Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/25/2004LAUDERDALE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2004 CITY HALL, 5:00 P.M. The City Council is meeting as a, legislative body to conduct the business of the City according to ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND THE STANDING RULES OF ORDER Aeeo BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. Unless so ordered by the Mayor, ci en p c' ion is limited to the times indicated and always within the prescribed rules �� f lic input at meetings. 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AT 5:00 P. M. 2. ROLL: Councilmembers: Staff: 3. 4. McCloskey _ Gill -Gerbig Mayor Dains Getschow APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Christensen Giannetti WORK SESSION DISCUSSION (5:00-7:00 p.m.) A. Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment Services- Ehlers and Associates B. Draft Zoning Ordinance Chapter 6- Fences 5. APPROVAL (7:00 p.m.) A. Approval of minutes of 5/13/04 City Council Meeting B. Approval of claims totaling $68,828.59 6. OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Any member of the public may speak at this time on any item NOT on the agenda. In consideration of the public attending the meeting for specific items on the agenda, this portion of the meeting will be limited to fifteen (15) minutes. Individuals are requested to limit their comments to four (4) minutes or less. If the majority of the Council determines that additional time on a specific issue is warranted, then discussion on that issue shall be continued under Additional Items at the end of the agenda. Before addressing the City Council, members of the public are asked to step up to the microphone, give their name, address and state the subject to be discussed. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a whole and not to any member thereof. No person other than members of the Council and the person having the floor shall be permitted to enter any discussion without permission of the presiding officer. Your participation, as prescribed by the Council's ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND THE STANDING RULES OF ORDER AND BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, is welcomed and your cooperation is greatly appreciated. City of Lauderdale Council Agenda May 25, 2004 Page 2 7. CONSENT 8. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONSI CITIZENS ADDRESSING STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS 9. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearings are conducted so that the public affected by a proposal may have input into the decision. During hearings, all affected residents will be given an opportunity to speak pursuant to the ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AND THE STANDING RULES OF ORDER AND BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. 11. ACTION A. Consideration of a front -yard fence permit at 1729 Carl Street B. Consideration of a front -yard fence permit at 1791 Malvern Street 12. REPORTS A. Social Room and Kitchen Improvements Update (no memorandum) B. Fulham Street County Maintenance Project Update (no memorandum) C. Ramsey County Assessor's Reassessment Project 13. DISCUSSION A. Highway 280 Noise Regulation -Truck Braking 14. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 15. ADDITIONAL ITEMS 16. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING 17. ADJOURNMENT Lauderdale City Council Memorandum Council Meeting Date: May 25, 2004 To: Mayor and City Council From: Rick Getschow, City Administrator Agenda Item: Work Session Discussion — 5:00 p.m. llftzlemwil Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment Jim Prosser and/or Jessica Cook of Ehlers and Associates will be present at the meeting to discuss their firm's redevelopment services and how they could assist the city with our Larpenteur Avenue redevelopment project. Ehlers has recently worked with the cities of Saint Anthony, Falcon Heights, and Little Canada on their respective redevelopment proj ects. I have included some background material on Ehlers redevelopment services. ENCLOSURES: City Case Studies of Ehlers and Associates Redevelopment Projects Ti,9 vK P- E' EHLERS 0 EI r. - _.�; Ehlers & Associates knows what it takes to convert redevelopment plans into reality. This knowledge comes from helping cities face the challenges of redevelopment. The following case studies highlight Ehlers' experience with redevelopment. These projects demonstrate the variety of redevelopment services available from Ehlers. uaaj Our redevelopment planning process has enabled St. Anthony to finally get results in efforts to replace the obsolete Apache Plaza Mall. The 50 -acre redevelopment site will feature new retail, office space, townhomes, urban flats, senior cooperative units, as well as a 5.6 -acre central park. When completed, the development will bring a total of 662 new housing units, 228,000 new sq. ft. of retail and 25,000 sq. ft. of office space to the community. Critical to the success of this redevelopment has been a public involvement process in which thousands of residents and business people worked together in open houses, forums and workshops to create a vision for the new devel- opment, "Silver Lake Village." Ehlers' success with redevelopment has found that for redevel- opment to be completed, four elements must be present in the proposed project: ♦ financial feasibility; • market feasibility; ♦ consistency with community goals; and, O an experienced developer. The Pratt Ordway Development Team is phasing the development on the 50 -acre site, with first phase — the retail and office space — to be completed in 2005 and the final phase expected to be completed by 2007. Residents like the proposed development because it will bring new life cycle housing choices to residents in a walkable, compact neighborhood that incorporates green spaces, the park, trails, along with shops. The graphic is courtesy of the architect for the retail portion of the project, KKE architects. Elk River Elk River is very much like many small historic communities. Its historic downtown was experiencing pressure from large retailers on the edge of town, and in need of revitalization. But like many communities Elk River had a number of failed proposals and efforts to begin redevelopment. Elk River began working with Ehlers & Associates as its redevelopment con- sultant in 2001. In September 2001, Elk River's Housing & Redevelopment Authority developed a problem statement, identified the core business dis- trict as the focus of the redevelopment, and developed a primary goal for redevelopment. In February 2002, the HRA held an open house for the community on design objectives, concepts and development strategies. In March, the HRA issued a request for proposals from developers and received five submittals. Developer MetroPlains is completing financial feasibility and final site plans UH the project which will encompass two blocks, Bluff and Jackson. The proj- ect will include 20,000 square feet of commercial development and both for -sale and rental housing units, along with a riverwalk connection to a city park to be built among the river. The major Twin Cities metropolitan area intersection of Snelling and Larpenteur in Falcon Heights will soon have a new look and new function. The old 1940s -style Northhome strip mall is being replaced with new housing and 12,000 square feet of retail. The new development will include 119 apartments, 56 senior housing units, 14 owner -occupied town homes and 12,000 square feet of retail space. The development, by Sherman Associates, will be $35 million to $40 million in new value on a site that had about $2 million of previous value. Falcon Heights had been trying for 15 years to put together a way to redevelop this high profile corner. Falcon Heights brought Ehlers and Associates in as its redevelopment consultant in 2000 to get past the stalled planning/development efforts of the past. Ehlers provided a redevelopment process and public involvement process to get the community to participate in the vision for the redevelopment. After a process that involved about three years and about 20 community meetings, the community has not only been includ- ed but has taken ownership in the probject. The public initiated the discusssion on multi -family housing and senior housing and provided input on development design guidelines. Early neigh- borhood involvement helped to reduce resistance to the project, including the "not in my backyard" factor. Developing a relationship early with the developer and beginning public involvement early enabled the public to help shape the development. Recalling the previous failed efforts and the noting the completion of demolition October 29 and beginning of construction the mayor told a newspaper reporter, "It's a dream come true. Richfield Richfield proves that redevelopment is a powerful force. In recent years, significant redevelopment successes can be seen in: • Shops at Lyndale • Richfield Rediscover • Airport expansion ® Best Buy Ehlers has played an extensive role in the redevelopment of Richfield. Our staff has played an active role in creating and implement- ing the finance plans that were keys to each of these projects. In 1999, Richfield City Manager Jim Prosser joined Ehlers. He brings direct experience on what it takes for a city to be successful in redevelopment. With Ehlers, Jim continues to play an active role in the implementation of Richfield projects. Ehlers is currently involved with the Cedar Avenue Redevelopment Area (CARA). CARA is a redevelopment project which was necessi- tated by the expansion of adjacent Minneapolis - St. Paul airport. The 300+ acre residential area will be redeveloped to airport com- patible uses including retail, office, hospitality and specially insulated replacement housing. Ehlers is providing project management services including: O Preparation of master development agreement ® Preparation of project budget e Assistance with special legislation • Coordination of acquisition, communications, project marketing • Project financial feasibility analysis • Development pro forma analysis • TIF qualification • TIF process coordination • Developer negotiations Edina has long set the standard for quality redevelopment projects. The City's latest redevelopment effort, Grandview Square, contin- ues the trend. Ehlers assisted the City in the evaluation of development proposals for a key redevelopment site. Ehlers created a financial model to create an "apples -to -apples" analysis for four different mixed use development proposals. The analysis evaluated the critical elements of each proposal: property value created, timing of development, amount and form of city assistance, and flow of funds. Ehlers prepared detailed information for staff evaluation and summary profiles for City Council use. Following selection of a development team, Ehlers participated in the negotiation of a development agreement. Ehlers' financial analy- sis provided the information needed to set the form and amount of city assistance. The Grandview Square project will result in 80,000 square feet of office and 150 units of owner -occupied housing. The project will also contain a senior center and new county library. In previous years, Ehlers staff assisted Edina with the design and the implementation of the finance plan for the Centennial Lakes redevelopment area. Hopkins Downtown. The Downtown area is the heart of Hopkins. Ehlers has played an extensive role in the redevelopment of downtown Hopkins. The City's most recent achievement is the construction of the Hopkins Center for the Arts. Ehlers evaluated options and assisted the City in the implementation of the facili- ties finance plan. Other recent downtown projects include a restaurant/theater complex. Oaks of Mainstreet. Housing is an important part of the vitali- ty of downtown Hopkins. Ehlers assisted the City with the rede- velopment of a mobile home park into sixty-six townhomes. This redevelopment had been a City goal for more than 15 years and was realized in 1996. The financing for the development included a complex mixture of five series of revenue bonds, general obligation tax increment bonds, and pay-as-you-go notes. Our first objective was to protect the City's longterm financial interests while at