Traffic concern especially County Road 42 - Scott County standards would apply? . Rye said Scott County will not allow direct commerical/industrial traffic on to County Road 42 at all. . Concern for a far wide right turn - if they have to swing out to make the comer. The alternative is to have a one-way directional slope (one-way in, one-way out). . Possibly at another time the City should research one way entrances. . Supports staffs recommendation and act positively. MOTION BY VONHOF, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS WRITTEN TO AMEND SECTION 6.5D OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE 83-6. V otes taken signified ayes by V oOOof, Loftus, Criego, Wuellner and Kuykendall. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Kuykendall closed the public hearing. 2. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING FENCES IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT. The public hearing was opened and a sign-up sheet was circulated to the public in attendance. MN021296.DOC PAGE 2 Associated Planner Michael Leek presented the information in the Planning Report dated February 12, 1996. Staff recommends the Planning Commission to direct a motion to City Council to adopt the proposed amendment as written or with changes. Leek read a letter from Jeanne Robbins and Eric Davis who are in opposition of the proposed changes to the Ordinance. Comments from the audience: Tom Foster, 5795 Shannon Trail, commented on the proposal indicating the see-through visibility should be equal to a chain link fence. Mr. Foster said he has seen chain link fences that have inserts in them and maybe there should be additional definition. Question of whether the existing fences would be grandfather in. Leek answered "Yes". Linda Wiecher, 5455 Shore Trail, stated she fully supports the draft. Peter Brodin, 5425 Shore Trail, supports the spirit of the amendment. Question on the enforcement and is a permit required? Rye stated there is not a permit required for a fence and would be enforced on a complaint basis. Comments from Commissioners: Loftus: . Leek explained the purpose of the Ordinance. . Felt the comments were good by Jeanne Robbins and Eric Davis' letter. . Enforcement question is good. Someone in the middle of construction would have to remove or stop construction of the fence. It would be more rational to have this go through the permit process. Otherwise without some mechanism to discover before the fence is built it is just inviting trouble. Leek explained the problems with the permit process and the volume of permits. If the City requires a fence in the lakeshore setback area, the City will have to require a permit for any fence built in the City. It is a lot of volume on top of a large volume of permits already. Rye commented the City has a number of ordinances that are primarily enforced through a complaint basis. Simply, there is not enough time available to the staff that is here, it is impossible to go out and keep on top of everything that goes on in this community. And it is getting to be more so than less. V onhof: . It seems the City has taken a middle road stand. In looking over the survey of the other cities, they generally prohibit any fencing within the 75' lakeshore setback MN021296.DOC PAGE 3 area. Prior Lake is going half way, while not prohibiting fences, the City is limiting them. · Leek explained City Council did not want to come down so hard that fences were not permitted at all but they did want to protect sight line issues for lakeshore properties. Note they were also sensitive to fences for pools which are required. · Supports this Ordinance and would go further to support an amendment prohibiting them. · The letter by Jeanne Robbins and Eric Davis brought up good points. · If the variance criteria were met fences could be allowed. · Personally feel the chain link fences along the lake are unattractive. Wuellner: · Leek explained the lake shore accessory structures. . Limited visibility. . A natural vegetation fence could be put in for privacy. · The hardship criteria would be the same as the variance criteria. . Safety issues for fencing along lake. · People who live on the lake have more property regulations compared to the people who do not live on the lake. This just another one of the those rules that do not have any substance to it that are going to be restrictive to the people who pay a great amount of taxes who live on the lake. · A privacy fence in my opinion is not unreasonable. It can be enhancing to the lifestyle not only within the confines of the privacy fence but on either side of it as well. . Does not support this. Criego: . Initial response was negative. . Prior Lake is unique with homes close to the lake, others far. Some of the ones close to the lake are old cabins and someone might want to put up a hedge. A hedge is prettier than a fence and could solve the problem. . There are many lake entrances by snowmobiles. If you are a neighbor living next to a snowmobile trail you might elect to put up a fence. . Would prefer to see no fences than go half way. But there are going to be situations where fences are appropriate. . Rye explained there are a number of reasons a person needs a fence. Criteria do not work well with ancillary things like fences and accessory structures. They work well with a principal structure. Kuykendall: . Generally feels opposed to any fence in that area. . Most of the cities in the survey generally favor no fence. . "Fence" should be