June 6, 2006 CCP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APPROVED MINUTES MAY 16, 2006 to 10:00 pm with all activities stopped and event attendees/staff off the site; and lighting will have to follow City ordinances. M/S/P Smith/Johnston - to table until a version of the ordinance with the Council's modifications included is presented at the May 16, 2006, Council meeting. (Motion passed 4-0) F. Zoning Text Amendment - Fences Standards: Ordinance 97-169 The City Planner reported that the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on April 24, 2006, to consider amendment to the screening provisions of the new fence regulations that would permit residential property owners abutting commercial uses to them, construct fencing that would be effective screening of the adjoining commercial site. The amendment would allow 72 inch screen fencing at the property line where residential property abuts commercial property. He advised that, as written, where a residential lot backs up to commercial zoning or use, all three yards behind the home could utilize the property line screen fencing. He reported that the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the zoning text amendment. Council discussion of the amendment addressed the screening of the whole backyard creating a boxy effect. It was concluded that it would be best to only allow screen fencing along the residential property line that directly abuts the commercial zone or use rather than all three property lines. M/S/P DeLapp/Johnson - to adopt Ordinance 97-169 amending the Zoning Ordinance Fence Standards to permit screen fencing of residential yard where residential properties abut commercial uses only on the common property line. (Motion passed 4-0) The City Planner reported that the Planning Commission reviewed the existing setback provisions in the RR and RE districts, and the recommendation by the Planning Commission to make no amendments to those existing standards. M/S/P Smith/Johnston — to direct staff to proceed with preparing an amendment to the RR zoning district standards to incorporate the RE setback standards. (Motion passed 3-1: Johnson opposed) Council Member Johnson advised that her vote reflects her belief that the existing RR setback standards were adopted to preserve rural character and should be maintained for that reason. She also noted that RR -zoned property owners have relied on the existing standards as they have placed structures on their land, and planned the locations of future structures. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 2, 2006 8