the same time providing an incentive to the developer of the project to build quality town homes and stay on budget for the project. Attesting to the success of the project are the sale of all housing units and the retirement of two of the bond issues County Road 3 Corridor Study. Ehl rs' staff served on a multi -firm team that created a comprehensive plan for the reconstruc- . tion of County Road 3 and the redevelopment of the adjacent land uses. Ehlers conducted financial analysis to determine the feasibil- ity of project alternatives. The finance plan created through the Corridor Study will allow the City to finance its share of the project without a complicated appli- cation of special assessments. In 1997, Ehlers implemented phase 1 of the plan with the issuance of G.O. Tax Increment Bonds. Mound Mound shows that vision and patience are essential qualities of the redevelopment process. In 1989, the City of Mound prepared a downtown redevelopment plan. Rusty Fifield of Ehlers was part of the multi -firm consulting team that worked with the City to create the plan. Ten years later, the City retained Jim Prosser of Ehlers to serve as project manager as the actual redevelopment process begins. Mound's Downtown Redevelopment includes five project areas encompassing 30 acres providing a projected 125,000 s.f. of retail, 275 housing units, hotel, banquet facility and farmers market. Public improvements include relocation and expansion of a County highway, a greenway, a new harbor and channel. There are currently three separate developers involved in the redevelopment effort. Ehlers' project management services include: ♦ developer qualification ♦ coordination of acquisition, communications, project marketing ♦ project financial feasibility analysis ♦ development pro forma analysis ♦ TIF qualification ♦ TIF process coordination ♦ Developer negotiations In 1999, the City of Burnsville finalized its "Heart of the City" plan. The plan serves as a guide for the redevelopment of this commercial and civic core area. Like many plans, Heart of the City provides an exciting vision with limited guidance on implementation. Burnsville turned to Ehlers & Associates for assistance with the challanges of redevelopment. The first step has been a developer RFP. Ehlers helped the City solicit and evaluate proposals for development projects in the planning area. Apple valley ,__y .byNlr Jur_ n,J llxnI","» i.t^Is:1, Transit can play an important role in development projects. Ehlers & Associates is familiar with transit issues through our work with the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA). Ehlers prepared the financial analysis on the viability of a mixed use development for the Apple Valley transit station for MVTA. This project required a balanced perspective on transit needs, cooperation with adjacent pri- vate development, and support from other governmental entities which were not accustomed to dealing with transit needs. St. Louis Park's efforts to revi- talize the Excelsior Boulevard corridor and define a town cen- ter serve as an excellent rede- velopment case study. Park Commons. The corner- stone of the City's redevelop- ment efforts is Park Commons. At completion, this project will bring over 500 housing units and 240,000 square feet of office/retail development into St. Louis Park. The project pro- duces over $120,000,000 in private investment. Ehlers staff plays a critical role on the staff/consultant team , leading the City's efforts. Wex.,?�! provide the financial analysis of 001Rn Framework the City's ability to participate 1` in the project. Our analysis forecasts tax increment and other project revenues and links the revenues to project expenses and debt. Ehlers created the tax incre- ment financing district that forms the key finance tool for the City. Ehlers served as financial advisor on $20,000,000 of bonds issued by the City to finance land acquisition and site preparation. EDA Financial Planning. With over $40,000,000 in outstanding TIF bonds, tax increment financing is an essential financial man- agement issue for the City. Ehlers is assisting City Staff with financial analysis and planning for TIF districts and debt. The first phase of the planning process focuses on meeting existing debt obligations. With a plan to support debt, the City can then explore the capacity to use existing TIF districts to meet future redevelopment needs. The planning process: ® Project and test future tax increment revenues from each district. ® Estimated LGA/HACA penalty amounts. ® Designed plan to meet debt obligations and provide funding for other projects. • Identified bond covenant and arbitrage compliance issues. O Identified future debt management objectives and opportunities. The second phase of the planning process will examine financing issues related to the Park Commons redevelopment project. Part of this phase will look at the ability to drop parcels from existing TIF districts for new districts. Special Service Districts. How do you make sure that your investment in redevelopment is sustainable? The City of St. Louis Park turned to special service districts. As part of its comprehensive redevelopment plans, the City instituted improvements and enhance- <.� .,....< 3- I—) s, 'A- 'j, kms. dh 14. Ehlers staff plays a critical role on the staff/consultant team , leading the City's efforts. Wex.,?�! provide the financial analysis of 001Rn Framework the City's ability to participate 1` in the project. Our analysis forecasts tax increment and other project revenues and links the revenues to project expenses and debt. Ehlers created the tax incre- ment financing district that forms the key finance tool for the City. Ehlers served as financial advisor on $20,000,000 of bonds issued by the City to finance land acquisition and site preparation. EDA Financial Planning. With over $40,000,000 in outstanding TIF bonds, tax increment financing is an essential financial man- agement issue for the City. Ehlers is assisting City Staff with financial analysis and planning for TIF districts and debt. The first phase of the planning process focuses on meeting existing debt obligations. With a plan to support debt, the City can then explore the capacity to use existing TIF districts to meet future redevelopment needs. The planning process: ® Project and test future tax increment revenues from each district. ® Estimated LGA/HACA penalty amounts. ® Designed plan to meet debt obligations and provide funding for other projects. • Identified bond covenant and arbitrage compliance issues. O Identified future debt management objectives and opportunities. The second phase of the planning process will examine financing issues related to the Park Commons redevelopment project. Part of this phase will look at the ability to drop parcels from existing TIF districts for new districts. Special Service Districts. How do you make sure that your investment in redevelopment is sustainable? The City of St. Louis Park turned to special service districts. As part of its comprehensive redevelopment plans, the City instituted improvements and enhance- ments to Excelsior Boulevard. Funds from the districts will be used to support a variety of services related to improvements made to Excelsior Boulevard. In creating the districts, Ehlers: ♦ Analyzed the impacts on individual parcels from various funding options. ♦ Analyzed service charge options. • Advised the City on the process to create the districts and impose the service charges. ♦ Prepared information explaining the district and finance concepts. ♦ Worked with City Staff and property owners to create consensus on plan. Tax Abatement. Tax abatement is the newest development tool for local government. Ehlers helped the City undertake an abate- ment that will result in a 54,000 square foot medical office building and small restaurant/commercial use on a polluted site. Ehlers advised the City on the process and financial implications of tax abatement. To make this project possible, the City obtained tax abatement commitments from the County and the School District. Minnetonka The City of Minnetonka was interested in producing a mixed use development which would integrate retail, family rental housing, townhomes, condominiums, various types of sen- ior housing, common space and transit facilities in a rede- velopment site along 1-394. Ehlers assisted the City in attracting a major developer to acquire the existing land and construct 250,000 square feet of retail and 100 luxury con- dominiums. Ehlers' involvement also was also heavily con- cerned with evaluating the benefits of certain public and pri- vate amenities with the need for public assistance through tax increment financing. The tax increment from the retail and condominiums was used to finance over 300 single family and multi- family affordable housing units, public improvements, and public spaces. Moreover, this project was balanced with redevelopment concerns of traffic, neighbors, a relocated church, and other existing land owners. Little Canada Our work in Little Canada shows the variety of ways Ehlers helps Minnesota cities meet the challenges of redevelopment. Development Guide. Ehlers & Associates designed and led the planning process that resulted in the creation of a guide for the rede- velopment of Little Canada's core commercial area. Ehlers assembled a consulting team that consisted of Maxfield Research and the Hoisington Koegler Group to work on the project. We believe that this project represents an important first—a significant planning study led by a financial consulting firm. The value of this approach is enhancing the ability to implement the plan. As the ongoing financial advisor to the City of Little Canada, we have been able to carry the objectives of the Development Guide into real projects. Work performed by Ehlers in this project include: ♦ Design and coordination of planning process. ♦ Create and lead public participation elements of process. ♦ Analysis of finance implications of development options. ♦ Preparation of implementation strategies. ♦ Preparation of final plan report. ® Creation of TIF district within study area. The true test of a plan is the ability to help move towards the vision articulated in the plan. Here are some examples of how Ehlers works with Little Canada to make the Development Guide become reality. Market Place Renovation. Ehlers created a plan that made use of tax increment financing and the City's borrowing capacity to encourage the redevelopment of a shopping center. Faced with the loss of the anchor grocery store, the City worked with a private developer on a major renovation of the Market Place shopping center. The City issued bonds and loaned the proceeds to the develop- er for the acquisition and renovation of the center. This step attracted new tenants to the center, including a larger grocery store. The City also retained influence over the exterior improvements to the facility. The City's loan was paid off in less than three years. In addition, the City received almost $200,000 in revenues that can be used to meet other development needs. Developer RFP. An early step in the implementation process was to seek a private development "partner" for the area. Ehlers worked with City Staff to create a solicitation of developer interest process. The objective of the process was to attract and select a developer capable of creating new development within the parameters of the Development Guide. Development Guide serves as a tool ,to attract and evaluate development projects. Ehlers created a cash flow model to identify the revenue and expense components of the proposed projects and to test the feasibility of various development options. Monticello Downtown and Riverfront Plan. Ehlers & Associates served on a multi -firm consulting team that created a plan for the redevelop- ment of the commercial core in Monticello. Ehlers played several roles in the planning process: • Assist with the design of public participation elements. • Assist with the creation of development plan alternatives. ® Evaluate finance options for use by the community. ® Prepare implementation strategies for the plan. Ehlers' contributions to this project extend well beyond the adoption of the Plan. As the financial advisor to the City, Ehlers has worked to make the Plan happen. Revolving Loan Fund. Ehlers