defined as opposed to any other kind of barrier. . Aesthetically, fences are not attractive. MN021296 DOC PAGE 4 . Understands the neighbor's perspective to keep the view open. . If the problem is keeping children or animals confined, that can be accomplished within the 75' setback. . If a person wants privacy there is a certain area within the property which can be achieved with a solid fence or chain link fence. . Creative landscape can accomplish both privacy and safety. . Sees the practical issue of enforcement. . If the Ordinance is in place it should require a survey and a permit. The burden ends up being a costly process for the homeowner. . Does not like self-enforcing. . Does not meet the intent of the whole setback area of the lakeshore. . Opposed. Open discussion: Loftus: . This is a freedom vs. regulation issue. Lean toward the freedom side. Because this covers the entire shore land district I am not comfortable without having first hand knowledge of what the uses are. If it is an abuse situation the City should address the problem. If it is a single issue, it should not be made into an enforcement issue. V onhof: . The reason we have a special shoreland district is because the City is deemed a significant area that needs special protections and has different regulations entirely than any other residential district in the city . We have accepted the fact on many occasions that the lakeshore has special restrictions. Nobody has purchased a home on the lake that is not aware to some degree that there are some restrictions. It is a unique area and needs special protection. This is a situation that applies to everything in the city. As it is written, it will effect all existing fence today which would automatically become a non-conforming use. This is all future based. Weare getting a little tied up on what is existing and what is the future. I agree with the setback averaging and would go further and make it illegal to have fences at all within the area because there are alternatives. The objective is to deal with the fact of sight lines on the property. Criego: . The ordinance is too restrictive. The variance process could solve the problem. Wuellner: . Disagree the variance process would solve anything. When there is no problem why set up a more restrictive ordinance. Kuykendall: . Recommend no fences. MN021296.DOC PAGES . Need definition of "fence". No one has provided a hardship. MOTION BY WUELLNER, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO NOT RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THE APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING FENCES IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT. Leek pointed out staff had no recommendation for support. The reason is the December report to City Council concluded and recommended that staff did not see rationale at this point in time for adopting an amendment. It is before the Commission because the Council disagreed with staff. Rationale: Lack of enforcement is not supportive to this ordinance. Vote taken signified ayes by Wuellner, Criego, Loftus and Kuykendall. Nays by Vonhof. MOTION PASSED. Commissioner Kuykendall closed the public hearing. New Business: The Wilds There was a brief discussion on The Wilds issues and its financial affects on the City. Rye explained the worst case would be if they were in a condition where nothing happened for an extended period of time. The City will not be out. The golf course is successful. Commissioner Kuykendall will not be at the next meeting. The workshop is scheduled for March 23, 1995. MOTION BY KUYKENDALL, SECOND BY LOFTUS TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. V ote taken signified ayes by Kuykendall, Loftus, Criego, V onhof and Wuellner. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Don Rye Director of Planning Connie Carlson Recording Secretary MN021296.DOC PAGE 6 f PLANNING REPORT PRESENTER: PUBLIC HEARING: DATE: 2 PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING FENCES IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT R. MICHAEL LEEK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER _X_ YES _NO-N/A FEBRUARY 12, 1996 AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this item is to consider an amendment to Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance 83-6 to add standards for fences in the lake shore setback area of lots in the Shoreland District BACKGROUND: Based on complaints received by the City Council, staff was directed to research whether or not other communities limited fences in the lakeshore setback area. The Building Department staff contacted 13 communities. The results of this survey are set forth in the report to the City Council dated December 4, 1995, a copy of which is attached to this report. At the meeting of the same date, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment consistent with the approach adopted by the City of Maple Grove. The attached draft follows that approach. DISCUSSION: The proposal is to amend the Zoning Ordinance to rewrite Section 6.11E to permit fences within the lake shore setback area, but to limit them to 5 feet in height and "chain link visibility" . ALTERNATIVES: 1. Recommend the City Council approve the amendment as presented. 