HomeMy WebLinkAbout#26 Fence Ordinance Solid Wall FencesMAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
DATE: 9/20/2016
REGULAR
ITEM #: 30
AGENDA ITEM: Amending Solid Wall Fence Regulations
SUBMITTED BY: Emily Becker, City Planner
THROUGH: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY: Stephen Wensman, Planning Director
BACKGROUND:
On August 16, 2016, City Council directed Staff to bring to the Planning Commission for discussion
a text amendment to the City’s fencing regulations that would amend the restrictions of solid wall
fences over four feet in height on properties under half an acre.
On September 12, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and discussed the removal
of this restriction and recommended approval of an amendment to the ordinance.
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL:
The Council is respectfully requested to review and approve an amendment to solid wall fence
restrictions.
PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS:
There are two Subdivisions within the City Code that are being proposed to be amended:
First, Section 154.205: Fencing Regulations (E) (3) prohibits solid wall fences over four
feet in height on lots under ½ and acre, except under certain circumstances, listed below:
a. When a residential property abuts a district or use of a higher classification, and
specifically, when an A, RR, RS, RE, or LDR district abuts any other district or a single
family residential use abuts a multi-family residential use or a non-residential use.
b. When a property is a through lot and abuts a street that is a higher functional
classification than the street abutting the front yard of the property.
c. For screening of outdoor living space subject to the following criteria:
i. The area enclosed by outdoor extended living area fencing shall not exceed an
enclosed area of 500 square feet.
ii. A fence utilized to enclose and outdoor living area shall be extended to a point not
more than 6 inches from the principal structure at 1 fence termination point.
iii. A fence utilized to enclose an outdoor extended living area shall not extend into
side yard of a lot beyond the existing building line of the existing principal structure,
nor shall such fences be located in any side or front street yard.
City Council Meeting 9/20/2016 Regular Agenda Item #27
2
d. For screening or privacy purposes when the lineal measurement of the fence does not
exceed one-fourth (¼) of the linear distance of the perimeter of a lot. Such fences may
only be installed with the written consent of the adjacent property owner.
e. Under other circumstances when a solid fence is warranted due to safety, health, animal
containment or similar purposes subject to review and approval by the City Council and
with the written consent of the adjacent property owner.
The proposed amendment specifically addresses the aforementioned exceptions “d.” and “e.” for the
following reasons:
Exception d. requires written consent of the adjacent property owner for fences erected for
screening and privacy purposes. Privacy fences are so named because they provide
concealment and sanctuary, and it should be considered that neighbors do not always get
along. Whether or not a certain type of fence can be erected should not be the sole
decision of an adjacent property owner. As such, this requirement is eliminated in the
proposed amendment.
Exception e. is subjective. Allowing one property owner to do this and not another could
be considered discriminatory. As such, this exception is eliminated in the proposed
amendment.
Second, it is being recommended that the provision set forth in Section 154.081: Permitted
Encroachments on Required Yards that requires that fences in side and rear yards need to be
30% open to air and light be eliminated for the following reasons:
Requiring a fence to be 30% open when erected in side and rear yard setbacks does not
allow a property owner to adequately screen a certain portion of property.
This requirement is set forth in a completely different Section of the Code than other
fencing regulations. This creates confusion.
Openness requirements would still be set forth for front and side (corner) yard setbacks
so traffic sight lines are not inhibited.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed amendment is not expected to create significant fiscal impact aside from a possible
decrease in Staff time enforcing issues created by violations of this ordinance or preparing requests by
property owners who request their properties to be considered as exceptions.
PLANNING COMMISSION/PUBLIC HEARING:
A public hearing was held on the proposed amendment on the 12th of September, 2016. Staff had
presented to the Commission two options for this ordinance amendment. The first option considered
eliminated the prohibition of solid wall fences over four feet in height on lots under half an acre
altogether, as well as eliminating the 30% openness requirement for fences existing in the side and rear.
The second proposed amendment is what is being proposed to be adopted herein.
The proposed amendment was recommended by 4-3 vote. Reasons for dissenting votes included that the
proposed amendment is too complicated, and the first option was easier to understand (noted by
City Council Meeting 9/20/2016 Regular Agenda Item #27
3
Commissioner Dodson). Additionally, the restriction of the fence being allowed to be erected on only
1/4th of the perimeter of the property was too restrictive (noted by Commissioner Williams). The reasons
stated for recommending the ordinance amendment proposed herein included that it was a smaller change
to an ordinance that has had a lot of history and changes over the years and would preserve site lines
(noted by Commissioners Kraemer, Larson and Fields).
OPTIONS:
The Council may:
Approve the recommended ordinance amendment.
Make changes to and approve the ordinance amendment.
Deny the recommended ordinance amendment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff respectfully requests that the Council approve, as recommended by the Planning Commission, the
proposed ordinance amendment to the City’s Fencing Regulations.
