Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/10/05 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - Regular (2)AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. OCTOBER 5, 2016 1. Call to order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of August 17, 2016 3. Hearings A. Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Communication Tower Location: 2501 State Highway 100 S. Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No: 16-37-CUP and 16-38-VAR 4. Other Business A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to Fences (tabled on July 20, 2016) Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 16-28-Z 5. Communications 6. Adjournment If you cannot attend the meeting, please call the Community Development Office, 952/924-2575. Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call 952.928.2840 at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA AUGUST 17, 2016 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Torrey Kanne, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Joe Tatalovich, Ethan Rickert (youth member) MEMBERS ABSENT: Carl Robertson STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Phillip Elkin 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of August 3, 2016 Commissioner Carper asked that corrections be made to the minutes as follows: 2A. Approval of July 20, 2016 minutes should indicate that Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion of approval; 3B. Arlington Row Apts. West public hearing should indicate that Commissioner Kanne seconded the motion recommending approval. Commissioner Carper made a motion to approve the minutes of August 3, 2016 as amended. Commissioner Person seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0-3 (Johnston-Madison, Peilen and Tatalovich abstained). 3. Hearings A. Floodplain District Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendments Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 16-34-ZA Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, presented the staff report. He explained that the amendments pertain to Floodplain Districts in order to remain in compliance with Federal and State regulations and to maintain the City’s eligibility to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. He explained further that the city needs to update its floodplain ordinance and floodplain district boundaries to adhere to new federal and state requirements no later than November 4, 2016. Mr. Walther stated that 215 property owners whose land intersects changes to the floodplain district boundary were notified of the public hearing. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission August 17, 2016 Page 2 Mr. Walther presented and discussed the floodplain district boundary changes map. He noted that three hand-outs with FAQs, detailed maps and topography data are provided for residents in attendance. He said questions about individual properties can be answered after the Planning Commission meeting adjourns. Commissioner Peilen asked how frequently the map is revised by the federal government. Mr. Walther said he believed the last map revision occurred in 2004. Mr. Walther spoke about online tools which the city proposes to provide to property owners with resources for more information regarding Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Chair Johnston-Madison opened the public hearing. Sandra Ewing, 3148 Hillsboro Ave S., spoke about flooding at her property two years ago. At that time fire staff said they didn’t need to sandbag because of the structure elevation. She asked if FEMA bases flood zones on topographic data. She commented that some neighboring properties flooded, some did not. She spoke about having to hire a surveyor in 1996. Mr. Walther responded that the 100-year flood plain does have an elevation associated with it. It varies throughout the Minnehaha Creek area in St. Louis Park. He spoke about the letter of amendment process as well as proposed mapping tools to assist residents. He noted that FEMA maps are not perfect but they are an assessment of risk. He said topographical data and rainfall data is much improved since the last map revision in 2004. Katherine Heyerdahl, 3171 Hillsboro Ave. S., said she has done a lot of research on her own. She said she has not been able to file a request for map amendment as there has been a hold on all changes during the last three years. She said the FEMA website has the ability for property owners to attach digital documents to support an amendment request rather than having to hire a surveyor. She commented that Anoka now has high quality website maps which can be submitted to FEMA. Mr. Walther responded that Anoka County is about one year ahead of the city in this process. St. Louis Park hopes to replicate the tools that Anoka County now has. He said the city’s goal is to be able to provide resources to residents around Labor Day. As no one else was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission August 17, 2016 Page 3 Commissioner Peilen made a motion recommending approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment pertaining to Floodplain Districts. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6- 0. 