Loading...
VII.1. First Reading Zoning Code Text Amendment Related to Residential Fence Standards; Lindahl September 1, 2020 City Council Report 2020-063 Zoning Code Text Amendment Related to Residential Fence Standards Proposed Action: Move to adopt Resolution 2020-044, approving the first reading of Ordinance 2020-1158 amending the City Code related to residential fence standards. Overview This zoning code text amendment was initiated by staff to address challenges with administering one of the most common residential permit requests – residential fences. Staff finds that the City’s current residential fence standards are unnecessarily complex and result in struggles and frustration for many permit applicants. These issues most commonly result from the City’s fence height and opacity standards. The attached ordinance revises these standards and makes other “housekeeping” revisions to simplify and streamline Hopkins’ residential fence standards while maintaining the original spirit and intent of these regulations to guard against the potential for residential fences to create a more dense, closed-off and isolated community character. Both the Planning & Zoning Commission and staff recommended approval of this text amendment. Should the City approve the recommended changes, they would: • Allow fences up to 6’ in height alongside yard property lines up to the front of the principal building (house). • Allow fences 4’ or less in height to be 100 percent opaque. • Make other minor “housekeeping” revisions. Primary Issues to Consider ● Background ● Zoning Code Text Amendment ● Potential Non-Conformity Issues ● Alternatives Supporting Documents ● Resolution 2020-0044 ● Ordinance 2020-1158 ● Public Comments _____________________ Jason Lindahl, City Planner City Council Report 2020-063 Page 2 Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N ____ Source: _____________ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________ Notes: Background The City’s fence regulations are detailed in City Code Part III, Chapter 102, Section 102-13. For your reference, staff has attached both an original and revised copy. While this section includes standards for fences throughout the City, the recommended changes are specifically targeted at fences in residential areas. The current text uses technical language that is difficult to follow. In addition, the height and opacity standards are often in conflict with the needs of individual property owners. The current regulations set the maximum height for a residential fence at four (4) feet except for the area between the back of the principal structure (house) and the rear property line where a fence can be up to 6’ feet high. The current regulations results in three primary challenges for homeowners. First, residents often comment that they would like a 6’ fence between the side of their home and the neighboring property for additional privacy. Residential side yard setbacks can be as little as 5’ resulting in no more than 10’ between neighboring dwellings. Second, many homes in Hopkins have doors along the side of the house that provide access to the rear yard and detached garage. It is common for residents to want the 6’ high fence to extend beyond the back of the house to the side door for security and ease of access. Finally, a fence height standard based on the back of the home is inherently problematic because this location is the most likely to change as a result of improvements or additions to the home. Any addition to the back of the home could have the unintended consequence of making an existing fence non-conforming. Planning & Zoning Commission Action. The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed this item (Planning Application 2020-20) during their August 25, 2020 meeting. During the meeting, the Commission heard a presentation from staff and no direct public comments. Due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and the related statewide emergency declaration, notice of the public hearing for this item directed all interested parties to make their comments to City Planner Jason Lindahl by mail, phone or e-mail before noon on Tuesday, August 25, 2020. The City has received two comments supporting the proposed text amendment (attached). The first came through an anonymous submission to the 2040 comprehensive plan page on the City’s website. This person supports the proposed change to the opacity standard citing the need for additional privacy. The second comment submission came from David Almquist of 201 Holly Road. Mr. Almquist is a recent fence permit applicant and states he supports the proposed changes because many fence products commonly available today are pre-made and don’t meet the 25 percent openness standard. He goes on to state having a 4’ solid fence would have more openness than a 6’ fence that meets the 25 percent openness standard. While these are only two comments, staff would add that they are generally representative of the feedback received regarding the existing residential fence standards. Zoning Code Text Amendment Zoning Code amendments are legislative actions in that the City is creating new standards to regulate the development of certain types of uses and/or structures. Under the law, cities have wide flexibility to create standards that will ensure the type of development they desire. However, zoning regulations must be reasonable and supported by a rational basis relating to promoting the public health, safety and welfare. Based on the findings made below, staff recommends approval City Council Report 2020-063 Page 3 of this request. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning code text amendment is consistent with both the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 4 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Land Use and Development details the rationale behind the City’s land use plan. This narrative supports the preservation and protection of the City’s existing residential neighborhoods. Staff believes the proposed zoning changes to the City’s residential fence standards will help preserve and protect the City’s existing residential neighborhoods by encouraging investment. In order to facilitate this residential land use pattern, Hopkins will: • Work to protect the integrity and long-term viability of its low-density residential neighborhoods and strive to reduce the potential negative effects of nearby commercial or industrial land through zoning, site plan reviews, and code enforcement. • Work to assure strong and well-maintained neighborhoods. Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins. As the City moves toward adoption of the 2040 Land Use Plan, staff believes it is also important to weigh the goals and policies of this draft plan when considering land use applications. However, it is important to keep in mind the 2040 Plan has yet to be officially approved by the Metropolitan Council or adopted by the City. Still, this draft plan can offer valuable guidance when considering current land use applications. The Draft 2040 Plan contains goals and policies that support approval of this application. Staff finds the proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies. Built Environment – Land Use & Design • Goal 4 - Support and strengthen the city’s residential areas with reinvestment and appropriate infill. The supporting policy for this goal states the City should “preserve and enhance the community’s detached single family housing stock, especially in the Estate Neighborhood and Suburban Neighborhood future land use categories.” • Goal 5 - Reinforce Hopkins’ unique identity and sense of community through high quality urban design. This goal is supported by a policy to “Reinforce the distinctive characteristics of Downtown and existing neighborhoods by encouraging developments that are compatible in design and supportive within their context.” • Goal 6 - Create appropriate transitions between areas of the city where there are potential incompatibilities in land use or scale. This goal is supported by the policy to “Use urban design elements, building massing, land use strategies, and public realm improvements to provide appropriate transitions between developments – particularly those of different scale and intensity.” Compatibility with Present and Future Land Uses. Based on the analysis above, staff finds the proposed zoning changes to the City’s residential fence standards compatible with present and future land uses. The proposed changes would provide both existing and future residential properties additional privacy and security while maintaining the City’s goal that fences do not create a more dense and isolated development pattern. City Council Report 2020-063 Page 4 Conformance with New Standards. This section considers how the proposed zoning changes will fit in with the rest of the zoning regulations and the existing development pattern. In this case, staff believes the proposed changes will fit well with both of these measures. Generally, fences are a common tool to enhance privacy and security for individual property owners. Because of Hopkins’ relatively dense residential development pattern, the City has taken the additional step to consider how the height and opacity of residential fences could impact the residential development pattern and overall character of the community. To be sure, higher and more opaque fences could create a denser and closed-off development pattern. However, staff believes the proposed changes offer a reasonable compromise between the City’s land use and community character goals and the privacy and security needs of individual residential property owners. Potential Non-Conformity Issues According to Minnesota Statute 462.357, Subdivision 1e., legal nonconformities generally have a statutory right to continue through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement but not through expansion. These rights run with the land and are not limited to a particular landowner. If the benefited property is sold, the new owner will have the same rights as the previous owner. So any non-conformities resulting from these changes would be allowed to continue in their present form as long as it does not expand or is discontinued for a period of more than one year. Regardless, staff believes there should be few non-conformities that result from the proposed residential fence revisions because they tend to offer a greater range of options to individual property owners rather than less. Alternatives 1. Approve the first reading of Ordinance 2020-1158. By approving the first reading of this ordinance, this application will move forward for a second reading and formal approval at the September 15, 2020 City Council meeting. 2. Deny the first reading of Ordinance 2020-1158. By denying the first reading of this ordinance, this application will not move forward for a second reading and formal approval at the September 15, 2020 City Council meeting. Should the City Council consider this option, it must also identify specific findings that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further information. The items should be continued if the City Council finds that further information is needed to evaluate this application. CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2020-044 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 2020-1158 AMENDING THE CITY CODE RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL FENCE STANDARDS. WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins initiated an application to amend the City Code related to residential fence standards; and WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application to amend the City Code related to residential fence standards was initiated by the City of Hopkins on July 24, 2020; and 2. That the Hopkins Planning & Zoning Commission, pursuant to published notice, held a public hearing to review such application on August 25, 2020 and all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and 3. That written comments and analysis of City staff were considered 4. That during the August 25, 2020 regular meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Hopkins approved a motion to recommend the City Council approve this item. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hopkins hereby approves the first reading or Ordinance 2020-1158 amending the City Code related to residential fence standards based on the findings of fact detailed in City Council Report 2020-063 dated September 1, 2020. Adopted this 1st day of September, 2020. ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk Jason Gadd, Mayor CITY OF HOPKINS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ORDINANCE NO. 2020-1158 ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE PART III, CHAPTER 102, SECTION 102-13 REGARDING RESIDENTIAL FENCES NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Hopkins City Code, Part II, Chapter 4, Article II, Section 4-36(a) is hereby amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the stricken language as follows: Sec. 102-13. - Fences. (a) Permit required before work may commence. No person may construct, or cause to be constructed or erected within the city, any fence without first making application for and securing a permit therefor from the zoning administrator. (b) Location. Boundary line fences shall be located entirely upon the private property of the person constructing or causing the construction of such fence unless the owner of the property adjoining agrees, in writing, that such fence may be erected on the division line of the respective properties. The zoning administrator may require the owner of the property upon which a fence now currently exists, or may require any applicant for a fence permit to cause to establish the boundary lines of his their property by a survey th ereof to be made by any registered land surveyor. any applicant for a fence permit or any property owner with an existing fence to establish the boundary lines of their property by means of a property survey produced by a registered land surveyor. (c) Materials and Construction and maintenance. A fence shall be constructed in a substantial, workmanlike manner and of substantial material widely accepted in the fencing industry and reasonably suitable for the purpose for which the fence is proposed to be used intended. No plywood boards, canvas, plastic sheeting, metal sheeting or similar materials shall be used for any fence construction. Link fences shall be constructed in a manner that no barbed ends shall be at the top. The side of any fence considered to be its "face" (i.e., the finished side having no structural supports) shall face the abutting property or street right of way. The finished side of all fences (i.e., the side of the fence without posts or visual structural support elements) must face outward, toward the abutting lot or right-of-way. Barbed wire fences are permitted only in Industrial Districts as provided by this code. Electric boundary fences are not permitted within the city. Maintainance. The fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private. Link fences, wherever permitted, shall be constructed in such manner the barbed end is at the bottom of the fence and the knuckle end is at the top thereof. (d) Nuisances. Any fence which is, or has become dangerous to the public safety, health or welfare, is a public nuisance. The zoning administrator may commence proper proceedings for the abatement thereof. (e) Barbed wire or electric fence. Barbed wire fences are permitted only in Industrial Districts as provided by this code. Electric boundary fences are not permitted within the city. Easements: All fences located in recorded easements are done so at the sole risk of the property owner; and the cost of any removal, relocation, or placement of said structures caused by any activity permitted in said easements is the sole responsibility of the property owner. Temporary Or Seasonal Fences: Temporary or seasonal fences (such as snow fences, erosion control fences, fences to protect newly seeded areas and the like) are allowed without a permit provided: a) no such fence may be left in place for more than six (6) months without written city approval; b) any such fence must be removed within fifteen (15) days of the city providing written notice to the landowner that the city has determined the fence no longer serves its originally intended, temporary or seasonal purpose. (f) Residential District fences. All fences in Residential Districts shall be constructed in such manner that at least 25 percent of the plane between the ground and the top of the fence is open, and in calculating such percentage, distances of 50 feet may be averaged beginning at the permitted point opposite the principal building. All boundary line fences in Residential Districts shall be erected or maintained to measure no more than four feet in height except that: (1) Fences on any corner lot erected within 30 feet of the intersecting curb line are subject to section 102-12; (2) Fences on side property lines shall not be more than six feet in height for the distance commencing from a point on such side property line located at the rear lot line and proceeding thence along such side property line to a point therein which would be intersected by the rear wall line of the then existing principal building on that lot on either side of such fence, which building line intersecting such fence line is closest to the rear lot line from which such fence commences provided that if such principal building is located more than 50 feet away from such fence line and is owned by someone other than the fence owner or erector, then such six-foot side yard fence may be constructed to a point of such side yard which would be intersected by the rear wall of the principal building on the lot thus fenced; (3) Fences along any rear property line, which is also the rear property line of an abutting lot shall not exceed six feet in height; (4) Fences along a rear property line which line constitutes the side lot line of an abutting lot may not exceed six feet in height for a distance calculated as in subsection (f)(2) of this section and may not exceed four feet in height thereafter; (5) Fences on side street lot lines shall not be more than six feet in height for the distance commencing from a point on such side street lot line located at the rear lot line and proceeding thence along such side lot line to a point thereon which is 40 feet distant from the front lot line, but in no case shall the fence extend forward of the front line of the house; (6) Property line fences abutting R Districts shall conform to those conditions applying to the R Districts. (7) Fences enclosing swimming pools must have a minimum height of four feet and shall not exceed six feet subject to the provisions of this section. (8) The side of residentially zoned properties abutting a state or county road may have an opaque fence. (9) The side of the fence facing the public right-of-way shall not contain the structure and/or support