“Move to approve Ord. 08-154 amending the City’s Fencing Regulations regulating
solid wall fences over four feet in height on properties less than half an acre by:
removing the requirement of permission from an adjacent property owner to erect
such a fence on ¼ the lineal measurement of the perimeter of the property; and
removing the exception that allows such a fence be erected when warranted due to
safety, health, animal containment or similar purposes subject to review and approval
by the City Council and with the written consent of the adjacent property owner.”
In addition, Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize summary publication of the
approved ordinance through the following resolution:
“Move to adopt Resolution 2016-79, authorizing summary publication of Ordinance 08-154”
ATTACHMENTS:
Ord. 08-154
Resolution 2016-79
Planning Commission meeting minutes, 9/12/16
Ord. 08- Option #2
1
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 08-154
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE ELMO CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES BY
REPEALING THE PROHIBITION OF SOLID WALL FENCES IN THE LAKE ELMO ZONING
CODE.
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV:
Land Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code; Section 154.205: Fencing Regulations;
Subd. (E) (3): Residential Design Requirements, by amending the following:
E. Fence Height and Design
1. Fences within Front and Side (Corner) Yards. Any fence within a front or side
(corner) yard setback may not exceed forty-two (42) inches in height and must be
50% open to air and light.
2. Residential and Mixed-Use Districts. No fence or wall shall exceed six feet (6’) in
height, and shall be subject to the design requirements of §154.205.E.3.
3. Residential Fence Design Requirements. Solid wall fences over four (4) feet in
height shall be prohibited on any lot under ½ acre (21,780 square feet) in size.
Any portion of a fence over four (4) feet on such lots shall be at least 75% open to
light and air, except under one of the following circumstances:
a. When a residential property abuts a district or use of a higher classification,
and specifically, when an A, RR, RS, RE, or LDR district abuts any other district
or a single family residential use abuts a multi-family residential use or a non-
residential use.
b. When a property is a through lot and abuts a street that is a higher functional
classification than the street abutting the front yard of the property.
c. For screening of outdoor living space subject to the following criteria:
i. The area enclosed by outdoor extended living area fencing shall not exceed
an enclosed area of 500 square feet.
ii. A fence utilized to enclose an outdoor extended living area shall be
extended to a point not more than 6 inches from the principal structure at
1 fence termination point.
iii. A fence utilized to enclose an outdoor extended living area shall not extend
into side yard of a lot beyond the existing building line of the existing
principal structure, nor shall such fences be located in any side or front
street yard.
d. For screening or privacy purposes when the lineal measurement of the fence
does not exceed one-fourth (¼) of the linear distance of the perimeter of a lot
Ord. 08- Option #2
2
Such fences may only be installed with the written consent of the adjacent
property owner.
e. Under other circumstances when a solid fence is warranted due to safety,
health, animal containment. or a similar purposes subject to review and
approval by the City Council and with the written consent of the adjacent
property owner.
4. Commercial and Industrial Districts. No fence or wall shall exceed eight feet (8’)
in height. Fences that exceed eight feet (8’) in height require a conditional use
permit.
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby amends Title XV:
Land Usage; Chapter 154: Zoning Code; Section 154.081: Permitted
Encroachments on Required Yards, Subd. (B), by repealing the following:
(B) Side and rear yards. Fences 30% open; walls and hedges 6 feet in height or
less; bays not to exceed a depth of 3 feet or containing an area of more than
30 square feet; fire escapes not to exceed a width of 3 feet.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo.
SECTION 4. Adoption Date. This Ordinance 08-154was adopted on this ___th day of
________, 2016, by a vote of ___ Ayes and ___ Nays.
LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL
______________________________
Mike Pearson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
This Ordinance 08-154 was published on the ____ day of ___________________, 2016.
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-76
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE 08-154 BY TITLE
AND SUMMARY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-154,
an ordinance to amend Section 154.205: Fencing Regulations, Subd. (E) (3); and Section
154.081: Permitted Encroachments on Required Yards, Subd. (B), of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance is lengthy; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subd. 4, allows publication by title and
summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing charts or maps; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform
the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo,
that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. 08-154 to be published in
the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance:
Public Notice
The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo has adopted Ordinance No. 08-154, which amends
the Chapter 154: Zoning Code:
By amending the following exceptions to Fencing Regulations Section 154.205 (E) (3)
that prohibits solid wall fences over four feet in height on properties less than ½ acre by:
o Removing the requirement to obtain permission from an adjacent property owner
in order to erect such a fence on ¼ the lineal measurement of the perimeter of the
property.
o Removing the exception that allows such fencing under other circumstances due
to safety, health, animal containment, or similar purposes.
By removing the requirement that fences in side and rear yard setbacks to be 30% open.
