Loading...
1h. Zoning Amendment for fences >i .4. CITYOF 1 00, CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Action by City Administrator 1 Endorsed ✓ DwfY MEMORANDUM Modified. Rej ecte d._._ 1 Date__ 1� TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Bats Submitted to Commission FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I Date Submitted to Co sa 1 DATE: March 1, 1993. t S 1 SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20 -1023, Height of Fences; and Section 20 -1019, Location of Fences, Second and Final Reading. 1 On February 8, 1993, the City Council reviewed a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20 -1023, Height of Fences and Section 20 -1019, Location of Fences. Questions were I raised regarding the height of fences in front yards. Some Council members felt that fences should be permitted within a front yard setback, provided they do not encroach into sight triangles. Others commented that they disliked fences in general. Staff was directed to contact I other communities in the area to find out their regulations pertaining to fences. The following cities were contacted: 1 CITY HEIGHT OF FENCES 1 Eden Prairie No permit required. Fence may not exceed 6 feet. I Bloomington No permit required. Fence may not exceed 6 feet. 1 Eagan No permit required. Fence may not exceed 6 feet. Requires a 30- foot sight triangle. 1 Maple Grove Permit required. Fence may not exceed 3.5 feet in height when in the front yard, and must be considered decorative and not chain I link fence. Fences located in a side or rear yard may not exceed 6 feet. 1 1 v s 1g PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 Mr. Don Ashworth March 1, 1993 1 Page 2 Plymouth Permit required, but no fee. Fences in a front yard may not exceed 1 3 feet. A fence may not exceed 6 feet in side and rear yards. Requires a 20 -foot sight triangle. 1 Maplewood No permit required. Fence may not exceed 6 feet. 1 Brooklyn Park Permit required if the fence exceeds 4 feet in height. If fence is 4 feet or less in height, then it may be placed anywhere on the property. Fences over 4 feet must maintain a 20 -foot setback from 1 the right -of -way. Requires 30 -foot clear view. I All cities surveyed indicated that they do not allow fences within the sight triangle area of a corner lot; however, the height of the fence permitted within a front yard setback varies. Maple Grove, Plymouth, and Brooklyn Park have ordinances similar to what staff is proposing. We also I discovered that all cities require a maximum of 30 foot sight triangle rather than the 60 foot proposed by staff. We were informed that a 30 foot sight triangle works efficiently, and that a 60 foot might be excessive. Based upon the forgoing we have amended the proposed ordinance 1 to require a 30 foot sight triangle measured from the intersection of extended lot lines. There are two separate issues at hand. The first is a safety issue. The proposed ordinance I amendment will prohibit fences from being located within sight triangles on corner lots, which in turn will provide safer streets. I The second issue is of an aesthetic nature. Six foot high fences can look obtrusive and form barriers if located in the front yards of interior lots. Limiting the height to 3 or 4 feet will lend a softer look, yet still provide some privacy. I Staff continues to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment as shown in the staff recommendation. This amendment is consistent with setbacks policy normally implemented by 1 staff. It allows 6 foot high fences on the rear and side yards yet prevent them from being located within a sight triangle. 1 RECOMMENDATION I Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt a Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section 20.1023, Height of Fences; and Section 20 -1019, Location of Fences, as follow: I Sec. 20 -1023. Any fence over six and one -half (61/2) feet must receive a conditional use permit. The fence height is measured from ground elevation to the highest point on the fence. All other residential fences shall meet the following standards: 1 1 M o r. Don Ashworth March 1, 1993 1 Page 3 (1) Side Yards and Rear Yards. In any side or rear yard on lots, the height of fences 1 shall not exceed 61/2 feet (see Illustration #1). (2) Front Yards. Fences in required front yards shall be allowed provided that solid I type fences shall not exceed 3 feet in height, and open mesh type fences (for example, chain link fences), shall not exceed 4 feet in height. (3) Corner Lots. In addition to the other provisions contained in this section, fences 1 located on corner lots shall be subject to the following provisions: A. Any fence, wall and /or hedge on the front yard setback shall not exceed 1 3 feet in height if opaque construction, or 4 feet in height if open construction. 1 B. In the side yard setback which fronts on a street, height up to 61/2 feet shall be allowed beyond 30 feet from the intersection measured from the I intersection of extended lot lines. Height within the 30 foot area shall conform to the requirements of a front yard setback (see Illustration #2). C. Heights on the interior side yard setback shall not exceed 6 feet. I The Fence Ordinance also fails to address the location of fences in relation to wetlands. Section 20 -1019. Location reads as follows: All fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the fence owner unless the owner 1 of the adjoining property agrees, in writing, that said fence may be erected on the property line of the respective properties. Such an agreement shall be submitted at the time of building permit application. 1 Staff is proposing to add the following regulation to regulate fences near wetlands: , Wetlands. No fences shall be permitted below the Ordinary High Water Mark of a wetland. 