assisted the economic development authority with the creation of a downtown revolving loan pro- gram. Ehlers created guidelines for the loan that tied to Plan objectives. We also analyzed the financial implications for various loan and grant structures. TIF Management. Ehlers provides tax increment financing assistance to the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). We assisted the HRA with the creation of seven new TIF Districts and the management of 25 existing districts. Ehlers assisted in the creation of tax increment financing district encompassing the downtown and riverfront planing area. This TIF district will be an important tool for Plan implementation. Monticello Mall Renovation. The redevelopment of the Monticello Mall anchors the south end of downtown planning area. The major renovation of this shopping center revolves around the anchor tenant—Cub Foods. Ehlers advised the City on the use of TIF and in negotiations with the developer. This project achieved three important objectives. It brought about the redevelopment of an aging commercial center. The project kept commercial activity concentrated in the downtown area. Finally, the project will spin off tax increment revenues that can be used to meet other redevelopment needs. Community Center. Ehlers played an active role in the planning for a multifunction community center. The 78,000 square foot facility houses City offices, senior center, meeting rooms, aquatics center, gym and fitness facilities. The community center will also serve as a National Guard training facility. Ehlers role in the project included: • Identify and evaluate of finance options. • Analyze financial impacts of project design options. ® Assist with National Guard use and funding agreement. Structure and implement finance plan. At the time of sale, new members of the City Council threatened to terminate the project. This action made the longterm bonds unmarketable. Ehlers creates and negotiated a temporary bond issue that allowed construction to continue and to protect the bond holders. The City Council has since affirmed commitment to the project. In 2000, the facility opened and Ehlers assisted with perma- nent financing. M E M O S B Y J A M E S DATE: MAY 25, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: JAMES BOWNIK, A2CA RE: FRONT -YARD FENCE REGULATIONS OW BACKGROUND The following issues were raised due to recent requests for front yard fence approvals: 1) Privacy fences. Definitions of "Privacy Fence" and "Non -Privacy Fence," could be added to Chapter 2: Definitions or to Chapter 6-4: Fencing. The following definitions could be used: "Privacy Fence" shall mean a fence which is constructed so that over fifty percent (50%) of the fence area is of a solid substance. "Non -Privacy Fence" shall mean fifty percent (50%) or less of the fence area is of a solid substance. Should the Council feel that privacy fences should be regulated to the side and rear yards of properties, then that language should be added to Chapter 6:4 Fencing. 2) Type of fencing material. Chain link fences are allowed in most cases (but not all), along with wood and metal picket, split rail, wood rail, wrought iron, vegetation (hedge), and low (max. height 3 feet) brick or stone masonry walls. Should the Council feel that chain link fences should be regulated to the side and rear yards of properties, then that language should be added to Chapter 6:4 Fencing. Barbed wire, chicken wire, woven wire, plastic, and electric fences are the types of residential fences generally not allowed in residential districts. However, barbed wire is generally allowed to make up the top portion of commercial fences in some cases. Enclosed are some relevant pages of information about fences from the cities of Falcon Heights and St. Louis Park, an article from a preservation planner for the Memphis Landmarks Commission, and a study completed by the University of New Orleans. I have also included some visual examples of "Privacy Fences" and "Non -Privacy Fences." 3) Height The Draft Ordinance regulates front yard height to 4 feet and side and rear to 7 feet. TwpUSC Community Development: Privacy Fence Page 1 of 1 L 7s t1 S � t_t��ritcti �`` BUILDING AND ZONING Township Boards I Community Development Definition and Illustration of a Privacy Fence Section 130.3.97 of the Township Code defines a Privacy Fence as a fence which is constructed so that over fifty percent of the fence area is of a solid substance. The maximum allowable height of a privacy fence is 6 feet. 4 inch picket and 4 inch picket and 1 inch spacing 4 inch spacing Privacy Fence Ikon -Privacy Fence http://www.twpusc.org/cdmain/building/fen_priv.htm 4/30/04 a,nce Types and Styles �nces are more than walls with a view, they have style, form, and function to meet the needs of )meowners and their property. he classic white picket !nce comes in a wide ariety of styles. Posts, Dards, and caps define the yle of each fence. ieir defining element. Fences serve a wide variety of functions, depending on the size of the property, the goal of the homeowners, and the style of the architecture. Fences may feature spaced boards or solid faces, depending on the desire for privacy and the look homeowners wish to achieve. Fences can be concave or convex, scalloped along the top or straight edged. Fence styles vary widely from the standard to the custom, and often reflect regional and architectural preferences. The key to any fence project is to determine the need and the budget, then work with the available components to create the style. Fence Components Fence styles are determined by four key factors: height, board width, spacing of the boards, and board profiles. Picket fences are shorter, usually four feet or less, with narrow boards, typically 3 -1/2 -inches wide. In contrast, a true privacy fence will be at least seven feet tall, with tongue and groove boards that completely block the view. Other fence styles use board width and spacing, height, and number of rails to define the style. Woven fences, like lattice and basket weaves, use the style of weave as oards oards come in a variety of styles and widths. Their shapes and tops define them. A classic picket fence :atures a Gothic, or pointed, top. Stockades. come to a point at the top of the board, as well. A more mate picket might feature the French Gothic /ith a nip at the neck. Flat-topped boards and dog-ear :yles are more commonly featured in modern pickets, shadow box, and tongue -and -groove fencing. ,oard Styles (left to right): Dog ear, flat top, French Gothic, Gothic 'osts 'osts may be used simply as structural mern'L";rs or to enhance the design of the fence. With tongue- nd-groove fencing, posts may be construc::d of contrasting woods or painted an accent color to create bold statement. Posts may terminate at tho !;eight of the boards or extend above them, often with ,rnamental caps. Sections can be attached to the face of the post, the back, or along the sides allowing .ttp://www.shehzadmadan.com/fence/fence_typcs__c-iiid_styles.htm 4/30/04 } E r nt S a r: 1 ,oard Styles (left to right): Dog ear, flat top, French Gothic, Gothic 'osts 'osts may be used simply as structural mern'L";rs or to enhance the design of the fence. With tongue- nd-groove fencing, posts may be construc::d of contrasting woods or painted an accent color to create bold statement. Posts may terminate at tho !;eight of the boards or extend above them, often with ,rnamental caps. Sections can be attached to the face of the post, the back, or along the sides allowing .ttp://www.shehzadmadan.com/fence/fence_typcs__c-iiid_styles.htm 4/30/04 f ,oard Styles (left to right): Dog ear, flat top, French Gothic, Gothic 'osts 'osts may be used simply as structural mern'L";rs or to enhance the design of the fence. With tongue- nd-groove fencing, posts may be construc::d of contrasting woods or painted an accent color to create bold statement. Posts may terminate at tho !;eight of the boards or extend above them, often with ,rnamental caps. Sections can be attached to the face of the post, the back, or along the sides allowing .ttp://www.shehzadmadan.com/fence/fence_typcs__c-iiid_styles.htm 4/30/04 A ur,�, c. U1 he post,to stand out in relief from the sections along the face. Posts may be rounded, squares, beveled, )r rough-hewn, depending on the style. _,aps ,aps are added to the tops of posts to provide a finished Icc;, or further enhance the style. Like posts ind boards, caps come in a variety of styles and are matchsr o their period or vernacular style. Post ,aps may be modern, Victorian, classical, colonial, gothic, one of several vernacular architectural styles ike Cape Cod, Newport, or ranch. k classic New ngland-style post ;ap Gothic -inspired post cap ,rossed rails define a crossbuck- 3tyle fence Pyramid -style post Ball -style post cap cap Fence styles In essence, all fences have similar structure, unless constructed of brick, concrete, or stone. Commonly referred to as "board and post" fences, most fences are sold as sections, with a horizontal structural member to which "boards" are attached. Picket, stockade, and privacy fences are all constructed in this way. Each section is joined at a post, which anchors t'he fence to the ground and the sections to one another. Posts, caps and tops may be stylized to match the period or theme of the fence. Ranch fences Ranch fences may have two, three, or four rails and are available in )ost and rail or crossbuck styling. Horizontal rails that connect to vertical posts spaced eight feet apart )n average characterize rail and ranch fences. Sections may have straight rails, split rails, or crossed )ars between called crossbuck. Rail fences may have one, two, or three rails. Often used for horse and ivestock fencing, these ranch -style fences define the perimeter of an area, while allowing broad open ,paces between. 'rivacy and semi -privacy fences 'rivacy and semi -privacy fences—board-and-post or board-on-board— are defined by the width of the board and the amount of space ittp://www.shehzadmadan.com/fence/fence types and styles.htm 4/30/04 between them. A full privacy fence, common!,! found in urban or 6losely➢settled suburban spaces, is tall (six feet or more) with overlapping, shadow box, or tongue -and -groove boards. Semi - privacy fencing aims to allow air and visual spy ,,Ce between the boards, while protecting the space and resid_-nts from full view. Board on board fences like shadow box offer cm advantage to homeowners in that they can show finished i :yes on both sides. Often topped with a lattice, top board, or ornamental top section, privacy fencing features more detail and board feet than picket or rail fencing. Among full privacy fences are stoc!;1s1,'.c and tongue -and - groove. Either style can be finished with Gehl:;, French Gothic, flat, or dog-eared tops. A redwood basket weave fence provides privacy. Image courtesy of the California Redwood Association. a u51,1 .J U1 J Privacy fences are usually at least six feet tall. Local codes may limit the height of fences. Basket v•c^ve and lattice Basket weave and lattice fences are made with strips of material, usually wood or wood -look vinyl, woven or crisscrossed to create a pattern. I., -:' et -weave fences block the property completely from view ani: ---!2,n function as privacy fencing if tall enough. Lattice fencing is :gore open and delicate looking, while the crisscrossed member -,re actually thicker in diameter than their woven counterports. Lattice designs are often used for toppers on tongue - and -groove fences, providing an airy look and height to the full coverae:D :f the solid face below. ittp://www.shehzadmadan.com/fence/fence_typcs_and_styles.htm 4/30/04 Fences in Residential Zones Page 1 of 2 Zoning Home Falcon Heights Zoning and_ Permit Information City Zoning Map Fences in Residential Zones Do I need a Permit? How do I get a Permit? GeneralSetbacks in R-1 Lot Coverage in R-1* • Fences may be allowed in any zone, subject to the provisions of the City Code, Garages • All fences must be kept in good repair, painted, trimmed and well-maintained. Fences* Site Plans* • The "finished" side of the fence must face outward toward the adjacent properties. Permit Forms* Permit Construction Storm Water Permit • All fences require a permit. Consumer Alert • The application must include a site plan or site sketch