2. Recommend the City Council approve the amendment with changes directed by the Planning Commission. FENCEPC.OOC 16200 ~le Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ACTION REQUIRED: A motion to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed amendment as written or with changes directed by the Planning Commission. A separate motion to close the public hearing is in order. FENCEPC.DOC RML AGENDA # PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: DATE: INTRODUCTION: STAFF AGENDA REPORT 7B R. MICHAEL LEEK, ASSOCIATE PLANNER GARY STABER, BUILDING OFFICIAL CONSIDER REGULATIONS REGARDING FENCES IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT DECEMBER 4,1995 Some months ago, the City Council was addressed by Linda Wiechert 5455 Shore Trail NE about a fence which had been constructed in the lakeshore setback area. Prior lake does not presently regulate such fences, Staff was directed to contact other communities to determine what, if any, regulations they had related to fences in the lakeshore setback areas, and to prepare a proposed amendment to the ordinance. During the month of October, Jim Davis of the Building Department staff contacted 13 communities to obtain copies of their ordinances related to such fences. What he found is summarized below; City Name No Regulation Fence Regulation Bloomington No fence permitted within the 75' lakeshore setback No fence permitted within the 100' lakeshore setback Deephaven Excelsior Maple Grove x Fences may be located within the lakeshore setback; limited to 5' height and chain link visibility No fence permitted within the 50' lakeshore setback. No fence within 50' lakeshore setback. No fence permitted within the 75' or "average lakeshore setback line" Fence may be located within 50' lakeshore setback, limited to 4' high Mound Minnetrista Orono Shorewood Victoria Waconia Wayzata White Bear Lake Woodland x X X X No fence permitted within 50' lakeshore setback 16200 IfA~.r@feek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake, Minnesota SS:t72-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ANAL YSIS Those ordinances which prohibit fences within the lakeshore setback area are responsive to the intent of the DNR regulation, i.e. the preservation of the visual character of shorelines of Metropolitan Area lakes, as well as the preservation of lakeshore view for riparian property owners. A countervailing interest of riparian property owners on the lake is the security of their property from intrusion. This is probably more significant on Prior Lake, which has a large number of smalllakeshore lots. The establishment of regulations which limit fences in lakeshore yards more than the present zoning ordinance would restrict the ability of owners of such property to control entrance to their properties and to protect their privacy. The City of Prior Lake has a number of lots which were developed prior to the adoption of the original Shoreland regulations. Thus, many of these properties have less than the required 75' setback. In addition, some of those lots have been developed with pools as well. Chapter 4 of the City Code requires 5', non-climbable safety fences around pools. For that reason, it would not be advisable to completely prohibit fences in the lakeshore setback area. If the Council concludes that recent complaint and inquiry is an isolated case, and that fences in the lakeshore setback areas of riparian lots are not a problem, then it would be appropriate to leave the Ordinance unchanged. If the Council concludes that such fences constitute a larger problem, an option would be to permit fences up to 6' in height to within 50' of the shoreline/Ordinary High Water mark (50' is the minimum setback contained in the DNR regulations). Within 50' of the shoreline fences could be limited to 5' in height and 25% opacity. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Accept the staff report as written and find that no ordinance revision is required at this time. 2. Direct preparation of an ordinance revision consistent with City Council findings. 3. Continue or table the matter for additional information or other specific reasons. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative 1, acceptance of the report and no change in the Ordinance regarding fences. ACTION REQUIRED: In the event the City Council selects Alternative 2, a motion directing city staff to prepare a draft ordinance consistent with City Council findings. In the event that the City Council concurs with the staff recommendation, a motion accepting the report as presented. REVIEWED BY: Frank Boyles, City Manager FENCE. DOC 2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO PRIOR LAKE CITY CODE TITLE 5, SECTION 5, AND SECTION 6.11E OF THE PRIOR LAKE ZONING ORDINANCE. You are hereby notified that the Prior Lake Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at Prior lake Fire Station #1, located at 16776 Fish Point Road SE. (Southwest of the intersection of County Road 21 and Fish Point Road), on Monday, February 12, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider an amendment to Section 6.11E: Screenings. The proposed amendment affects the location, height and opacity of fences in the SD - Shoreland District. If you wish to be heard in reference to this item, you should attend the public hearing. Oral and written comments will be considered by the Planning Commission. If you have questions regarding this matter, contact the Planning Department at 447-4230. Prepared this 22nd day of January, 1996 by: R. Michael Leek Associate Planner City of Prior Lake TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRIOR LAKE AMERICAN ON JANUARY 27 AND FEBRUARY 3, 1996. 16200 1!~~.LS.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER