Laserfiche WebLink
DRAFT <br />to 10:00 pm with all activities stopped and event attendees/staff off the site; and lighting <br />will have to follow City ordinances. <br />M/S/P Smith/Johnston - to table until a version of the ordinance with the Council's <br />modifications included is presented at the May 16, 2006, Council meeting. <br />(Motion passed 4-0) <br />F. Zoning Text Amendment - Fences Standards: Ordinance 97-169 <br />The City Planner reported that the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on <br />April 24, 2006, to consider amendment to the screening provisions of the new fence <br />regulations that would permit residential property owners abutting commercial uses to <br />them, construct fencing that would be effective screening of the adIoining commercial <br />site, The amendment would allow 72 inch screen fencing at theNroperty line where <br />residential property abuts commercial property. He advised the <as written, where a <br />residential lot backs up to commercial zoning or use, all thII yards, behind the home <br />could utilize the property line screen fencing. He <br />recommended adoption of the zoning text amendr <br />Council discussion of the amendment addressed <br />creating a boxy effect. It was concluded that it i <br />fencing along the residential property line It to <br />rather than all three property lines. ,, <br />M/S/P DeLapp/Johnson - to <br />Fence Standards to permit s <br />abut commercial uses only t <br />1 <br />the Ptattning Commission <br />of the whole backyard <br />to only allow screen <br />he commercial zone or use <br />� amending the Zoning Ordinance <br />ial yard where residential properties <br />line. (Motion passed 4-0) <br />The City Planner roorled that the Planning Commission reviewed the existing setback <br />provisions in then and RE districts, and the recommendation by the Planning <br />Commission to make no arnendtzients to those existing standards. <br />M/S/P Smith/Johnston tot\dr7ect staff to proceed with preparing an amendment to the <br />RR zoning district standards to incorporate the RE setback standards. <br />(Motion passed 3-1: Johnson opposed) <br />Council Member Johnson advised that her vote reflects her belief that the existing RR <br />setback standards were adopted to preserve rural character and should be maintained for <br />that reason. She also noted that RR -zoned property owners have relied on the existing <br />standards as they have placed structures on their land, and planned the locations of future <br />structures. <br />LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 2, 2006 <br />