showing the location of the City Map* proposed fence with respect to property lot lines and the existing house and other structures on the lot. Falcon Heights Home Page Height *These pages are under • Fences in the front yard (between the front of the house and the front lot line) cannot be construction higher than 36 inches from grade. This includes hedges and "garden walls." This page will print with a • Fences in the rear yard and side yards (between the front of the house and the rear lot line) white background. cannot be higher than six feet. • Height is measured from grade, not from the top of any footings. • Additional restrictions may apply to corner lots. Please contact City Hall for more information. We can answer your question more quickly if you are already prepared with a site sketch. Setback • In the back yard and in a side yard (not next to a street), the fence can go right next to the property line, provided no physical damage of any kind results to the abutting property. In fact, we recommend placing a back yard fence at the property line. Setting a fence back from your property line in your back yard in effect "gives" your neighbor a strip of your property and may lead to future misunderstandings. Also, it is very hard to maintain a narrow strip outside your fence. • You must establish the location of your property lines, either by locating the official corner markers of your lot or by having a survey done. This is for your own protection and the protection of future owners of your property. It may save you considerable expense, not to mention legal trouble, in the long run, especially when you are ready to sell your home. • In the front yard, fences must be set back 1 foot from the property line. http://www.ci.falcon-heights.mn.us/zoning/fence.html 5/19/04 Fences in Residential Zones Page 2 of 2 • On a corner lot, on the side yard facing the side street, the fence must be set back 1 foot from the property line along the street right of way. • There are additional restrictions in the "visibility triangle" within 30 feet of intersecting streets. Please contact City Hall for more information. Top I Zoning _Front_Pag_e I Falcon Heights Home © 2003 City of Falcon Heights http://www.ci.falcon-heights.nm.us/zoning/fence.html 5/19/04 Dumpsters must be placed entirely on private property (your lawn or driveway - about five feet away from the curb). For a list of licensed haulers, call the Inspections Department at 952/924-2588 Electrical Outage If storms knock out your power, call Excel/NSP's Lights Out number at 1-800- 895-1999 from your home or business phone. This automated system will match your address and add you to their list of repair jobs. False Alarm Charge There is no charge for answering any legitimate alarm call (intruder, fire, etc.); however, there is a fine for false alarms because false alarms make police and firefighters unavailable to respond to legitimate 911 calls. Households may have one _penalty -free false alarm per year. After that, every subsequent false alarm will cost the alarm owner $90. Charges are not assessed for false alarms caused by weather or utility line problems. There is also no charge if the alarm company cancels the 911 request before emergency vehicles are dispatched. False alarms can be prevented by thinking ahead. Here's how: a Train everyone - including children - in the household on how to use the alarm. El Prepare for legitimate visitors so they don't inadvertently set off the alarm. If you give keys to repair people, cleaning services, relatives or neighbors, either deactivate the system before leaving home or teach them how to deactivate the system. o Keep items balloons or other items that move away from heat/cooling registers: they can set off the alarm. Fences Before you put up your fence, you must obtain a permit from the City of St. Louis Park. Fence permits can usually be issued on the same day you apply. To apply, come to the second floor customer service counter in City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard. Here's what you will need - o A survey or site plan showing the location of your proposed fence o Plans that show the design of your fence o $15 for the permit. Fences must be built in compliance with City ordinance. Here's an overview of the ordinance - a Fences must be located entirely inside your property line. A fence cannot be located on the property line, a neighbor's land, or public property (boulevards, sidewalk area, etc.). You can find your property line by locating your lot's corner irons or hiring a registered land surveyor. E On interior lots, front yard or street side fences cannot be more than 42 inches high. Side or rear yard fences on interior lots cannot be more than six feet high. http://www.stlouispark.org/Residents/Homeowners.html 5/19/04 o Corner lots have a lower allowable fence height because a high fence obstructs traffic visibility. Fences in the traffic "visibility triangle" cannot be higher than 30 inches. Owners of corner lots should contact the Assistant Zoning Administrator for help in determining where their lot's "visibility triangle" is located. (To see a map of the "visibility triangle," click on Visuals.) El Through lots - a lot that abuts two opposite, parallel streets - also have lower allowable fence height. Because a through lot abuts two streets, both yards are considered "front" yards so fence height must be lower to avoid obstructing traffic visibility. A fence in one of the "front" yards may be six feet high as long as it complies with the visibility triangle requirements, is used as a "back" yard, and doesn't abut a neighbor's yard that they use as a "front" yard. Owners of through lots should contact the Assistant Zoning Administrator for help in determining allowable fence height. o In some special locations, a fence can be higher than six feet as long as the owner obtains a building permit. These are lots next to state highways, railroads, industrial property, schools, churches or synagogues. o Fences surrounding a swimming pool must keep children from entering the pool enclosure. Pool fences and gates must be at least four feet high, have no openings greater than four inches either through or under the fence or gate. Pool fences cannot have handholds or footholds, and the gates must be self-closing and self -catching. o The structural side of the fence must face your property: The finished side of the fence must face your neighbors' property. o Fences must be constructed of durable materials such as wood or chain link (points turned down). Woven wire, chicken wire, plastic and electric fences are not allowed as property line fences. Fence owners are responsible for - o Maintaining both sides of the fence o Trimming the grass o Painting or staining wood o Replacing broken boards or torn chain link o Making sure there are no safety hazards such as protruding nails or sharp objects. If you have any questions, call the Assistant Zoning Administrator at 952/924- 2592 or visit the customer service counter on the second floor of City Hall between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Fire Hydrants To save precious minutes in case of a fire, please shovel snow away from fire hydrants. Your action could reduce property damage and even save a life. Fire Prevention Tips Here are a few pointers from the St. Louis Park Fire Department. Upon request, firefighters will visit homes to advise you on where to place smoke detectors or how to create an evacuation plan. Call 952/924-2599 for more information. o Install a smoke detector in every bedroom, in the hallway outside of bedrooms, and on every level of your home (including attics and basements). M Test your detectors every month, and change the batteries twice a year. o Buy a fire extinguisher (rated 2A-1 OBC) for the kitchen. (Some insurance ittp://www.stlouispark.org/Residents/Homeowners.html 5/19/04 Fences Looking Back over Fences by Erin Hanafin Berg Page 1 of 3 "Good fences make good neighbors." So said Robert Frost's neighbor—twice—in "Mending Wall, coining a phrase that has been used umpteen times since, usually out of context, but with a similar purpose. Fences proliferate in our modern city and suburbs, walling in, as well as walling out. Whether three or eight feet high, wood or metal, picket or solid board, fences define our spaces, our interactions, even our society. In Memphis, as in other historic cities, new fences are changing the look of older neighborhoods. At one time, rear yards in midtown were defined by wooden picket fences, rustic twisted wire, or later, chain link, covered with creeping vines or climbing roses. One could survey the entire block from the backyard, trading greetings and passing along plants with the neighbors without straining on one's toes to see over the fence. Front yards were open, a terraced expanse of green lawns without the interruption of hedges or fencing. Children played games of kickball or freeze tag across neighboring lots, and only the occasional change in grade or watering habits differentiated one property from another. In this photograph taken in the early 20th century, on the far left one can see part of the tall lattice 'privacy fence" built around the rear yard of this new home. Photo courtesy of the Memphis/Shelby County Public Library and Information Center. Now, however, rear yard privacy fences are the norm, and front yards are often delineated with hedges and, occasionally, fencing. The Memphis Landmarks Commission (MLC) reviews fence construction in all five residential Landmarks districts, and fences and driveway gates make up about 30 percent of all Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) applications. Rear yard privacy fences have been seen so frequently by the Commission that it has delegated rear yard fence construction to its staff for review, and the typical six -foot -high, dog-eared board fence is routinely approved, as long as it meets the neighborhood guidelines for location. Front -yard fences are less kindly received, however. Members of the city's two largest – and most outspoken – neighborhood associations, the Central Gardens Association and the Evergreen Historic District Association, have voiced opposition to front -yard fences. The rationale is that these areas were developed during the City Beautiful movement, when open front lawns were gaining favor and residential development in Memphis was at an all-time high. Open front yards contribute to the established neighborhood aesthetic and are enjoyed by the entire community, with the continuous lawns considered community space, although privately owned. But this ideal was attained only after the turn of the century. Prior to that, fencing, especially in the front yards, was far more prevalent, for practical as well as aesthetic reasons. Larry R. Ford writes, in The Spaces between. Buildings, "In the ... suburban areas of nineteenth-century North America, where houses were set back from the street and occupied only a portion of the lot, fences were common. Most often they were low, see-through white picket or wrought -iron fences, which did not interfere with the visual dominance of the house. They did not so much enclose space as delineate it, creating neat edges http://www.memphisheritage.org/MHIHost/Keystone-Fences.html 5/21/04 Fences Page 2 of 3 for gardens. They were also functional, keeping domestic animals in the yard and keeping out potentially troublesome creatures like stray pigs, goats, or dogs." Historic photographs of Memphis dating from the late 1800s show yards enclosed by fences in a variety of styles and materials. The Italianate, French Second Empire, Romanesque Revival, and Queen Anne mansions of Memphis' elite were enclosed by wrought iron pickets supported by cast iron posts, or sometimes by masonry walls topped with rails of iron pipe. More modest houses showed rustic split rail fencing, or the ideal wooden picket fence. Purposeful as well as beautiful, fences surrounded the front yards of houses in the neighborhoods closest to downtown—Victorian Village, Beale Street, and Vance -Pontotoc. The wrought iron and masonry fences in front of the Mallory -Neely House and the Molly Fontaine House (now Cielo restaurant), both in the 600 block of Adams Avenue, still remain and exhibit this trend. Wedding party with wrought iron. fence in the foreground. Photo