1 ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Proposed Ordinance amendment. 2. City Council minutes dated February 8, 1993. 3. Staff report dated January 20, 1993. 1 1 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF FENCES 1 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: ' Section 1. Section 20 -1019 of the Chanhassen City Code shall hereby be amended by adding the following paragraph: I Wetlands. No fences shall be permitted below the Ordinary High Water Mark of a wetland. Section 2. Section 20 -1023 of the Chanhassen City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 1 Any fence over six and one -half (61/2) feet must receive a conditional use permit. The fence height is measured from ground elevation to the highest point on the fence. All other residential fences shall meet the following standards: (1) Side Yards and Rear Yards. In any side or rear O Y and on lots, the height of fences yard not exceed 61/2 feet (see Illustration #1). (2) Front Yards. Fences in required front provided that solid yards shall be allowed O q Y P type fences shall not exceed 3 feet in height and open mesh type fences (ierew .exams chain link fences), shall not exceed feet in height. ' (3) Corner Lots. In addition to the other provisions contained in this section, fences located on corner lots shall be subject to the following provisions: a. Any fence, wall and /or hedge on the front yard setback shall not exceed 3 feet in height if opaque construction, or 4 feet in height if open construction. b. In the side yard setback which fronts on a street, height up to 61/2 feet shall be allowed beyond 30 feet from the intersection measured from the intersection of extended lot lines. Height within the 30 foot area shall conform to the requirements of a front yard setback (see Illustration #2). c. Heights on the interior side yard setback shall not exceed 6 feet. 1 1 Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its and publication. 1 P on passage a g PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this day of , 1 1993. ATTEST: 1 1 Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor i (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1993.) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 11 • ILLOSTRA 'IONS 1 la . 1 FENCE REGULATIONS I ...... 000iimmiiiimi .. f - 'qlegall0v - •••""••••,..., • • .....•.•.•7• •.••• Zi :Z EZZI . .....!::::..ikr 1-- '•�' ., . •• ::�s, - rn. )ide Yards and Rear Yards. 1 Front Yrdas. - ::'' r« .•tom••• C . 4t:•. - I -'1.14111 ., _LIIIMIlm 1 .10 111111 M - - - - ----- NN :....;.::::::::::::::. ... • ... ., .. ;.:14...,.. .. - q..44. .... ill No... ipliiiiiii,..-:.... II 1: :::1 .,:v.. _._ .1...... % ....,. ...a fi t'. .„..,,, .7 : ..e, .,, ck P.. ..* . .......• .. :: ' .j 010i t. r : • "% : f or•I•re.i...0. 1 :Witi • t?•03, . O ;;;... • iR S •: N •J.. f , j.. ■ • .! 11. '' - A.T. . • L 0.0..*'' Corner Lots. • 1 1 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 1 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND CITY CODE, SECTION 18 -37, EXEMPTIONS II CONCERNING SUBDIVISIONS, FIRST READING. Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to take a quick position on this before we have much II discussion. Councilman Mason: Can we quote the City Manager? II Mayor Chmiel: As I would quote the City Manager's comment, I would suggest that this be dropped. Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's not quoting. II Mayor Chmiel: Well I didn't want to say that because I used to work for a II utility company. Councilman Senn: And they might think something's coming to Chanhassen, right? II Councilman Wing: I would like to second that. Councilman Senn: Now does that mean then that we don't do this? , Mayor Chmiel: That's right. End of discussion. If hearing none, I'll call the question. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Did we have a motion? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, I made the motion. II Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to deny Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the City Code, Section 18 -37, Exemptions Concerning Subdivisions. All II voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20 -1023, HEIGHT OF FENCES; AND SECTION 20 -1019, LOCATION OF FENCES, FIRST READING. Sharmin Al -Jaff: Fences are common structures in this city. The fence ordinance, as it stands right now does not deal with the location of fences II within a front yard. There is a safety issue that needs to be addressed. Many times when we locate fences within a sight triangle, we create blind intersections and this is what this ordinance is going to try to accomplish. As II far as side yards and rear yards, the ordinance stays as is. As far as front yards, we're requesting that the height not exceed 3 feet if it's a solid fence and 4 feet with mesh fences. With corner lots we're requesting that within the sight triangle the height of the fence not exceed 3 feet in height if opaque and II 4 if solid. With side yards, the 6 1/2 feet remains. And again, there's another section in the ordinance that does not address fences within wetlands. We are recommending that no fences be permitted below the ordinary high water II mark of a wetland. With that we're recommending approval of the ordinance. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. You know I look at these 6 1/2 foot fences, I II think we're either building a substation fence to keep people out so they don't 43 II II II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 get hurt, or we're creating a stockade. Just my own opinion. But 6 1/2 feet, anything at 6 1/2 feet must receive a conditional use permit, as it's indicated. Councilman Senn: Don, could I help you out? II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, go ahead. Councilman Senn: Could I help you out on that? I have a real problem with that representation, and everything I see here is that representation. Ordinances like this should be a guideline, not necessarily just a hard set of, you know hard and set bunch of rules. I can think of a lot of nice front yard II situations, even where people maybe have 10 feet on a cul -de -sac if they're lucky, that would look beautiful with a 6 1/2 wrought iron fence with brick columns and we're saying gee, you shouldn't do that. Or you can't do that. I Fencing isn't all just stockades and solid. I mean there's a lot of other types of fencing that are open, and I'd really like to see us visualize it in that sense and look at this as a set of guidelines rather than a set of absolutes which simply says all 6 1/2 foot fencing is bad. Mayor Chmiel: Let me clarify that just to add more. I don't like fences. Amen. II Councilman Senn: Well, some of us who want to adhere to city ordinances that have, let's see what do I have now. Two dogs, two cats. II Mayor Chmiel: I'd adhere to the city ordinance because I wouldn't put one up. Councilman Senn: No, no, but you know you've got to confine your animals. Councilman Wing: ...Carver Beach that are really awkward that in the low 50's, do what you want to do. Councilman Mason: Now wait. Now wait just a minute. I Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question about that too. Whether we do have any leeway in determining what fences can be made of. That's more my concern than where they're located. II Mayor Chmiel: Well, we're concerned with intersections so they're not blocking so access can occur. I Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh granted. I'm saying in addition, can we also look at building material because I guess I agree. I don't like fences. Councilman Senn: If again, if the type of fence could be constructed which wouldn't adversely effect it. Mayor Chmiel: Sharmin, tell us where this came from. II Sharmin Al -Jaff: We've had several applications. When people apply for fencing and we don't have anyway of telling them no, you can't put the fence for II instance in a sight line area, or I believe there was a house that burned down 44 11 City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 1 on Lake Riley. They came in and they requested a 6 1/2 foot fence surrounding the property just to keep anyone from coming in to their property. Mayor Chmiel: 6 1/2 foot of chainlink fence with 1 foot of barb. Sharmin Al -Jaff: It was a solid fence that they requested. Paul Krauss: We do prohibit barbwire fences. That's the only thing. But you know, there's really two issues. The issue that concerns us most is the sight triangle. The second one that neighbors have asked us to intervene on and we've kind of punted usually is when your neighbor throws a 6 foot high fence around his or her front yard, your yard is boxed in. And if you drive down the street, all these 30 foot front yards that we've set aside to turn into 6 foot boulevards and a fence. Now, we weren't so much trying to get at the aesthetic issue with this ordinance. More the safety issue but some communities want to address the, I mean a lot of communities just prohibit fences in the front yard unless it's split rail or something like that. Totally. We haven't gotten real hung up on the aesthetics of it but it clearly matters to a lot of folks who call us. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, based on my years of experience on the Council, the time to really get orgainzed if you don't like this, is to fight it on the second to sway the Council. The first reading, I think this is needed and necessary and a good idea and I'll move the first reading. Then if you want to fight it, hit it on the second meeting but have your eggs in order. , Mayor Chmiel: Sounds like a winner. Is there a second? Councilman Mason: He's a man with emotion today. I'll second that. , Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Councilman Senn: Can I offer a friendly amendment, just to see if it works? If you eliminate the reference to the height in the front yard. Councilman Wing: They've restricted it to 3 1/2 feet. I don't see it here. No, I think that's the whole issue is the front yard. Councilman Senn: At least with sight angles as it relates to intersections. 1 Councilman Wing: This is trying to accomplish that. No. I tell you, you research that issue and if necessary on the second reading I'll be happy to take that as a second. Because it's worth looking into since then because the way it stands, I happen to like the restrictions. You're saying it might be higher in some cases? 1 Councilman Senn: Well Dick, what I'm saying is I don't like solid fences in the front yard anymore than what he's talking about but again, that's not the same situation for everybody. I mean front yards, you can have a front yard like I do which borders on nothing but back yards. I don't have any front yards bordering me. And at the same time, I've got 20 feet on the cul -de -sac and that's it. Now if a person wants to put up a fence in his front yard in a situation like that, where most of his yard, by the way is the front yard, not 45 ' 1 II City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993 il the back yard. And it's open fencing. See that's where I come around to and it's something that makes sense like open fencing. II Councilman Wing: We have a committee that I sit on that meets at 7:00 before Council meetings that would be happy to hear your request for that variance. III I Councilnian Senn: Is this the sitting on the fence committee now, like the SWMP committee? Sharmin Al -Jaff: Would you like us to survey cities? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, why don't you do that. I think that would be a good idea, just to see what other cities are basically doing. 