04-19-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Code Review April 19, 2006 Page 3 Staff contacted and received information from a number of communities (including all adjacent cities) and determined that none of the neighboring communities generally require a fence or retaining wall setback. Only one community for which we had obtained information—Vadnais Heights—required a setback for a fence, and only in the case of the fence being a privacy fence (100% opaque) which it classified as an accessory structure subject to the accessory structure setback of five feet. In addition, the City of Blaine, which does not typically require a setback for a fence, does require a one foot setback for any fence six feet in height. Below is a sampling of fence definitions from other communities: Arden Hills Undefined Blaine Any partition, structure, wall, or gate erected as a divider marker, barrier or enclosure and located along the boundary, or within the required yard. Circle Pines Any partition, screen, structure, wall or gate erected as a divider, marker, barrier or enclosure. Columbia Heights Any partition, structure, wall or gate erected as a dividing marker, barrier, or enclosure of a permanent nature. Coon Rapids Undefined Cottage Grove Any partition, structure, wall or gate erected as a dividing marker, barrier or enclosure and located along the boundary, or within the required yard. Fridley Undefined Little Canada Any partition, structure, wall or gate erected as a dividing marker, barrier, or enclosure. New Brighton Undefined Shoreview Undefined Vadnais Heights A barrier constructed of materials other than evergreen shrubbery erected for the purpose of protection, confinement, enclosure, or privacy. The term "fence" shall include barriers of at least 25 percent opacity, screening walls, and opaque lines of plantings exceeding thirty inches in height. Given that there seems to be no confusion regarding what a fence is, despite the absence of a definition in the Code, it would not seem necessary that a definition be added. If the Planning Commission believes a definition would be beneficial, staff would recommend something similar to one of those listed above. More important than a definition, however, is whether the Planning Commission feels the Code should be amended to require a setback for fences in the City. There are pros and cons relating to the implementation of a fence setback. The benefits of such a setback would include virtually eliminating disputes as to whether a neighbor’s fence was on the property line or over the property line, and would provide sufficient space on one’s own property to maintain both sides of the fence. Another benefit would be the elimination of “back-to-back” fences. Concerns or detriments of a fence setback would also need careful consideration. If property owners have privacy fences set back from each other, this could result in a series of “pedestrian alleys” between the properties, attracting kids or persons with questionable intentions. While fence maintenance would be possible with setbacks, a property owner may be less motivated to maintain the lawn area on the other side of the fence, allowing weeds and tall grass to invade. This would not be a new concern, however, as there will always be residents less concerned about yard appearances, with or without a fence. The other impact of instituting a setback for fences would be to make nearly every fence in the City a non-conforming use.