The full text of Ordinance No. 08-154 is available for inspection at Lake Elmo city hall during
regular business hours.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Lake Elmo that the
City Administrator keep a copy of the ordinance at City Hall for public inspection and that a full
copy of the ordinance be placed in a public location within the City.
Dated: September 20, 2016
___________________________________
Mayor Mike Pearson
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Julie Johnson, City Clerk
(SEAL)
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
_________________________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof:____________________________________and the following voted against
same:________________________________________
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
3
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9‐12‐16
subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by staff and the additional
condition recommended by the Planning Commission, Vote: 7‐0, motion carried
unanimously.
Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment – Solid Wall Fences
Becker started her presentation by explaining the current fence code regulations as it
relates to solid wall fencing on lots under ½ acre and what the exceptions are. Becker
went through some of the history on the fence code. Anticipated higher density
residential development was cited as the reason for the recommendation for allowing
privacy fencing. After discussion over the course of five meetings, the current ordinance
amendment was adopted.
Section 154.081 requires that fences in side and rear yards need to be at least 30% open
ot air and light. Even if the prohibition of solid wall fences over four feet on lots under ½
acre is removed, fences would still need to adhere to this requirement unless this
requirement is removed. Staff researched other Cities that allow solid wall fences over
4’ and there were quite a few. Staff presented two different options to the Planning
Commission for discussion. Option #1 eliminates the prohibition of solid wall fences on
lots under ½ acre altogether and also eliminates requirement of permitted
encroachments on required yards. Option #2 eliminates the requirement for adjacent
property owner to give permission. It also exempts fences that do not exceed one‐
fourth of the linear distance of the permimeter of a lot from the 30% openness
requirement. It also eliminates the exception which allows fences that are erected
under other circumstances when a solid wall fence is warranted due to safety, etc.
which could be considered subjective and discriminatory. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt option #2.
Fields asked if this allows privacy from one neighbor, but not three. Williams is
wondering why we would not want to allow it on 3 sides of the lot, but not in the front
yard. Becker stated that there is already a provision on front and side on corner lots.
Option #2 is much more restrictive and there is only exceptions for when solid wall
fences can be erected.
Public Hearing opened at 7:51 pm
Denise Thompson, 9077 Jane Road N, tried to get a fence permit for their dog and they
were not able to get the neighbor signature. They feel that they are not able to have
enough privacy. She also did some research and she was not able to find another City in
Minnesota that does not allow the 6 foot high privacy fence.
There were no other written or electronic comments received
Public Hearing closed at 7:57 pm
4
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9‐12‐16
Dodson prefers option #1 because it is easier to understand and option #2 is too much
in the design area of the fence. Williams agrees, but is struggling with why we would
restrict it to ¼ of the permimeter. They should be allowed anywhere behind the front of
the house on any lot.
Kreimer would prefer to take the smaller step and go for option #2. Larson likes the
simplicity of option #1. He doesn’t think the difference between 4’ and 6’ makes that
much difference. He is wondering if it should be done different for urban vs. rural. This
is Shoreland which might be different also. Fields prefers the step of option #2 because
the City has not been inundated with requests, but this is based on one circumstance.
Williams is thinking that the CIC have their own restrictions on fences. Dodson doesn’t
see a need to restrict fences in other areas as other Cities do not do it. Kreimer feels
that there was a lot of discussion a few years ago and is not in favor of changing it much
because of one circumstance.
M/S/F:Williams /Dodson, move to recommend approval of option #1, Vote: 3‐4, motion
Failed.
Larson is wondering if the Planning Commission picks option #1 if the City Council won’t
accept it. Becker stated that staff has recommended option #2 because they felt that
out of respect for previous work done on the code, it might be better received. Williams
asked
M/S/P: Fields/Dunn, move to recommend approval of Ord. 08‐ (Option #2), which
amends Sec. 154.205: Fencing Regulations; Subd. (E) (3), by repealing language of Subp.
D that requires permission from and adjacent property owner to erect a solid wall fence
up to six feet in height for screening or privacy purposes when the lineal measurement
of the fence does not exceed one‐fourth of the linear distiance of the permimeter of
the lot on a lot under half an acre; and which repeals subp. e., Vote: 4‐3, motion
carried. Dodson voted no because he feels option #2 is just a little too complicated.
Business Item – Conditional Use Permit – 9200 Hudson Blvd
City Council Updates – September 6, 2016 Meeting
i)Royal Golf Course at Lake Elmo Concept PUD Plan
ii)OP Ordinance
iii)Boulder Ponds LLC – Zoning Map Amendment/PUD Amendment – Ordinance
08‐149
Staff Updates
1.Upcoming Meetings
a. September 26, 2016
5
Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 9‐12‐16
b.October 10, 2016
Commission Concerns
Meeting adjourned at 9:12 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Joan Ziertman
Planning Program Assistant