courtesy of the Memphis/Shelby County Public Library and Information Center. County Public Library and Information Center. More modest houses on the oldest streets in midtown were fenced, too. Historic photographs of the Queen Anne cottages located on the 200 block of South McLean, in Central Gardens, show wrought iron or slender wood pickets surrounding the front yard. McLean was one of the first streets to develop in the neighborhood, set solidly in the late Victorian period as evidenced by its architecture, which still stands, and its fences, which have been removed. South McLean Boulevard looking north near intersection of Linden Avenue circa 1899. Photo courtesy of the Memphis/Shelby Wrought iron fencing was often lost during scrap metal drives during both World Wars, and wooden fencing undoubtedly rotted away after time. Another factor—progress—also contributed to the now - unfenced character that is dominant in midtown Memphis. Around the turn of the 20th century, the view towards fencing began to change. The City Beautiful movement ushered in an appreciation of wide, manicured expanses of lawn. Ford attributes this http://www.memphisheritage.org/MHIHost/Keystone-Fences.html 5/21/04 Fences Page 3 of 3 appreciation to an association with the "English landed gentry and their grazing sheep." "Even in modest residential areas," he writes, there was the feeling that "a variety of fencing styles, materials, and heights distributed somewhat randomly through a neighborhood would add considerably to the clutter of the landscape. Relatively uniform fencing for the length of the street, such as the wrought -iron fences found in some older townhouse neighborhoods, was not often seen as a suburban option either. Better to have no fences at all." The majority of Memphis' now -historic neighborhoods developed during this aesthetic, and it is this reason that the Evergreen and Central Gardens neighborhood associations, among others, have discouraged the use of front -yard fencing. Green lawns were seen as complementing the architectural styles of the day, including Craftsman bungalows, English Tudors, Dutch Revival farmhouses, and even Spanish Colonial styles. At the height of suburban Memphis development in the 1920s, many American communities mandated an open front lawn and disallowed any type of fencing. As the century progressed, the image of a "lawn" gained popularity. Ford points out that there are more than 150 communities in the U.S. with "lawn" in their name. In Memphis, mid -20th century neighborhoods such as Red Acres, Green Meadows and even High Point Terrace also contribute to this image and show the continued popularity of open front yards through the 1950s. Ford writes, `By the early decades of the 20th century, the manicured lawn was second only to the single family house as an emblem of the suburban ideal. The lawn was time-consuming, expensive, nonfunctional, but for most people it was an aesthetic and symbolic necessity." Indeed, Thorsten Veblen argued in The Theory of the Leisure Class that Americans desired lawns precisely because they were nonfunctional. As a pure status symbol, the lawn demonstrated that the owner had the time and money to enjoy nonproductive pursuits. Ultimately, fencing is relatively impermanent. Wood rots and, unless well-maintained, even metal fencing has a life span only a fraction as long as a well-built house. But there is no question in this author's mind that the fences we erect will continue to shape our society and our neighborhoods, and maybe not always for the better. Sure, people have security concerns, and the theft of property from one's yard—whether fenced or not— shouldn't have to be tolerated. But doesn't erecting a fence that is taller than the average adult or hiding the fagade of a beautiful home behind the curtain of a concrete wall diminish the value of our interactions with our neighbors and our community? Robert Frost thought so. I think that, even back in 1914, when "Mending Wall" was first published, he was onto something. Erin Hanafin Berg is an assistant preservation planner at the Memphis Landmarks Commission. The book cited in the article is The Spaces between Buildings by Larry R. Ford, published by Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. For information or guidelines for fences in Landmarks districts, call the Landmarks Commission at (901) 576-7191. http://www.memphisheritage.org/MHIHost/Keystone-Fences.html 5/21/04 CUPA - LUTAC - Reccomendations Concerning the Current Regulation for Fences on Residential Lots Page 2 of 10 TABLE OF CONTENT ABSTRACT PURPOSE BACKGROUND METHODS OF ANALYSIS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSION SOURCES. APPENDICES ABSTRACT http://www.uno.edu/—cupa/LUTAC/jefpar6.htm 5/19/04 I,UYA - LU IAU - xeccomendations uoncerning the Lurrent regulation for 1,ences on Residential Lots Page 3 of 10 The following study is a planning analysis of the regulatory requirements for fences on residential properties within Jefferson Parish. The pertinent regulations in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for the Parish were assessed for their strength, thoroughness, and clarity in providing guidance to citizens and decision makers in applying and reviewing requests for front yard fence variances. Due to the vagueness and undesired outcomes of current requirements as well as an increase in the number of requests for front yard fence variances, an amendment to the current regulations is recommended. In addition to the standards for the Old Metairie Neighborhood Conservation District found in the Ordinance, regulations from numerous other jurisdictions across the United States were reviewed for their Parishwide applicability. The recommended text changes to the Exceptions and Modifications section of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance will provide more specific guidance on the height, setback, design, and construction materials for front yard fences that can be applied on a case-by-case review of variance requests. Adopted standards will enhance the security, safety, and aesthetics of individual properties and will preserve the unique character of the various Parish neighborhoods. PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to assess the current text in the Jefferson Parish Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance regarding front yard fences to determine what changes need to be made to the language to make it more effective in providing clear guidelines for citizens. An additional purpose is to provide the Zoning Appeals Board, building inspectors, and other parish officials with reasonable standards on the type and placement of fences when reviewing building permits and variance requests. Jefferson Parish Council Resolution adopted requested this study (see appendix 1). As seen in the resolution, there are several stated objectives to be met through this analysis which should result in new zoning text that will provide greater assurances of the maintenance of "visibility, neighborhood aesthetics, and property values" when front yard fences are approved and erected. Criteria relating to height, setback, public safety, visual clearance, aesthetics, and design and type of fence material should be established to provide clear and objective standards which can then be applied on a case-by-case basis Parishwide. The Zoning Appeals Board (ZAB) has expressed concern over the vagueness of the language found in Section XX, Exceptions and Modifications, Subsections 6.D and 7.C, which are the specific portions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance that are used when reviewing variance requests for fences in the front yards of residential properties (see appendix 2). This lack of specificity has resulted in confusion and problems for those applying for this type of variance, and also does not provide the decision makers with definite standards by which to review each request. Without these guiding standards, this situation could http://www.uno.edu/—cupa/LUTAC/jefpar6.htm 5/19/04 CUPA - LUl'AC - Reccomendations Concerning the Current Regulation for Fences on Residential Lots Page 4 of 10 be compounded over time resulting in an adverse affect on the character of various neighborhoods. There is particular concern regarding the implications of Subsection 7.C.1 which grants property owners adjoining lots which have been granted a front yard fence variance the right to erect a front yard fence by simply requesting a building permit from the Inspection and Code Enforcement Division. The sole standard currently present in the text limits the height of these adjacent property owners' fences to that of the fence that was approved for their adjoining neighbor by the Zoning Appeals Board. In other words, once a single front yard fence has been approved along a particular street by the ZAB, it could set in motion a chain of front yard fence constructions without further review or approval by the ZAB and with the only controlling standard being that of height. It is easy to envision the negative results this cumulative or "domino" effect could have on the visual appearance along a particular street as well as the overall integrity of a neighborhood. Another important area of concern is the relationship between public safety and front yard fences. The existing regulations do not refer to this relationship, and since an increase in the number of requests is anticipated this issue must be addressed. More specifically, direction needs to be given in placement and use of materials in fence construction to account for a driver's field of vision when egressing onto a public street, for a passerby on the sidewalk or along the street, and for postal or other delivery service and possible emergency entry. f-�e��l:C�33�1�J► I �: In recent years, due to societal as well as land use changes, there has been an increase in the use of fencing around perimeters of property to provide additional security for the homeowner. It is understandable that in certain situations a front yard fence would be desirable and perhaps necessary to provide safety for property and individuals as well as for aesthetic reasons. Since this trend will more than likely continue, it is critical that Jefferson Parish have regulations in place that will provide concrete guidance to both those who request the fences and to public officials such as the Zoning Appeals Board. To date, Jefferson Parish has not escaped this national trend toward fencing property or gating communities, although the situation seems to vary somewhat by Councilmanic District. Historically, the Old Metairie area has had standards to guide and direct fencing as well as other design elements through the Neighborhood Conservation District in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (see appendix 3). From fieldwork and site visits throughout the Parish, it appears that these regulations have had the desired positive result. Similar lot sizes and housing types to those found in Old Metairie may exist in other neighborhoods, some of which may be adjacent to the Conservation District. http://www.uno.edu/—cupa/LUTAC/jefpar6.htm 5/19/04 UUPA - LUTAU - Keccomendations Concerning the Current Regulation for Fences on Residential Lots Page S of 10 Nevertheless, the non-specific regulations found in Section XX, Subsection 7.0 apply to any property located outside the District. Each of the six Councilmanic Districts in the Parish has a unique character, and individual neighborhoods have their own identity and sense of place. The common objectives among homeowners throughout the Parish in requesting variances for front yard fences are privacy, security, safety, and aesthetics. Since most of the Eastbank is built -out, much of the front yard fencing that will be approved will be retrofitted into existing neighborhoods, so preservation of the established area integrity is very important. In addition, as infill residential development takes place, and with the described rise in the popularity of fencing, specific guidelines need to be in place. Although there are many older neighborhoods on the Westbank where new standards will help maintain the desired character, the preponderance of vacant land in the Parish is also located on the Westbank. Thus, the majority of future development will take place there, and establishing new