6. Zoning Ordinance Height of Fences and Location of Fences ji
I ,
CITYOF
69.
0
( �� ,o f
/\ .,d
1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
Action by City Administtstol
1 - Endorsed ✓ -�
Iodine
MEMORANDUM • !tortes.. --�-
I Da
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Bite Submitted to Commission
1 FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I Date Submitted �
I DATE: January 20, 1993
SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Amend Section 20 -1023, Height of Fences and
I Section 20 -1019, Location of Fe � ; s. `
Fences are common structures in the City of 1 ' . ,„' sen, often used for screening proposes. In
I regulating fences, the city could determine , ' f fences used, the distance from a property
line, and the height. The current ordinance : ads ollows pertaining to the height of fences:
I Sec. 20 -1023. Any fence over sip d one h. , 6'h) feet must receive a conditional use
permit. The fence height is me 41 red from • ;, d elevation to the highest point on the
fence.
f
I This section does not deal with ■ ation of fences with f; a front yard. Staff believes that this
matter needs some clarificatio taff has recently receiv • i plications for fences to be installed
1 within a front yard setbac , a home. As the ordinance ! now, a home owner could put a
6'/ foot high fenc • ,, N front yard setbacks. This type ' r ence has a visual impact upon a
neighborhood but ' if'‘, _ , : e (nil- • r k' w g i has not been addressed. Many
1 residents reque o , x r ,s alt,it t t -ti 0 , a> yk " - ", t 5: ` ;' ., I ! itt, � of comer lots.
Locating structu ; I, , a front yard setback creates .blind intersectio d blocks sight
distances.
I
The proposed ordinance amendment shall re • , o ows:
' Sec. 204023. Any fence over six and one -h. e' Oh) feet must receive a conditional use permit.
The fence height is measured from ground elevation to the highest point on the fence. All other
I 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
1 shall not exceed 6' feet (see Illustration #1).
rit
1 te PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1 Planning Commission
December 31, 1992
1 Page 2
(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
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
located on corner lots shall be subject to the following provisions:
1 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 60 feet from the intersection measured from the
1 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 61/2 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
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.
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
' The Planning Commission reviewed this ordinance amendment on September 16, 1992. They
tabled the item clue 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
1 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 I
December 31, 1992
Page 3 1
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt a zoning ordinance amendment to Section 1
20.1023, Height of Fences and Section 20 -1019, Location of Fences, as noted above.
1
ATTACHMENTS 1
1. Ordinance amendment.
2. Illustrations #1 and 2. 1
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.
1 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:
Section 1. Section 20 -1019 of the Chanhassen City Code shall hereby be amended by
1 adding the following paragraph:
Wetlands. No fences shall be permitted below the Ordinary High Water Mark of
1 a wetland.
Section 2. Section 20 -1023 of the Chanhassen City Code is hereby amended to read as
1 follows:
1 Any fence over six and one -half (6 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) 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).
1 (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) Comer 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
I 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 6 feet shall
be allowed beyond 60 feet from the intersection measured from the
intersection of extended curb lines. Height within the 60 foot area shall
1 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
1
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. 1
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this _ day of
1993.
•
ATTEST: 1
1
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1993.)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 1
J
r
1 .
I LLUSTRATIONS 1 »•». •
•
' FENCE REGULATIONS
1 •
f
-.1111411 _, .1111111111104 . .
til Nei' •
1 .
., -4411P— . ...:.::.
S iviz '131 ✓•L M a y . •
�l..• r f •� •Jt ..
•
1 ,•,�• . far•. -
,. •;mss -.
•'''" : P 11 .de Yards and Rear Yards
• 1 Front Yates- :� 4144S �:�; •
'' * s•;,
:!.$-.. y : t :if •
COI I OF - - -.._
I No.. •• • *a °Pee • .
N ii :eq. , .. ''' 171,5,:*:. ••• ••■• elk ,.....• .•-•
yam• �-` tt f'�•l `J�••
! •
.?'� : •.,. fit•
.. " . .t...:: : ':+'t .i.�c�..� ;: Ltv. ••Ii� r ti�
' • • .. !. `Sr L 1. ;'� r�; • i it T, t t 'S'• �. •
rya :•1• t` • • ":may.: • :;••�
• ..�
. .• ;.... ttr
Corner L ots.
1
• Planning Commission Meeting
g n ti g
January 6, 1993 - Page 45
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20 -102 HEIG OF FENCES ANII
SECTION 20 -1019. LOCATION OF FENCES.
Ahrens: For the re6ord, I agree with Brian's comments on this.
Batzli: Which ones?
Ahrens: The ones that are in the Minutes. '
Batzli: Oh. I was on a roll. Are you leaving us? Are you going to be
"here next time? '
Ahrens: I hope not. I'm not supposed to be...
Batzli: When will the Council approve our replacements? '
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
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. '
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.
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 i
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. II
1
J
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• rrobably in a good position to make that call. I did have a
regarding the wetlands. Staff is proposing to add the following
rt< ions to regulate fences near wetlands. Doesn't our wetland
' o- ,ance, the new ordinances that we just passed, don't they have no cut
xr.; es 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.
' s: 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?
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
•
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. '
Ledvina: No further comments.
Batzli: Sorry, I was just. '
Ledvina: In the interest of brevity.
Batzli: Okay. Jeff. 1
Farmakes: I have no additional comments to make on this, other than the
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. '
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. '
Krauss: Until they fall down.
Batzli: Well you can repair, right. But if they fall down and they're 1
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. '
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
does, and those types of cots do need the ability to put up larger opaqu'
fences. So if a fence like his is legal, where he can use his backyard,
then.
Conrad: And it is.
1
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.
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
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 ".
1 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
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 62
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.
4. Working hours for the grading operation will be limtied to 7:00 a.m. I
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.
6. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agenc
permits such as Watershed District.
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. '
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20 -1023. HEIGHT OF FENCES Al
SECTION 20 -1019. LOCATION OF FENCES.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, I've got to bring Steve home.
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 to,
help.
Farmakes: Let's get it done. '
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 l(ke
the record to show that there's no one here from the public that wants to'
comment on our Zoning Ordinance Amendment.
Ledvina moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Does anyone have any comments on this?
Ledvina: No.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
11 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
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
1 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
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 64
Farmakes: Would that be an exception to the rule? Could he ask for a
variance?
11
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. 1
Erhart: Well what do you want to do here? I mean do you want to delay
it?
Conrad: Let's table it.
Aanenson: We've tabled it three times and the next agenda will be just II
as crowded.
Batzli: Well but you never got my comments until now. Now you have my I
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 1
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 1
Planning Commission...
Batzli: All because it's along the front yard that's built along the ,
road.
Erhart: Section 20 -1019, location of fences as noted above. ,
Ledvina: I'll second that.
Aanenson: This area right in here, as long as they stay on that '
triangle.
Batzli: Any fence on the front yard setback shall not exceed 3 feet in 1
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 ommission Meeting
9
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.
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.
i
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?
11
Planning Commission Meeting
September 16, 1992 - Page 66
1
Batzli: I don't know.
Aanenson: Or not use it at all? r
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. 1
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? 1
Batzli moved, Erhart seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to
amend Sections 20 -1023 and 10 -1019. All voted in favor and the motion II
carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning
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? 1
Krauss: Southeast.
Farmakes: Any major tenants we should about? 1
Krauss: I don't know of any yet. It's a concept.
1