1 Councilman Senn: That doesn't mean they're right necessarily. I Councilman Wing: ...yeah, in your case we do have a real good procedure for that and I would never hesitate to give you that fence on a variance, if that was the case. I happen to like this ordinance. I'll stand on the ordinance then. 1 Mayor Chmiel: I'll call the question. 1 Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the first reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20 -1023, Height of Fences, and Section 20 -1019, Location of Fences as presented by staff. All voted in favor except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. 1 DISCUSS POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6921 YUMA DRIVE, CARVER III BEACH, FOR STORMWATER PURPOSES. 1 Public Present: II Name Address Russell Norum 3264 North Shore Drive, Wayzata Margaret Rossing 130 Cygnet Place, Long Lake II Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor. You'll recall this came up at your last meeting. This was. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Paul. I'd like to make a motion that we acquiesce that property. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would second it. Mayor Chmiel: Because I think it's going to be in the best interest of the city. Rather than going through a lot of discertation, I think we can find the 1 money, as was indicated, and I think we would eliminate a lot of given problems and concerns. And also improve the quality of that flow going into Lotus Lake. I Councilman Mason: I'd like to second that. Just from personal experience, someone builds a house down there, I can see the lawsuits coming down the road. With the fact, well I second the motion. 1 46 1 f,., CITYOF _ r i 0BANBAssEN , III 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 t I (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 Acik+n by GIN Administrate dc; x—.___ ---% 1 idi rk. , -, - _.._.__...__.- -- MEMORANDUM Reek -r_. ___ r,c�„ scion TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager "" ' ' - t, t t „ Cnu -. FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I ` .:Z_ ..; 2---- ._.. DATE: January 20, 1993 SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20 -1023, Height of Fences and Section 20 -1019, Location of Fences. I Fences are common structures in the City of Chanhassen, often used for screening proposes. In regulating fences, the city could determine the type of fences used, the distance from a property line, and the height. The current ordinance reads as follows pertaining to the height of fences: Sec. 20 -1023. Any fence over six and one -half (61/2) feet must receive a conditional use I permit. The fence height is measured from ground elevation to the highest point on the fence. This section does not deal with the location of fences within a front yard. Staff believes that this I matter needs some clarification. Staff has recently received applications for fences to be installed within a front yard setback of a home. As the ordinance reads now, a home owner could put a I 6' foot high fence within front yard setbacks. This type of fence has a visual impact upon a neighborhood but more importantly there is safety issue that has not been addressed. Many residents request the placement of fences or hedges within the front yard setback of corner lots. I Locating structures within a front yard setback creates blind intersections and blocks sight distances. The proposed ordinance amendment shall read as follows: Sec. 20 -1023. Any fence over six and one -half (61/2) feet must receive a conditional use permit. 1 The fence height is measured from ground elevation to the highest point on the fence. All other residential fences shall meet the following standards: (1) Side Yards and Rear Yards. In any side or rear yard on lots, the height of fences shall not exceed 6' feet (see Illustration #1). is 1 m � � � PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 Planning Commission December 31, 1992 I Page 2 (2) Front Yards. Fences in required front yards shall be allowed provided that solid I type fences shall not exceed 3 feet in height, and open mesh type fences (for example, chain link fences), shall not exceed 4 feet in height. I (3) Corner Lots. In addition to the other provisions contained in this section, fences located on corner lots shall be subject to the following provisions: l A. Any fence, wall and/or hedge on the front yard setback shall not exceed 3 feet in height if opaque construction, or 4 feet in height if open construction. I B. In the side yard setback which fronts on a street, height up to 6' feet shall be allowed beyond 60 feet from the intersection measured from the I intersection of extended curb lines. Height within the 60 foot area shall conform to the requirements of a front yard setback (see Illustration #2). 1 C. Heights on the interior side yard setback shall not exceed 6' feet. The Fence Ordinance also fails to address the location of fences in relation to wetlands. Section 1 20 -1019. Location reads as follows: All fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the fence owner unless the owner I of the adjoining property agrees, in writing, that said fence may be erected on the property line of the respective properties. Such an agreement shall be submitted at the I time of building permit application. Staff is proposing to add the following regulation to regulate fences near wetlands: 1 Wetlands. No fences shall be permitted below the Ordinary High Water Mark of a wetland. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION I The Planning Commission reviewed this ordinance amendment on September 16, 1992. They tabled the item due to language that would have eliminated fences from corner lot front yards completely. Chairman Batzli indicated that not allowing fences on corner lot front yards would I deprive the home owner from privacy because corner lots have two front yards and no rear yard. Staff revised the ordinance to allow up to 6' foot high fences within a front yard setback with the exception of the sight triangle. The Planning Commission reviewed the item again on 1 January 6, 1993, and recommended approval of the ordinance amendment. 1 1 1 Planning Commission December 31, 1992 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt a zoning ordinance amendment to Section 20.1023, Height of Fences and Section 20 -1019, Location of Fences, as noted above. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance amendment. 2. Illustrations #1 and 2. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated January 6, 1993. 4. Planning Commission minutes dated September 16, 1992. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. I AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, ZONING ORDINANCE 1 CONCERNING HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF FENCES 1 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: I Section 1. Section 20 -1019 of the Chanhassen City Code shall hereby be amended by adding the following paragraph: I Wetlands. No fences shall be permitted below the Ordinary High Water Mark of a wetland. I Section 2. Section 20 -1023 of the Chanhassen City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: I Any fence over six and one -half (61/2) feet must receive a conditional use permit. The fence height is measured from ground elevation to the highest point on the fence. All other residential fences shall meet the following standards: I (1) Side Yards and Rear Yards. In any side or rear yard on lots, the height of fences shall not exceed 61/2 feet (see Illustration #1). I (2) Front Yards. Fences in required front yards shall be allowed provided that solid type fences shall not exceed 3 feet in height, and open mesh type fences (for 1 example, chain link fences), shall not exceed 4 feet in height. (3) Corner Lots. In addition to the other provisions contained in this section, fences 1 located on corner lots shall be subject to the following provisions: a. Any fence, wall and /or hedge on the front yard setback shall not exceed 1 3 feet in height if opaque construction, or 4 feet in height if open construction. 1 b. In the side yard setback which fronts on a street, height up to 61/2 feet shall be allowed beyond 60 feet from the intersection measured from the I intersection of extended curb lines. Height within the 60 foot area shall conform to the requirements of a front yard setback (see Illustration #2). I c. Heights on the interior side yard setback shall not exceed 6 feet. 1 1 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. 1 Section y p p g p PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this _ day of , 1 1993. ATTEST: 1 1 Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 1 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1993.) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 II r 1 . ILLCSTRA;IONS I io, . 1 ' FENCE REGULATIONS I i —"IIIIIIIIIIIII . C . " 1 ���::.�;:: %I • I . -.4::." iN 4.... y t.•., .., • 11 , 1111111•vvit., : .• .. ., .. E;) Front Yom- %., " ::: : : ` ' �. �ide Yards and Rear Yards. III 4' . t � :. ' •4 . I 411111411 II Iry i .::,:i .....::::i..::::::::. ':: is � � ri!•.r': . • t$t�: j. ;i:;3 .,••.' � «b•; nil:•.. ►.' ! fl :. ..... ; • • • 0. 4. AZ.,-.1; •tet �4 .4.0' N A x''004' • M� 4 • :.t;•�R .141.111:..5 M rri•�y�/ tom: k Corner Lots. 1 • 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 45 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-1023. HEIGHT OF FENCES ANCr SECTION 20 -1019. LOCATION OF FENCES. Ahrens: For the record, I agree with Brian's comments on this. 1 Batzli: Which ones? Ahrens: The ones that are in the Minutes. 1 Batzli: Oh. I was on a roll. Are you leaving us? Are you going to be here next time? 1 Ahrens: I hope not. I'm not supposed to be... Batzli: When will the Council approve our replacements? 1 Krauss: I'm going to try and get on their Monday meeting. Emmings: I'm going too. Batzli: Okay. So we're losing our two departing persons, never to be ji seen again. I feel like we should say something...Well come visit us fo crying out loud and I move that the Planning Commission recommends good things to these departing personnel. Conrad: Well, good things to Joan. I think Steve deserves what he gets. Sharmin Al - Jaff presented the staff report on this item. � Batzli: Did you look at the fence across from me in Fox Hollow? Al -Jaff: Yes I did. 1 Batzli: And would that conform to your new ordinance? Al -Jaff: Yes it would. Batzli: Because it doesn't encroach the 60 foot? ' Al -Jaff: Correct. And when I read the Minutes, I understood that that was the only issue. 1 Batzli: Well I didn't like it. That was just my one that I could think of immediately. I'm trying to think of another while we sit here. Is that it Sharmin? Thank you. Is there any other public comment? Seeing" that the room is bare. Ledvina moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted ill favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Ladd, lead off. Conrad: No, I'd rather wait to hear your comments. I'm okay with it. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 46 Batzli: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: I would defer to the staff on this. I' don't have a lot of experience in this and if they think it's a safety issue, I think that they're probably in a good position to make that call. I did have a question regarding the wetlands. Staff is proposing to add the following regulations to regulate fences near wetlands. Doesn't our wetland ordinance, the new ordinances that we just passed, don't they have no cut zones and like 50 feet or something and requirements prohibiting fences and all that? Or am I wrong in that? Krauss: I honestly don't remember Matt. We should double check but I think if that's the case, then we have two parts of the ordinance that are at odds somewhat with one another. Ledvina: Yeah. I don't know what the specific requirements are but I do seem to remember discussion of fences. Krauss: I don't remember. We may have. I know we've had issues in the past with people building fences... Ledvina: Right. Does anybody else recall that? ' Batzli: I'm not clear what clause you're talking about in the wetlands ordinance. Which one? 11 Ledvina: Well a clause that would prohibit the construction of fences at the ordinary high water mark, or whatever. I think there was some kind of setback that we had from that level or. Batzli: Well there's a buffer and we said you can't do a lot of things in there but I don't know if that included a fence. We said you can't cut. You can't mow. You can't dump. You can't spill. I don't think we ever said you can't build a fence. Ledvina: I may be wrong in that but. Krauss: We can double check and if it's redundant, we'll drop it. Ledvina: It's a good consideration certainly. Batzli: Do we have any wetlands inside of pasture areas left in the city? Krauss: Sure. Batzli: Any that border a pasture? Krauss: I don't know. I haven't walked all the farm areas of the city. We don't have that much open pasture left. Batzli: I just, you need an L shaped fence going into a water thing to turn back a cow. I mean you have to have a fence up to the ordinary high 1 • 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 47 water mark and you have to go in there because cows can swim and they go , around the fence. Krauss: I could be wrong but I believe we only have 1 or 2 operations left that have cows. 1 Ledvina: No further comments. Batzli: Sorry, I was just. Ledvina: In the interest of brevity. Batzli: Okay. Jeff. Farmakes: I have no additional comments to make on this, other than thell wetlands issue that was brought up. Batzli: So you like this? Well okay, my pasture one didn't work. What's, in your definition of front yards, or in paragraph 2. Fences in required front yards. Should that word required be in there? Krauss: It should just say front yard. Eliminate the required. 1 Batzli: Now do we allow, we still allow under this ordinance that it be built within the setback area right? ' Al - Jaff: Correct. Batzli: Now what do we do with existing fences that don't conform to this or hedges or whatever we do? I mean whatever. What happens to? Al -Jaff: They're grandfathered in. 1 Krauss: Until they fall down. Batzli: Well you can repair, right. But if they fall down and they're II gone for a year and then you try to rebuild, that's when you get in trouble. So we would enforce this at the permit level but most people don't come in to get permits to plant hedges I would imagine. 1 Krauss: When you become aware of... Batzli: If I could delay this until next summer, I could put in a coull" more bushes. Conrad: You're going to beat this one to death. 1 Batzli: Yeah, okay. Well, I think that this is okay as song as a fence like by neighbor has is legal under this ordinance because I think he II does, and those types of lots do need the ability to put up larger opaquil fences. So if a fence like his is legal, where he can use his backyard, then. Conrad: And it is. 11 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1993 - Page 48 Batzli: Yeah, it is. Then I guess this, it's intrusive but there is a valid safety issue with the sight lines at intersections and I think that's what we're taking care of. Ladd, do you want to make any other comments? Conrad: No. Batzli: Okay. But I still believe it is intrusive and I wouldn't want to do it other than if there were real safety concerns. I think this is kind of, we're making it for ourselves. There's other bigger issues that we could tackle. Al -Jaff: We're really not changing that much from what is in the ordinance right now, other than the sight triangles. Batzli: Well, we've allowed fences, higher fences up through the sight triangles before, as I understand it. 11 Krauss: There have been no regulations prohibiting. Batzli: Right. But we're adding that and I'm just in, in a small PUD situation is where I'm more concerned about it than anything else. If somebody's got a big yard, it doesn't matter too much. But in a smaller 11 lot setting, you can't use a lot of your yard potentially. You put in a dinky lot like that guy's got across the street, and it sold right away though. He put it on the market, a week later. So some people like them. I don't know. Anyway, is there a motion? Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20 -1023, Height of Fences, and Section 20 -1019, Location of Fences, as noted above with modification to item number 2 of the first line. Delete the word "required ". Batzli: Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. Batzli: Okay, any discussion? Just to go on record, and you guys are going to look at how this pertains to the wetlands stuff that's already in there? Krauss: Yes. Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20 -1023, Height of Fences and Section 20 -1019, Location of Fences, amended in item number 2, Front Yards, first line, deleting the word "required'. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 62 1 2. The applicant shall show on the plan location of topsoil and poor soil stockpiles. 3. The haul route for material to and from the site shall be limited to Trunk Highway 5 and County Road 17. Construction trucks and vehicles" shall access the site at approved rock construction entrance only. The applicant will be required to maintain haul route clean of dirt and mud, etc. 1 4. Working hours for the grading operation will be limtied to 7 :00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru Saturday with no work occurring on holidays. 