4. Other Business: None 5. Communications: None 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary Planning Commission Meeting Date: October 5, 2016 Agenda Item 3A 3A. City of St. Louis Park – Conditional Use Permit/Variance Case No.: 16-37-CUP and 16-38-VAR Location: 2501 State Highway 100 Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Recommended Action: Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit and variance, subject to conditions recommended by staff. Description of Request: Requested is a Conditional Use Permit to allow a communication tower that is 70 feet in height, and a variance to allow the communication tower to be 106 feet from the property line instead of the required 140 foot minimum setback. The City of St. Louis Park is the applicant, however, the subject property is the Benilde-St. Margaret’s High School (BSM). BSM is in support of the applications with the condition that the antenna be located on the light pole located as shown in the application. Location: Agenda Item No. 3A Conditional Use Permit/Variance – City of St. Louis Park Page 2 Meeting Date: October 5, 2016 Background: Comprehensive Plan: Civic Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residence Neighborhood: Lake Forest Request: The city is requesting a CUP to allow a communication tower that is 70 feet in height. While the city is the applicant, the tower is located on the Benilde-St. Margaret’s high school property. The tower consists of an existing 60 foot tall light pole and a proposed ten-foot extension to the pole the lights are mounted on. The existing lights are used to illuminate the running track and multi-purpose athletic field. The ten-foot extension consists of a two-inch diameter antenna which is mounted on top of a two-inch diameter galvanized steel pipe. The city is also requesting a 34-foot variance to the required setback to allow the communication tower to be located 106 feet from the side property line instead of the minimum required 140 feet. The city recently installed water meters in all homes in the city that broadcast the readings to a central collection point. The city, however, is having difficulty receiving a signal from homes in the northeast portion of the city. The purpose of this antenna is to fill the void by collecting those signals and relaying them to the collection point. Zoning Analysis: The following is an analysis of the zoning requirements for the CUP and variance request. Conditional Use Permit: The subject property is zoned R-1 Single-Family Residential. The R-1 district requires a CUP for communication towers with a height between 45 and 70 feet. The following is a review of the conditions applied to the communication towers: 1. All communication towers shall be located a minimum distance of twice their height from any parcel zoned or used for residential purposes, or zoned mixed-use. The communication tower is located adjacent to a residential property. The proposed communication tower is 70 feet in height, therefore, a 140 foot minimum setback is required. The communication tower is proposed to be located 106 feet from the property line. The city is requesting a variance to this provision. An analysis of the variance request is provided later in the report. 2. No more than one communication tower is allowed per parcel. There are no other communication towers located on the property. 3. Communication towers up to 120 feet in height shall be of a monopole type. The communication tower is a monopole type. There are no guy wires or other structural supports beyond the existing light pole and the two-inch diameter pipe proposed to extend from the top of the pole. 4. Antenna designs and mounts shall be designed to minimize visual impact. Agenda Item No. 3A Conditional Use Permit/Variance – City of St. Louis Park Page 3 Meeting Date: October 5, 2016 The tower consists of a 60-foot tall light pole which is used to illuminate the school’s running track and multi-purpose athletic field. The pole will remain the same with the exception of a narrow, two-inch wide galvanized pipe that will extend from the top of the pole. Staff believes this design minimizes the visual impact by utilizing an existing pole and a narrow extension. 5. Communication Tower Lighting. Communication towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not display strobe lights unless such lighting is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state law or regulation that preempts local regulations. The communication tower will not be illuminated with the exception of the existing field lights. 6. Signs, Advertising and Display. The use of any portion of a communication tower for displaying flags, signs other than warning or equipment information signs is prohibited. There will be no signs, advertisements or other type of display on the pole. 7. Associated Equipment. Ground equipment associated with a communication tower or antenna shall be housed in a building. The building shall meet the architectural design standards of the Zoning Ordinance, and shall meet the minimum communication tower setback requirements of the underlying zoning district. There will be no ground equipment. All equipment associated with the antenna will be mounted to the pole, and will be located 10 feet from the ground. Variance: The city is requesting a 34-foot variance to the required 140-foot setback to allow the communication tower to be located 106 feet from the property line. The City may grant variances upon consideration of the following: a. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community. The structural integrity of the antenna and its low profile atop a much larger existing structure creates no known health, safety, or welfare concerns to occupants of surrounding lands. b. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and, The antenna is co-locating on an existing light pole, thereby minimizing the impact on the school property and adjacent residential properties. c. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The request is to assist the city in providing efficient and cost-effective services. d. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: 1. The property owner proposes to use the property for a land use permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items required in the zoning ordinance, including but not limited to setbacks and height limitations; Agenda Item No. 3A Conditional Use Permit/Variance – City of St. Louis Park Page 4 Meeting Date: October 5, 2016 The subject property is zoned R-1 Single-Family Residence. The communication tower is allowed by conditional use permit in the R-1 district. The variance is for a setback, which is a dimensional standard. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and, The city is having difficulty receiving signals from several water meters in the northeast section of the city. The antenna is required to address this difficulty. The location of the antenna is important because consideration must be given to a location that can collect data from all the meters in this area, and does not disrupt the property on which it is located. BSM granted permission to the city to locate the antenna on their property with the condition that the installation of the antenna does not disrupt their fields. The best location to meet these conditions is the requested pole, which is located on the northern edge of the athletic complex. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The antenna is a low profile, two-inch diameter, antenna to be mounted to the top of an existing light pole. It will extend 10 feet above the existing pole. The improvement will have minimal impact on the locality. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The location is not the result of economic considerations. The location is determined by need to provide services to all homes in the area, and reduce the impact on the school athletic fields. 5. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The antenna and tower extension is two-inches in diameter, and does not impact sunlight for solar energy systems. e. There are circumstances unique to the property include the shape, topography, water conditions, or other physical conditions unique to the property; and, The unique circumstances that apply include the location requirements to pick-up the signals of all meters in the area, and minimize the impact on the existing athletic fields. f. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; and, The granting of the variance enables the city to provide a more efficient service to the residents in the area. This location is also at the request of the property owner. It is the only site available that provides the needed service without disrupting the school’s athletic fields. g. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety; and, The antenna and tower extension is two-inches in diameter, and does not impact the light and air to the adjacent properties. Agenda Item No. 3A Conditional Use Permit/Variance – City of St. Louis Park Page 5 Meeting Date: October 5, 2016 h. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. That practical difficulty is two-fold: (1) siting the antenna to best service properties in the northeast part of the city where sites are few, and (2) installing it in the most practical of ways by using an existing pole that minimizes the impact to existing facilities and neighborhood. The city pursued the pole located to the southeast of the track. BSM, however, would not grant access to this pole due to concerns that it would disrupt the athletic fields. Locations off-site were also pursued, specifically the office buildings located in the West End area. They, however, would not grant permission. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was conducted on Tuesday, September 6, 2016. People in attendance asked the following questions, and staff was able to provide answers. 1. Will the tower would be lit? No 2. What is the visibility and scale? (Will residents be able to see it? What’s the actual size?) The antenna is 1.3 inches in width. The pole it is mounted on is two inches in diameter. The pole and antenna combined length is 10 feet, and it will be mounted on top of an existing light pole. 3. Is there any health impacts from signal/wave transmission? No. This is the same technology used by Xcel and Centerpoint Energy when collecting their meter readings. This has been in place for many years, and there are no cases of documented harmful effects. 4. Will the antenna interfere with cellphone, telephone, other signals? No. The antenna uses a low frequency band that does not conflict with other commercial carriers. The same is true of Xcel and Centerpoint. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a 70-foot communication tower located at 2501 State Highway 100, and a 34-foot variance to allow the communication tower to be located 106 feet from the property line instead of the required 140 feet, subject to the following conditions: 1. The communication tower and antenna be constructed as shown on the site plan and communication tower profile exhibits. 2. All necessary permits must be obtained. Attachments: Aerial Photo Letter from Applicant Development Plans Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Agenda Item No. 3A Conditional Use Permit/Variance – City of St. Louis Park Page 6 Meeting Date: October 5, 2016 AERIAL PHOTO Agenda Item No. 3A Conditional Use Permit/Variance – City of St. Louis Park Page 7 Meeting Date: October 5, 2016 LETTER FROM APPLICANT The following explanation of the variance request was provided by the applicant. 1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The structural integrity of the antenna and its low profile atop a much larger existing structure creates no known health, safety, or welfare concerns to occupants of surrounding lands. The land on which the antenna is to be installed is also not occupied all the time, and when occupants are there, the antenna presents no additional danger. 2. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. This is in general harmony with the Zoning Ordinance. Addition of a small antenna atop a large existing structure deviates slightly with the principals, goals, and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. That said, the applicant feels the deviation is small, with negligible effects. 3. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Addition of a small antenna atop a large existing structure deviates slightly with the principals, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. That said, the applicant feels the deviation is small, with negligible effects. 4. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. This means that: a. The proposed use is permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The land area in question is an athletic field at a school. The field has four similar light poles and the northeast light pole is the preferable light pole to mount the antenna in question. This is because the area to be served by the antenna is in the northeastern part of St. Louis Park. In addition, a practical concern is that the equipment needed to install the antenna could operate from land just north of the light pole, outside the athletic field area. This would avoid needing to disturb ground on the field itself, making it unusable for a period of time for teams. Use of another pole on this field may not require a variance, but would also not provide the best coverage and result in damage to the field itself. In any case, the essential character of the locality would remain unchanged by the addition of this small antenna. 5. There are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water conditions, or other physical conditions of the property. Agenda Item No. 3A Conditional Use Permit/Variance – City of St. Louis Park Page 8 Meeting Date: October 5, 2016 Again, the athletic field itself should not be disturbed by the heavy equipment required to mount the antenna. 6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. Granting the variance would serve a public purpose – the efficient reading of water meters. To the extent the land owner is willing to cooperate with the city to make this land available for such a public purpose would seem like a reasonable exercise of property rights. 7. The granting of the variance will not impair light and air to the surrounding properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. This antenna would be barely visible to surrounding properties. In addition, even at a height of 70 feet (10 feet above the height of the existing light pole), no warning light attached to the antenna is necessary. Thus, especially at night, the antenna becomes invisible from most distances. 8. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. That practical difficulty is two-fold: (1) siting the antenna to best service properties in the northeast part of the city where sites are few, and (2) installing it in the most practical of ways by using an existing pole that minimizes the impact to existing facilities and neighborhood. It should also be known that after hearing about the issues (CUP and Variance requirements) with the proposed northeast pole location, the applicant pursued the southwest pole location. In talking with BSM, they understandably will not allow use of the southwest pole due to the activities and assets that would be disturbed by equipment in installing it there (i.e., the grounds themselves, specifically the track). Again, this is very understandable. They are open to the northeast pole location because work can be completed without such disturbance (equipment would be located north of the track and fence). Even before this request with BSM, the applicant approached the Excelsior Group about the possibility of using one of its buildings (Health Partners or Parkdales) just west of Highway 100. The applicant received a negative response from the Excelsior Group due to the proposed public purpose (meter reading) relative to the buildings’ purpose. In other words, the applicant believes good faith efforts to complete this project without the need for a CUP and Variance were made. MINNETONKA BOULEVARDWEST 26TH STREETVERNON AVENUE SOUTH ST A T E T R U N K H W Y . N O . 1 0 0 CITYOFST. LOUISPARKOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHEHYDWSSTOHEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGE876876875875875876876 878876878880880880 880880878878878880880878876874872870870872874876870872874876878880874PID= 31-029-24-24-0002ARCHDIOCESE ST. PAULAND MINNEAPOLISSEE DETAIL875UGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGEUGE875875LEGEND= DENOTES A FOUND SECTION CORNERMONUMENTORIENTATION OF THIS BEARING SYSTEM ISBASED ON THE HENNEPIN COUNTYCOORDINATE SYSTEM NAD83 (1986)RIGHT OF WAY LINEBENILDE ST. MARGARETHennepin County, MN No. DateREVISIONSBy CHK APP'DSMKJMBFIELD WORK: 9/7/16 CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:SITE NAME: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT WASPREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYORUNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.SITE SURVEYDESIGN0SCALE ( IN FEET )4080BOUNDARY LINE0494A2069.000© 2016 WIDSETH SMITH NOLTINGHALF SCALE ON 11"x17"FULL SCALE ON 22"x34"WIDSETH SMITH NOLTINGEngineering | Architecture | Surveying | EnvironmentalVICINITY MAP1"=600'QUARTER LINESECTION LINETREE DECIDUOUSBUILDING WALL HATCHUGEUNDERGROUND ELECTRICCONCRETE SURFACESURVEYOR NOTES:LOT LINENORTH NORTH SITECHAIN LINK FENCEGATE POSTDETAILNORTH OHEOVERHEAD ELECTRICEDGE OF WOODSELEC POLE0SCALE ( IN FEET )1020GRAVEL SURFACESIXTEENTH LINEGRIDNORTHGEODETICNORTHMAGNETICNORTHPROPERTY LINEELEC LIGHT POLESTSHYD WSTORM MANHOLECATCH BASINSANITARY MANHOLEHYDRANTWATER VALVESCHOOL METERDATA COLLECTOR SITE Planning Commission Meeting Date: October 5, 2016 Agenda Item #4A 4A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Fences Case No.: 16-28-ZA Recommended Action: Motion to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to fences as recommended by staff. REQUEST: Staff is requesting an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that proposes to establish and clarify materials that can be used to construct a fence. BACKGROUND: At the July 20, 2016 planning commission meeting, staff presented a zoning ordinance amendment that proposed the following: 1. Establish and clarify materials that can be used to construct a fence. 2. Update the maximum size accessory building that can be constructed without a building permit. 3. Increase the size maximum allowed for signs in the R-4 Multiple-Family Residence district. 