fencing regulations will be advantageous to creating character in these new neighborhoods. The additional goals of privacy, security and safety will be natural by-products of new standards for fences in these vacant tracts. METHODS OF ANALYSIS Study researchers gathered background information on trends in fencing regulations nationally and conducted a field investigation of the situation within Jefferson Parish. Interviews were held with members of the Planning Department staff and the Zoning Appeals Board. The first step involved consideration of Jefferson Parish's general residential fence regulations within the current Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. This included Section XX, Subsections 6.D and 7.C. Next, the fence guidelines for the Old Metairie Neighborhood Conservation District (Section VII -E) were analyzed for their potential applicability Parishwide. In addition to the Jefferson Parish Ordinance, other communities' requirements for residential fences were reviewed. Some of the examples used were New Orleans and Kenner, Louisiana; Sunnyvale, California; Brecksville, Ohio; and Marion County, Oregon. These sources were accumulated through on- line internet searches and use of the American Planning Association's research division, the Planning Advisory Service. Also, the national and the southeast regional offices of the American Fence Association were contacted for information on common fence regulations nationwide. Finally, a day was dedicated to driving through areas of Jefferson Parish mentioned as key to the front yard fencing issue. Old Metairie served as a possible example in which front yard fence regulations are working; whereas, River Ridge was examined as an example of a neighborhood in which the current http://www.uno.edu/—cupa/LUTAC/jefpar6.htm 5/19/04 UUPA - LUl'AC: - Reccomendations Concerning the Current Regulation for Fences on Residential Lots Page 6 of 10 regulations have resulted in incompatible front yard fencing. Statistics are forthcoming concerning the number of variance requests within the past year, the number of variance requests approved and the number of building permits issued locally. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As a zoning text analysis, this study is rooted in evaluating the usefulness of the current regulations for front yard fences in Jefferson Parish. Section XX of the Ordinance, Exceptions and Modifications, includes two subsections regulating fences in residential districts (see appendix 2). Subsection 6.D restricts fencing to prohibit the obstruction of visual clearance on a corner lot, while Subsection 7.0 specifically addresses front yard fence regulations. The resolution sought guidelines for the Zoning Appeals Board in reviewing variance requests and "establishing criteria relative to public safety, visual clearance, aesthetics, design and type of fence material" (PAB Study). The underlying issue was a concern about the increased number of variance requests for front yard fences in the absence of minimum standards upon which members of the Zoning Appeals Board could judge the merit of those requests. The accumulation of fence regulations from other communities across the nation displayed only one common trait: variety. Ordinance requirements ranged from allowing front yard fences no higher than seven feet in New Orleans, Louisiana; to prohibiting all front yard fences in St. Peters, Missouri; to grading front yard fence heights based on distance from the property line in Davis, California. The American Fence Association concurred that fence regulations vary widely among communities nationwide. Understanding the variation of fence regulations, this study considered the problems Jefferson Parish faced and then selected applicable requirements from other communities' ordinances. One of the primary issues in the Parish stems from Subsection 7.C.1 which allows construction of a front yard fence when the immediately adjoining lot has a front yard fence, either by variance or by right of legal non -conforming status. In such a case, the adjacent property owner is not required to bring his/her design plans before the Zoning Appeals Board. This situation causes negative consequences. First, the construction of the fence may endanger public safety. A solid fence may block the vision of drivers, or a fence made of hazardous materials such as barbed wire may place pedestrians at risk. Further, a new fence is not currently required to complement the character of the area or streetscape, resulting in conflicts among neighbors and possible negative impacts on property values. This study recommends that a zoning text change be made to update and further define the Ordinance language related to fences in front yards of Jefferson Parish. Subsection 6.D appears http://www.uno.edW—cupa/LUTAC/jefpar6.htm 5/19/04 CUPA - LUTAC - Reccomendations Concerning the Current Regulation for Fences on Residential Lots Page 7 of 10 to adequately address the issue of maintaining visual clearance on corner lots; this study recommends no change to Subsection 6.D. Subsection 7.C.2 should also be left unaltered as it contains necessary further restrictions on corner lot fences; however, it will be renumbered with the addition of text to 7.C.1. Subsection 7.0 was viewed as the main source of confusion and complaint regarding front yard fencing. This study recommends that the opening paragraph be split into two, since it contains two separate regulations. In the following subsection, a definition of "fences" must be added to prevent further circumvention of restrictions by substituting hedges or other landscaping material. Next, the Ordinance should require that any front yard fence maintain the character of the area or streetscape as is stated in the Old Metairie Neighborhood Conservation District (Jefferson Parish Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, VII-E.7.A.1). Having made these requirements up -front, the Ordinance language should then set forth minimum standards for front yard fences including height, setback, design, materials, and safety issues. Property owners would still be required to seek variance approval from the Zoning Appeals Board, but both the former and the latter would have substantive guidelines to evaluate the merit of the requested variance. Following is the new language recommended by this study which would replace Section XX, Subsection 7.C.1 of the Jefferson Parish Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. 7. EXCEPTIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO USE REGULATION: C. Fences 1. Open chain link fences not to exceed a height of 12 feet may be erected to enclose recreational areas such as tennis courts, badminton courts, volleyball courts, and similar recreational uses. 2. Fences not to exceed a height of seven (7) feet may be erected along lot lines or around required or existing yard area of residential uses and in each required or existing side yard of a residential use when placed in alignment approximately parallel to the front lot line and connecting the main building with a fence on or along a side lot line. 3. The following shall serve as standards for the Zoning Appeals Board in considering requests for front yard fence variances: a. A fence is defined as a structure and/or materials consisting of wood (rails or stakes), metal, masonry, vegetation (hedge), or other similar materials erected so as to provide a barrier or enclosure along the boundaries of a yard or lot. b. Fences shall not be constructed or maintained in http://www.uno.edu/—cupa/LUTAC/jefpar6.htm 5/19/04 CUPA - LUl'AC - Reccomendations Concerning the Current Regulation for Fences on Residential Lots Page 8 of 10 a manner which creates a hazard to life, health, or safety. c. Fences shall preserve the character of the area and/or the streetscape. Height, setback, and construction materials of existing fences in the area and/or along the neighborhood street shall be considered. d. No portion of the fence, including any pillars, shall exceed six(6) feet in height, measured from the crown of the street. e. The minimum setback from the front property line shall be two (2) feet. The area between the fence and the front property line shall be maintained by the property owner. f. Fences shall be of open construction and shall not be opaque. The face of the fence shall be on the outside of the lot upon which said fence is constructed, except where fences are jointly constructed. g. Open chain link, barbed wire, electrically charged, and solid fences shall not be allowed. Durable wood and metal picket fences shall be appropriate and may be used in conjunction with low masonry walls. Low masonry walls shall be defined as walls with a maximum height of three (3) feet. h. Front yard fence gates shall open to the inside of the subject property. Property owners are cautioned about locking the gate(s) of front yard fences for emergency and postal delivery access. 4. In cases where a corner lot adjoins a lot which fronts the side street, the side and rear yard areas of the corner lot shall remain open and unobstructed from any fence, shrub or structure for a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from the side property line so as not to interfere with the view of the lot fronting the side street. On a corner lot that abuts a key lot in the rear, vans, trucks and vehicles are prohibited from parking within ten (10) feet of the side property line. Finally, this study also recommends that a pamphlet or leaflet be developed and made available to residents of Jefferson Parish. It would explain the rationale behind the new fence regulations and could serve as a "how to" when a variance is sought. Also, the pamphlet could contain drawings to help citizens to visualize and to understand the Zoning Ordinance text (see appendix 4). To that effect, similar documents already exist in other cities in the United States (see appendix 5). This study is a planning analysis of the regulatory requirements for front yard fences on residential properties within Jefferson Parish. After a thorough review of the existing regulations and of the current situation relating to front yard http://www.uno.edu/—cupa/LUTAC/J*efpar6.htm 5/19/04 uurti - i. u iAu - xeccomenaations Loncerntng the Lurrent xegulation Tor rences on Kesiciential Lots rage y of lu fences in the Parish, it is recommended that the -Ordinance be amended to include language that will provide concrete guidance for Parish residents and officials. Standards will result that can be applied Parishwide on a case-by-case review to preserve neighborhood character found throughout the six Councilmanic Districts. It is important to note that one significant result of this amendment will be an increase in the number of variance requests that the Zoning Appeals Board will review, since the recommendation is that all front yard fence requests must go through the variance process. However, it is believed that the deletion of the "adjacency clause" is critical to meeting the objectives of the study. Another result will be the creation of legally non -conforming front yard fences throughout the Parish. However, this concern will diminish as non -conforming fences are gradually replaced. SOURCES "3.36.240 Fences and walls." (Cited 2 May 1997). In City of Santa Monica. [Online]. Available http://www.ci.santa- monica.ca.us/plannicode/art03/3.36/3.36.240. html. "546: Fences on Residential Lots." (Cited 2 May 1997). In SunLink. [Online]. Available http://www.ci.sunnyvale.ca.us/www2/sunlink/nm546.htm. City of Sunnyvale, California Department of Community Development, Planning Division. December 1995. "Fences on Residential Lots." Pamphlet no. CD 311. "Division 59-B-2. Exemptions from yard requirements. Sec. 59- B-2.1. Walls or Fences." Montgomery County, Maryland Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. "Fence Permits." (Cited 11 March 1997). In Virtual Times. [Online]. Available http://www.virtualtimes.com/redwoodcity/booklet/book09.htm. "Fence Regulations." (Cited 11 March 1997). In City of Ashland, Oregon Department of Community Development. [Online]. Available http://www.ashiand.or.us/comm0004.htm. "Fence Regulations." (Cited 11 March 1997.) In SPIN --Zoning Information. [Online]. Available http://www.win.org/city/ataglanc/zone_inf/fencereg.htm. "Fences in Residential Zones." (Cited 11 March 1997). In A Marion County Development Assistance Bulletin. [Online]. Available http://www.open.org/mcplann/handouts/fences.htm. http://www.uno.edu/—cupa/LUTAC/J*efpar6.htm 5/19/04 CUPA - LUTAC - Reccomendations Concerning the Current Regulation for Fences on Residential Lots Page 10 of 10 Jefferson Parish Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Reprinted 1 January 1996. Kenner, Louisiana Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 2427. Adopted 4 December 1978. Louque, Lenny. Director of Gulf South Chapter of the American Fence Association. Interview by Leslie Clark. Telephone conversation. New Orleans, Louisiana. 