of the fence. Height. The maximum allowed fence height depends on its location in relationship to the front of the existing principal structure (house) excluding porches or entry features. Fences located between the front of the principal structure and the front property line shall not exceed four (4) feet in height, subject to section 102- 12 (Traffic Visibility). Fences located between the front of the principal structure and the rear property line shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. Fences enclosing swimming pools shall have a minimum height of four (4) feet. Opacity. Fences up to four (4) feet in height may be 100 percent opaque. Fences greater than four (4) feet in height shall not exceed 75 percent opacity leaving at least 25 percent of the fence open. Any fence along the side of a residentially zoned property abutting a state or county road may be 100 percent opaque. The opacity of a fence shall be determined by calculating the average openness from the top to the bottom of the fence structure over a distance of 50 feet. (g) Business District fences. Property line fences in a B District shall not exceed six feet in height. The council may grant a conditional use permit for a fence up to eight feet in height, provided: (1) That applicant has an approved open sales lot; (2) Open sales lot classified as a non-conforming use; (3) Has a commercial or industrial operation which requires the storage of equipment outside the building; (4) The premises or use may be dangerous to the public; (5) The use is an attractive nuisance and the applicant can show that for security reasons a fence of six feet will not be adequate. (h) Industrial District fences. Property line fences in an I District shall not exceed eight feet in height except that: (1) Fences in Industrial Districts which are primarily erected as a security measure may have arms projecting into the applicant's property on which barbed wire can be fastened commencing at a point at least seven feet above the ground; and (2) A fence located in the front yard of premises in an Industrial District abutting a right-of-way containing 50 feet or more in width shall conform to setback requirements for buildings in said district. Said area consisting of the setback shall be landscaped in accordance with a plan approved by the city. Ornamental fences utilized for landscaping purposes are excluded from the provisions of this chapter. (i) Special purpose fences. Fences for special purposes and fences differing in construction, height or length may be permitted in any district in the city by the issuance of a conditional use permit and by the council upon proof and reasons submitted by the applicant and upon the signing by said bodies that such special purpose is necessary to protect, buffer or improve the premises for which such fence is intended. The special fence permit, if issued, may stipulate and provide for the height, location, construction and type of special fence thereby permitted. (j) Institutional District fences. In an Institutional District no boundary line fence shall be erected or maintained more than four feet in height except that, fences along any property line that abuts a parking lot may exceed four feet but shall not exceed six feet in height. (Code 1986, § 520.13; Ord. No. 613; Ord. No. 87-601; Ord. No. 88-613; Ord. No. 95-777, 1-3- 1996; Ord. No. 97-797, 4-15-1997; Ord. No. 2000-833; Ord. No. 13-1064) SECTION 2. The effective date of this ordinance shall be the date of publication. First Reading: September 1, 2020 Second Reading: September 15, 2020 Date of Publication: September 24, 2020 Date Ordinance Takes Effect: September 24, 2020 By: ____________________________ Jason Gadd, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Jason Lindahl; Courtney Pearsall Subject:[EXTERNAL] Online Form Submittal: Draft Comprehensive Plan Feedback Form Date:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 10:19:59 AM Draft Comprehensive Plan Feedback Form Draft Comprehensive Plan Feedback Form Please provide any feedback on the Cultivate Hopkins draft comprehensive plan 1) Fencing Guidelines. The 25% open Rule is outdated and should be removed. The reason I was given by Nancy Anderson (retired?) was the City needed Visual Access to All properties for potential Code violations. But this has restricted my ability to have ANY privacy and security on my property. Which of the 4 Environments should Hopkins make its top priority when implanting the comprehensive plan? Built Environment – Land use and development, multimodal transportation, and housing and neighborhoods. Feedback from the comprehensive plan public engagement process identified 8 implementation focus areas. Select what you believe should be the THREE highest priorities for the City when implementing the comprehensive plan. Accessible & Connected Community – Develop and maintain networks that facilitate safe connections for walking, biking and transit., Race & Equity – Proactively identify and address racial disparities in the community and promote equity for all. , Livable Communities – Support a community that provides a high quality of life and access to daily needs. Rank your three most important implementation focus areas from the question above, where 1 is the highest priority. 1. Highest priority Remove Fencing Guidelines. The 25% open Rule. 2. Second highest priority Field not completed. 3. Third highest priority Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. From:David Almquist To:Jason Lindahl Subject:[EXTERNAL] Hopkins Fence Restrictions Date:Friday, July 17, 2020 6:52:17 AM Jason, Thanks for the call yesterday in talking through the Hopkins fence restrictions and the possibility of changing the codes. I am highly in favor of changing the code that allows for a fence 4' or less being solid all the way through. Many fences today come manufactured and you can't make any changes to them ie the manufacturer doesn't provide a lattice top option. Also and in my instance and under today's code, I would essentially need to make my fence higher to gain 25% visibility which when left at 4' with no add on would actually have more than 25% visibility and will be more aesthetically pleasing. I hope this can be helpful in making a permanent change in the code for the city of Hopkins. Thanks again Dave Almquist 201 Holly Rd Hopkins MN 55343