5. The applicant shall submit an administrative fee and letter of credit prior to commencement of grading operations. 1 6. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits such as Watershed District. 1 7. The entire site shall be restored and seeded by no later than November 15, 1992. 8. The City shall inspect the site before grading begins to ensure preservation of the trees and location of snow fences. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20 -1023, HEIGHT OF FENCES ANDI SECTION 20 -1019, LOCATION OF FENCES. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, I've got to bring Steve home. 1 Emmings: You know, we could make a motion on this next one. Aanenson: We've got a big agenda next week too so tabling's not going toll help. Farmakes: Let's get it done. 1 Erhart: I move it. Krauss: Could you also open and close the public hearing. Batzli: This is a public hearing? I open the public hearing. I'd lfke the record to show that there's no one here from the public that wants toll comment on our Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in" favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Does anyone have any comments on this? 1 Ledvina: No. 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 63 Batzli: I have comments on this. I hate this. I don't think it's necessary. I don't know why we're doing it. I'm going to vote against it. Anybody else have any comments? Erhart: Why did we start this? Emmings: You hate this? ' Batzli: I live on a corner lot. I don't like it. Emmings: You want people to build 6 foot fences in their front yards? Batzli: I don't care if they do. Erhart: What initiated this ordinance review? Aanenson: We've had people request to do that. Krauss: Over the years it's caused us problems. People have blocked sight lines. We never had any regulations about it. People have asked questions about it. Batzli: Look at the guy across the street from me in a PUD that has about a 10 foot, you know he's as close to the road as he can be. He 1! needs a fence and this wouldn't allow him to do it and you're asking him to sit in the middle of the road on corner lots in a PUD when they've got a small lot. Erhart: He bought the lot. Batzli: Well yeah. Mr. Liberal. I think this is totally unnecessary. If they're going to do it, they're gonna do it on a case by case basis. If you want a personal attack. I think this is intrusive. It's unnecessary. If we're going to do it, we should limit it a little bit more to close to the intersection or whatever you're really trying to protect here. The sideyard of a corner lot in a PUD, well what in essence would be a sideyard but it's sometimes a front yard, I think this is too intrusive into that. If you guys want to go look at a fence before we act on this, I would encourage it. To go look at the fence right across from me on Fox Hollow Drive and take a look. See if you hate that fence. It's more than 3 feet. And it's necessary for him to use his back yard at all. He has no back yard other than the area that's protected by the fence. Otherwise he's minimum distance away from the other house. Minimum distance. Emmings: This doesn't prevent him from building in his back yard... Batzli: It would be along what's considered the front yard because it's a front yard on a corner lot is on too many sides. Aanenson: You have two fronts, yeah. Batzli: He's got two fronts. He would not have any area of his yard that I think would, he would have any privacy in under this ordinance. 1 5 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 64 Farmakes: Would that be an exception to the rule? Could he ask for a variance? 1 Conrad: I think you should tell the home audience that it's Steve's anniversary tonight. Batzli: It's Steve's 25th anniversary and we aren't going to let him go. Conrad: It's 5 minutes to 11:00 and he's dead. Erhart: Well what do you want to do here? I mean do you want to delay it? 1 Conrad: Let's table it. Aanenson: We've tabled it three times and the next agenda will be just I as crowded. Batzli: Well but you never got my comments until now. Now you have my II comments. Now you know what you have to take care of. Go look at Chip Brown's house, right across from me. I don't know what it is 151 Fox Hollow. Whatever it is. Look at his yard and you tell me how he could 11 have any privacy without building the big fence? Ledvina: That's an existing? Batzli: But you're putting PUD's in all over the place with the minimum of 10,000 square feet. We have to cover this issue. On a small lot where the guy's got a house right on his side. He's got two front yards" The only thing he's got is this little piece of back yard that needs to be fenced. Erhart: Okay, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend. , Emmings: Did he build this fence after you moved in? That's all. Erhart: Could you get some control over the audience? I more that the Planning Commission... Batzli: All because it's along the front yard that's built along the 1 road. Erhart: Section 20 -1019, location of fences as noted above. r Ledvina: I'll second that. Aanenson: This area right in here, as long as they stay on that 11 triangle. Batzli: Any fence on the front yard setback shall not exceed 3 feet in II height. That's the ordinance. That's the wording. Emmings: This is a corner lot right here. Here's the example. This is!! his rear yard. This is his front yard. This is his side yard. Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 65 Batzli: No, his rear yard is to the back projection of the picture. All the way up. Yeah, that's his back yard. He has 10 feet on the side. 15 feet on the back where you're saying his back yard is. Aanenson: He's got the side yard. This is his back. Batzli: That's his side yard. The way you've got it drawn because the road is going on the right and on the left in that V. Aanenson: What that reflects is the sight distance so you can see. That's what that line is. Batzli: Isn't that where the road is? Aanenson: Yeah. Batzli: Okay, then I'm saying is, is the only part of his yard that you can do anything in is part of the front yard? Aanenson: Outside of the sight triangle. Batzli: This is front yard and that's front yard. His only part that he has that he can do anything in is back here. There's a house on this side. So if he, his fence sits right here. That's what he's got fenced 6 feet so that he's got a deck in his back yard so he doesn't sit on his deck and watch all the cars go by all day long. And this would be considered front yard. He could not put the fence up. That's the 3 foot fence that he's got that he needs in this configuration. Krauss: I think we've got to continue it now. Well, you still have a quorum. 1 Batzli: I'm just going to vote against it. You guys can vote. You'll have a majority. Erhart: Do you have an understanding. Does Brian understand what you're proposing? Krauss: I don't know but if you want to continue it. Batzli: The ordinance clearly says, in a corner lot you can't have anything higher than 3 feet in height if opaque. He's got an opaque fence. He needs it. Erhart: Are we doing something here we don't want to do? Batzli: No, I'm saying that if we've got small corner lots, and you're tucked up against the house on one side, which you're going to do in a 10,000 square foot lot, you're going to have one area that's useable as a yard in those situations. And this will not allow those people to have any privacy in their one little part of their yard. Aanenson: So you're asking us to look at those small lots and come up with some different language? 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 16, 1992 - Page 66 11 Batzli: I don't know. Aanenson: Or not use it at all? 1 Batzli: I don't know. Erhart: I guess I don't understand. I mean this guy's got his, he's set back 30 feet and he's got a whole back yard there. Aanenson: He's saying in those instances where people don't have that. II Batzli: Well I don't know. Erhart: If you have a specfic example. Batzli: He can't be pulled 30 feet back to have the 6 1/2 foot, I know II he can't get that. But anyway. Maybe I'm wrong. Go look at this lot and tell me that this meets the ordinance, because I think something like that's reasonable. If we're going to allow real small, dinky lots like that. Anybody have any changes to the Minutes? Aanenson: So it was tabled? Batzli: Yeah, we're tabling it unless somebody wants to bring up a motion? Erhart: You didn't hear a motion did you? 1 Batzli: Okay, we closed the public hearing. All in favor of tabling say' aye? Batzli moved, Erhart seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to II amend Sections 20 -1023 and 10 -1019. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning II Commission meeting dated September 2, 1992. ONGOING ITEMS. Batzli: Are there any items that we need to be looking at? Krauss: Oh yeah, we do have probably our biggest development the city II ever had. 190 acre office /industrial park at the corner of TH 5 and TH 41. PUD concept plan is on your next agenda. Farmakes: Which corner? , Krauss: Southeast. Farmakes: Any major tenants we should about? Krauss: I don't know of any yet. It's a concept. 1 City Council Meeting - January 25, 1993 Resolution 193 - 05: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize the consulting engineering firm of Bonestroo to prepare the feasibility study for Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Utility Improvement Project $91 -17B conditioned that the City receive a security of $200.00 in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. The appropriate cost splits have been established based on land area of the three petitioners involved and they have been established at the Carlson property - $800.00, the O'Shaughnessy property - $2`,700.00 and Gateway Business Partnership /Opus - $3,700.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20 -1023. HEIGHT OF FENCES AND SECTION 20 -1019. LOCATION OF FENCES. FIRST READING. Councilman Senn: Mayor, before we get into this and...I'm certainly willing to go with whatever the Council's pleasure is but having just got this and having about 100 questions and a number of concerns on it, I really would like some time to maybe visit with staff, which I haven't had the opportunity to do, since we got the packets and would like to go into some discussion in detail on this. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Rather than, it has to go through two readings on this. If you so choose, we could move first reading on it and still have discussions with concerns related to whatever it might be. I had my little question mark there too. But I'd like to do some discussions on this. Councilman Senn: You know if this is a significant issue whether we go with this or not and as one that's going to. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 6 1/2 feet to me seems like a stockade. Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don. Don Ashworth: It doesn't hurt anything? There's no applicant that's lined up. Paul Krauss: Oh no. No. ' Don Ashworth: So if we table it for 2 weeks, 4 weeks, whatever, it's not a problem. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn: I'd like to move that we table it for a few weeks. Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20 -1023, Height of Fences, and Section 20 -1019, Location of Fences, for further review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 42 1