3 June 1997. New Orleans, Louisiana Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. "Ordinance no. 1024: Fence Wall and Hedge Requirements." (Cited 11 March 1997). In City of Davis, California Planning and Building Department. [Online]. Available http://www.city.davis. ca.us/city/plannbld/forms/fences.htm. "Regulations for Residential Fences." (Cited 11 March 1997). In Virtual City. [Online]. Available http://www.virtcity.com/cities/...vi/depts/building/fencereg/html. "Section 103.0528.13 --Fences." (Cited 2 May 1997). In Sannet. [Online]. Available http://www.sannet.gov/city-depa...ning- code/100/030/050/28.13.txt. Return to_t_op College of Urban and Public Affairs at UNO: www.uno.edu/—cupa 4�= This page was last modified Aug. 14, 1999 http://www.uno.edu/—cupa/LUTAC/jefpar6.htm 5/19/04 Lauderdale City Council Meeting Minutes May 11, 2004 1. Meeting called to order at 7:08 P.M. 2. ROLL Council present: Christensen, McCloskey, Gill -Gerbig and Mayor Dains Council absent: Giannetti Staff present: Administrator Getschow 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA A. Approval of Agenda. Motion by McCloskey, second by Gill -Gerbig to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. !�:\7�Z�Ii/:�� A. Approval of Minutes. Motion by Gill -Gerbig, second by McCloskey to approve the minutes of the April 27, 2004 City Council meeting. Roll: Yes: Christensen, McCloskey, and Mayor Dains. Abstain: Gill -Gerbig. Motion carried. B. Approval of Claims totaling $19,019.04. Motion by Gill -Gerbig, second by McCloskey to approve the claims totaling $19,019.04. Motion carried unanimously. 5. OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 6. CONSENT Lauderdale City Council Meeting Minutes, May 11, 2004 Page 2 7. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS/RECOGNITIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/ CITIZENS ADDRESSING STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS A. Garage Sale. The City Administrator stated that the citywide garage sale will be held on Saturday, May 15. Maps of the locations of the sales are still available at City Hall. 8. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATIONS A. 2003 Annual Police Department Report- Lt. Cotroneo, St. Anthony Police Department. Lt. Cotroneo presented a written report to the City Council on the 2003 Police Department activities in the City of Lauderdale. He provided statistics and general information on crime, patrol, investigations, minor traffic violations, resident calls for service, homeland security and officer training. Mayor Dains stated that the community -oriented policing philosophy employed by the department has been great. He thanked the department for the report and doing a good job in the community. He stated that he would like to see continued visibility in areas where there have been complaints on speeding and running through stop signs. Council member McCloskey added to that statement by requesting increased visibility and patrol within the residential neighborhoods. Council member Christensen also expressed appreciation for a job well done by the department. Council member Giannetti also stated that the department has done a good job and that the annual report was excellent. In conclusion, Lt. Cotroneo stated that free gunlocks are available at City Hall as part of a gun safety grant program. The free gunlocks are available during City Hall office hours. Lauderdale City Council Meeting Minutes, May 11, 2004 Page 3 9. ACTION A. City Hall Social Room and Kitchen Improvement Quotations. City Administrator Getschow stated that as a 2004 goal the City has planned to renovate the social room and kitchen with improvements to the windows, ceiling, and lighting. The project involves removing and replacing four windows and providing and installing a new ceiling with twenty 2 foot by 4 inch lay in florescent light fixtures. The work includes matching as close as possible to existing structure and material, which includes metal clad windows and stucco. Staff sought quotations from over 15 general contractors and received three quotations for the work required. Aandahl Construction's quotation for the work was the lowest of the three received at $23,388 after deducting the stucco work that will be completed separately. Aandahl also meets, and in some cases exceeds, the MN State Building Code requirements. Aandhal was also the only contractor to exactly meet all the specifications that were requested. The City has had a good working relationship with Aandahl Construction from a previous project that was completed in the City. Getschow stated that $30,000 was budgeted for this project. Therefore, even with the stucco work that will be completed separately, the overall project should come in under budget. Council member McCloskey brought up the idea of insulating the space between he old and the new ceiling for energy efficiency. Getschow stated that he would discuss this potential addition to the project with public works staff and Aandahl Construction. Motion by Gill -Gerbig, second by McCloskey to accept the quotation from Aandahl Construction for the renovation project in the social room and kitchen at City Hall for $23,388. Roll: Yes. All. Motion carried. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. ADDITIONAL ITEMS Lauderdale City Council Meeting Minutes, May 11, 2004 Page 4 12. SET AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING 1. Social Room Improvements Update 2. Braking on Highway 280 3. Work Session at 5:00 p.m. — Larpenteur Avenue Redevelopment presentation by Ehlers and Associates and a discussion of the fence ordinance A break was taken at 7:55 p.m. to transition into a work session discussion. 13. WORK SESSION DISCUSSION The meeting resumed at 8:00 p.m. A. Draft Zoning Ordinance. The City Council discussed Chapters 7-14 of the draft zoning ordinance. B. 2003 Street and Utility Improvements, The City Council discussed the final timing and the scheduling of the 2003 project. The Council also discussed placing signs in the newly paved alleys cautioning residents to drive slowly and be aware of children present in the alley. C. Street hnprovements- Tree and Landscaping Issues. The Council discussed the replacement of boulevard trees that were lost during the four years of street improvements. The Council also discussed reinvigorating the Tree Commission. 14. ADJOURNMENT Motion by McCloskey, second by Gill -Gerbig to adjourn at 8:45 P.M. Ayes: All. CITY OF LAUDERDALE Claims for Approval May 25, 2004 City Council Meetinq (Payroll 05/21/04 Payroll: Check # 7594-7598 05/21/04 Payroll: EFT: Federal Withholding Taxes/FICA 05/21/04 Payroll: EFT: PERA 05/21/04 Payroll: EFT: ICMA Retirement Fund May '04 Payroll: EFT: State Withholding Taxes Vendor Claims 05/25/04 Claims: Check # 16900-16918 Subtotal of Claims From Above $6,576.39 $2,672.18 $1,082.31 $1,137.52 $947.43 $56,412.761 $68,828.59 Total Claims for Approval $68,828.59 CITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/21/04 8:41 AM Page 1 Vendor Transactions CHECK Check Batch Nbr Date Name Invoice Search Name ABDO ABDO EICK & MEYERS 016900 5/25/04 052504claims 214511 016900 5/25/04 052504claims 214511 Search Name ABDO ABDO EICK & MEYERS Search Name AMERIPRIDE 016901 5/25/04 052504claims m053142 Search Name AMERIPRIDE Search Name AT & T 016902 5/25/04 052504claims 5/25 Search Name AT & T Search Name BIFFS, INC. 016903 5/25/04 052504claims w220146 Search Name BIFFS, INC. Search Name BLUE CHIP TREE CO., INC. 016904 5/25/04 052504claims 5/25 Search Name BLUE CHIP TREE CO., INC. Search Name CARTRIDGECARE INC. 016905 5/25/04 052504claims n5135 Search Name CARTRIDGECARE INC. Search Name CINTAS 016906 5/25/04 052504claims 5/25 Search Name CINTAS Search Name CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS 016907 5/25/04 052504claims 5/25 016907 5/25/04 052504claims 5/25 016907 5/25/04 052504claims 5/25 Search Name CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS Search Name CITY OF ROSEVILLE 016908 5/25/04 052504claims 4448 016908 5/25/04 052504claims 4448 Search Name CITY OF ROSEVILLE Search Name CITY OF ST ANTHONY 016909 5/25/04 052504claims 1092 Search Name CITY OF ST ANTHONY Search Name ESCHELON TELECOM, INC 016910 5/25/04 052504claims 5/25 Search Name ESCHELON TELECOM, INC Search Name GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL 016911 5/25/04 052504claims 4040505 Search Name GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL Search Name MET -COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER. 016912 5/25/04 052504claims 774161 Amount Comments $1,500.00 eoy 2003 certified audit $6,000.00 eoy 2003 certified audit $7,500.00 $86.63 paper towels, etc $86.63 $17.75 5/04 long distance $17.75 $89.50 park biffy thru 5/11/04 $89.50 $2,662.50 tree service at park $2,662.50 $147.66 toner for lazer jet $147.66 $57.60 5/13, 5/20 pw uniforms $57.60 $12,897.51 04 fire contract base rate $1,077.00 4/04 false alarms $2,154.00 4/04 fire calls $16,128.51 $164.08 5/04 technical services $170.33 fax machine $334.41 $20,068.17 6/04 police services $20,068.17 $233.89 5/04 city hall phone $233.89 $73.60 4/04 locate services $73.60 $7,655.87 6/04 wastewater services CITY OF LAUDERDALE 05/21/04 8:41 AM Page 2 Vendor Transactions CHECK Check Batch Nbr Date Name Invoice Amount Comments Search Name MET -COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER. $7,655.87 Search Name NORTH SUBURBAN ACCESS CORP 016913 5/25/04 052504claims 04-074 $491.07 1804 webstreaming, programming Search Name NORTH SUBURBAN ACCESS CORP $491.07 Search Name NORTH SUBURBAN COMMUNICATIONS 016914 5/25/04 052504claims cc04-121 $140.30 1804 internet services Search Name NORTH SUBURBAN COMMUNICATIONS $140.30 Search Name POSTMASTER 016915 5/25/04 052504claims 5/25 $111.00 stamps Search Name POSTMASTER $111.00 Search Name SCHARBER AND SONS 016916 5/25/04 052504claims 311640 $163.59 tractor maintenance Search Name SCHARBER AND SONS $163.59 Search Name SPRINT PCS 016917 5/25/04 052504claims 5/25 $15.85 4/04 pw cell phone 016917 5/25/04 052504claims 5/25 $15.85 4/04 pw cell phone Search Name SPRINT PCS $31.70 Search Name XCEL ENERGY 016918 5/25/04 052504claims 5/25 $419.01 4/04 street lighting Search Name XCEL ENERGY $419.01 Grand Total $56,412.76 M E M O S B Y J A M E S DATE: MAY 25, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL QV FROM: JAMES BOWNIK, A2CA RE: FRONT -YARD FENCE REQUEST: 1729 CARL STREET BACKGROUND Jill Peifer, 1729 Carl Street, is requesting City Council approval to construct a fence in the front setback area of her property. According to Lauderdale's City Code, City Council approval is required for the portion of the fence that is proposed for the front setback area. A new, 4 foot tall, black vinyl chain link fence would be constructed 25 feet from the front property line adjacent to Ione Street. The fence would extend 10 feet into the front setback area from the northeastern corner of the house to the west side property line. The fence would then extend along the side property line to a distance of 2.5 feet from the rear property line, ending at the southeastern corner of the house. The dimensions of the property are 57' x 130'. I have attached the application and site plan. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL The property is zoned R-1 Suburban Residential. The following sections of City Code Title 9, Chapter 7 apply to this request: • "No fence along or within the front setback area shall be permitted without the approval of the City Council". • "In the event a front yard fence is adjacent to and parallel with the front lot line (or side lot line on the street side of a corner lot), such fence shall be setback at least one foot (1') from the street right-of-way or property line". • "When the property line is not clearly defined, a certificate of survey may be required by the Building Official to establish the property line". • "Fences located within the side and rear yard setback areas beginning at the rear building line and fences located within the buildable area of a lot shall not exceed seven feet (7') in height from finished grade". CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Consider approval of that portion of fence construction proposed to be located in the front setback area at 1729 Carl Street per the site plan. City of Lauderdale 1891 Walnut Street • Lauderdale & Minnesota 55113 Phone: 651.631.0300 Fax: 651.631.2066 DRIVEWAY, FENCE & SIDEWALK PERMIT APPLICATION I UNDERSTAND AND HEREBY AGREE THAT THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS ISSUED SHALL BE PERFORMED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING: (1) THE CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT, (2) THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, (3) THE APPLICABLE CITY APPROVALS, ORDINANCES, AND CODES, AND (4) THE STATE BUILDING ODE. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT ALL REQ iNspEcTj6Vs ARE REQUESTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE STATE BUILDING CODE. pplic 's Sig re Please Print Applicant's Name Date a /(f t1l � G X), CiviXplorer Online! Printable Map Page 1 of 1 Ramsey Count oL ��,� �il cet(errt,e, ,,V Inleistole Hwy I/ Siato H,.q Roads SfrUClufes Parcels IDI'SCLAIMER:This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This SOURCES:Ramsey County (May M p is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and 3, 2004), The Lawrence Group other sources reoardina the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. http://maps.metro-inet.us/rcarcims/ims?ServiceName=ramsey_master&ClientVersion=4.0&F... 5/21/04 M E M O S B Y J A M E S DATE: MAY 25, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: JAMES BOWNIK, A2CA OW RE: FRONT -YARD FENCE REQUEST: 1791 MALVERN STREET Bill Miller and Jessica Shuster, 1791 Malvern Street, are requesting City Council approval to construct a fence in the front setback area of their property. According to Lauderdale's City Code, City Council approval is required for the portion of the fence that is proposed for the front setback area. A new, 3 foot tall, wood picket fence would be constructed one foot from the front property line. The dimensions are proposed to be 18 feet across the front, and 36 feet deep. The purpose of the fence is to enclose a garden in the southeast corner of the property, which is 80' x 127. A privacy fence is being requested with the objective of keeping rabbits out of the garden. I have attached the application and site plan. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL The property is zoned R-1 Suburban Residential. The following sections of City Code Title 9, Chapter 7 apply to this request: • "No fence along or within the front setback area shall be permitted without the approval of the City Council". • "In the event a front yard fence is adjacent to and parallel with the front lot line (or side lot line on the street side of a corner lot), such fence shall be setback at least one foot (1') from the street right-of-way or property line". • "When the property line is not clearly defined, a certificate of survey may be required by the Building Official to establish the property line". • "Fences located within the side and rear yard setback areas beginning at the rear building line and fences located within the buildable area of a lot shall not exceed seven feet (7') in height from finished grade". CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Consider approval of that portion of fence construction proposed to be located in the front setback area at 1791 Malvern Street per the site plan. City of Lauderdale 1891 Walnut Street • Lauderdale • Minnesota 55113 Phone: 651.631.0300 Fax: 651.631.2066 DRIVEWAY, FENCE & SIDEWALK PERMIT APPLICATION tjfA I UNDERSTAND AND HEREBY AGREE THAT THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT IS ISSUED SHALL BE PERFORMED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING: (1) THE CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT, (2) THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, (3) THE APPLICABLE CITY APPROVALS, ORDINANCES, AND CODES, AND (4) THE STATE BUILDING CODE. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS ARE REQUESTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE STATE BUILDING CODE. _3ess16a- 5 9 LOq )-AZp—plic 's Signature Please Print Applicant's Name Date H - 11 4-1 —1AA., INS } 1 ! t Eil i VC zit' ' i� -1 - - o ; �` -- _ J {i t �I _ �� I I _ ; _amu—_ 1 i I E _ E. i_. 1 �.. I' t i l+° 45 i + + _ WA T`T 1 I I lid c I } _ l 4 I o _ _ 1 " 7—i , i_ J—_�.. _.!- - � —t---` R• BS -I �I r� i T?� .._ I _ or -- '� � t t 1 1- nPrf t I 1AM 7 1-- - 1 t --TT i i i I yl S -- ('(t s 1" t; 1 _o a43.n� 1 5- ` -r ---i...t r ,` t .T� �,t ,I 1� "� `' i .,t„ ' 41— Ll - S�..n�. -I - a4___ _r a — ; �a 1 r Isv wl _ } r \ILLI l •% ' t i } [- 4-+--'c "'.` _. I 1 t s t ,yam'_ Z i i ; 1 j } l s - I -1- f 4 1 ( i ,tl—i , J-1 _ -LJ-J-1-144-44-7-1i It. i r _ E ! i `� �\z 7 CiviXplorer Online! Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http://maps.metro-inet.us/rcarcimslims?ServiceName=ramsey_master&ClientVersion=4.0&F... 5/21/04 Property Records and Revenue Stephen L. Baker, County Assessor Valuation Division 50 West Kellogg Boulevard, Suite 840 St. Paul, MN 55102-1657 May 11, 2004 To City Administrators/ City Mangers 651-266-2005 651-266-2150 Fax: 651-266-2001 TDD#: 651-266-2170 Stephen.L.Baker@Co.Ramsey.MN.US The Ramsey County. Assessor's office is once again beginning our annual revaluation of property located in Ramsey County. This is the fourth year of our current cycle. We have viewed over 104,000 homes in the past three years and hope to finish the current review cycle this year by reviewing the 40,000 homes not reviewed in the past three years. This work is an important component of our effort to issuing the best possible assessment. I enclose a letter to your residents and a map for your resident's information. This information should outline the plan for this year and show the properties we plan on inspecting. We are also, for your convenience, providing this information electronically on a CD. Due to budgetary constraints this year we will not be mailing advance notice to the homes scheduled for review. Therefore we are requesting that you assist us in communicating our presence to your residents. This can be done in your newsletter, an insert in a utility bill, an article in a local newspaper, a notice on your web site, etc. We plan on a press release announcing this work and would like to point people to both our web site and to your city web site for detailed information. We therefore request you consider posting this information on your web site. Our appraisers will be walking house to house to complete our work. They will carry identification and they have all been instructed to introduce themselves to city staff and to keep you informed of their progress and the locations they are working. They may need to only inspect the exterior of a particular home or they may need to request the owner allow an interior inspection. Our long-term plan is to develop our upcoming five-year quintile revaluation schedule later this year and hope to publish that plan in map form as well. We will endeavor to keep the areas in the upcoming plan as contiguous as possible to make communication of the areas scheduled to reviews easier. Please feel free to call should you have any questions, suggestions or concerns. It is our goal to make this program as effective as possible while minimizing citizen anxiety and confusion. Sin ely, Stephen L Baker County Assessor cc. City Mayor Attach. Minnesota's First Home Rule County printed on reeyded paper with a inini umn of 111% post-consomercontell t Revaluation Announcement As required by State law, appraisers from the Ramsey County Assessor's Office will be visiting one fifth of the homes in Ramsey County this year. To ensure the accuracy of our data, the appraisers will request permission to complete an interior inspection of the properties they visit. All appraisers will have a County issued picture identification and should be able to complete the inspection of your home in approximately 10 minutes. However, if your home is new and was recently appraised by our office, an interior inspection will not likely be necessary. If you are not available at the time the appraiser comes to your property, a notice will be left notifying you of our visit. Any further instructions such as the need for an interior review or additional information will also be on this notice. Again, this inspection will ensure that our property data is accurate and will assist us in estimating a fair and equitable assessment of your property for property tax purposes. Most of the properties in Lauderdale were revalued in 2001 for the 2002 assessment. There are a few scattered properties to be reviewed in 2004 for the 2005 assessment; most properties to be reviewed are on Malvern St. There are also a few individual properties throughout Lauderdale that were missed in the previous three years. To view a map of properties to be reviewed in 2004 for the 2005 assessment, click here. L .tie Roseville Falcon Heights Lauderdale.pdf If you have any questions or concerns, please call 651-266-2131, weekdays 8 a.m.- 4:30 p.m. Thank you. Ramsey County Assessor's Office. CITY OF LAUDERDALE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Kevin Walsh, Deputy Clerk SUBJECT: Jake Braking DATE: May 25, 2004 1--gT44 7 Z�1111I I Vehicle noise laws, including Jake Braking, are able to be restricted on trunk highway 280 throughout the City of Lauderdale. The Minnesota Department of Transportation uses eight guidelines to determine the appropriateness of vehicle noise enforcement signing. 1. The signing may be permitted on two-lane trunk highways where adequate space is available. 2. Only one sign shall be allowed per trunk highway approach into a community. 3. The sign panel shall be black lettering on a white background and display the message, "VEHICLE NOISE LAWS ENFORCED." The size of the sign shall be determined based on the posted speed limit. 4. There must be adequate space for the sign as determined by the Mn/DOT traffic engineer. 5. The request for the sign shall be made in writing by the community. 6. The City must pass a resolution stating that it will enforce Minnesota Statutes 169.9 (Muffler) and 169.693 (Motor Vehicle Noise Limits) prior to requesting the signs. 7. The City shall fabricate and install the sign(s) with their own forces or under contract. A permit from Mn/DOT must be obtained by the City for placement of signs on trunk highway right-of-ways. 8. The sign panel shall be fabricated with sheet aluminum and reflective material in accordance with current Mn/DOT standards. As well as a required city resolution, the City would need to add motor vehicle noise regulations to the City Code. This addition could be added to Title 6, Motor Vehicle and Traffic Ordinances. Example(s): It shall be unlawful for any truck to intentionally Dynamic Brake (Jake Brake) on any public highway, street, parking lot or alley within the City of Lauderdale, except in an emergency. Or, No person shall be permitted to operate or allow to be operated on an internal combustion engine powered vehicle on any posted public highways, including, but not limited to, streets, alleys, easements, or right-of-ways established for vehicle or operator is utilizing an engine brake or Jake Brake without an exhaust muffler sufficient to prevent the creation of excessively loud noised by said vehicle, except when the use of such engine or Jake Brake is necessary for the safe operation of the vehicle. The Ordinance is not intended to prohibit the passage of vehicles equipped with engine or Jake Brakes in posted areas, but rather limit the use of such equipment in posted areas under the aforesaid circumstances. DISCUSSION Look at passing a resolution stating that the City will enforce Minnesota Statutes 169.9 (Muffler) and 169.693 (Motor Vehicle Noise Limits) and adding language to the City Code reflecting the enforcement with vehicle noise laws.