4. Decrease the minimum setback required for signs at schools, community centers, libraries, religious institutions, and other similar uses. The planning commission closed the public hearing, and forwarded a recommendation to the city council for each item, except those amendments pertaining to fences. The planning commission asked staff to bring that amendment back to them at a study session. The amendments pertaining to fences was brought back to the planning commission on August 3, 2016. The commission discussed materials and directed staff to bring the amendment back to the planning commission for formal recommendation. PROPOSED ORDINANCE: From time-to-time, staff receives a call expressing concern over the type of material a neighbor used to build their fence. Staff has been taking note of the concerns, and drafted the proposed amendment to address the concerns. Staff believes the amendment provides a balance between a variety of acceptable materials, aesthetics, and safety. In summary, the ordinance allows fences to be constructed of wood, metal, bricks, masonry, rigid plastic or other materials designed for permanent outdoor fencing. It also states that wood fences must be constructed of cedar, redwood, or other naturally or pressure treated decay resistant wood. The intent is to avoid using wood that is not designed to withstand the effects of weather. The ordinance prohibits fences from being constructed of hazardous materials such as razor or barbed wire. It prohibits electrical fences, and materials that are not intended for outdoor use. Chain link or metal wire fencing is limited to 11-gauge in diameter or larger. Exceptions to the materials are listed in certain circumstances. For example, snow fences are permitted between November 1 and April 15 by certain uses, such as public buildings, schools, golf courses, etc. Chicken wire is allowed when used to enclose a garden or chicken coop and run. Agenda Item No 4A – Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to fences Page 2 Meeting Date: October 5, 2016 Revisions: As a result of the planning commission’s discussion, staff made changes to the exception section of the design standards. The exceptions address specific circumstances where temporary fencing is required that won’t meet the standards, such as construction sites. An exception was also added to provide opportunities for residents to use materials that do not meet the design requirements. The exception proposes to allow materials to be used in a patio or landscaping setting intended to provide minimal screening or for decorative purposes. Staff is recommending this exception apply only in the side and rear yards, and that a three foot setback be applied unless screened from the neighbor by a six foot privacy fence. The three foot setback is consistent with the setback required for ornamental structures. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission recommend the City Council approve the attached ordinance. Attachments: Draft Ordinance Excerpt of July 20, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt of August 3, 2016 Planning Commission Study Session Minutes Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Agenda Item No 4A – Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to fences Page 3 Meeting Date: October 5, 2016 DRAFT – ZONING AMENDMENT (10/5/16) Sec. 36-74. Fences. (a) General provisions. (1) Permit required. A permit shall be required prior to the installation of any fence. (2) Submission requirements. The following information shall be submitted prior to a fence permit being issued: a. Application form and fee. b. Site plan indicating location of fence. c. Fence design indicating height and style of fence. (b) Fence location. (1) All fences shall be located entirely upon the private property of the party requiring or requesting the construction of the fence. It shall be the responsibility of the party installing the fence to ensure that it is constructed on their private property. (2) No fence shall be constructed or permitted on any public property, right-of-way or easement without the express authorization from the public agency having jurisdiction over the property or right-of-way. (c) Fence design. (1) Fences shall be constructed so the finished side of the fence is facing towards the neighboring properties, exposing the structural side to the party requesting the fence. Alternating board fences which have the structural elements equally visible on both sides shall be considered as complying with this section. (2) Permitted materials. Fences must be constructed of materials designed for permanent outdoor fencing, including, but not limited to, wood, metal, bricks, masonry, and rigid plastic or vinyl. Wood fences must be constructed of naturally decay resistant wood such as cedar or redwood, or wood treated by the manufacturer to be decay resistant. (3) Prohibited materials. Fences must not be constructed from razor wire, wood not manufactured for exterior use, or materials originally intended for other purposes. Above ground electric fence is not permitted. Barbed wire is permitted only on top of fences in nonresidential districts, a minimum of six feet above the natural grade. Chain link or metal wire fencing finer than 11-gauge in diameter is prohibited. Agenda Item No 4A – Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to fences Page 4 Meeting Date: October 5, 2016 (4) Exceptions. The following fences are exempt from the design requirements: a. Snow fences when used by institutional and public land uses exclusively for control of snow between November 1 and April 15. b. Chicken wire fencing when used to enclose a garden. c. Fences used to secure a construction site. d. Fences used to protect vegetation during construction. e. Fences used to control erosion. f. Fences used to provide screening of a patio or placed in landscaping for decorative purposes subject to the following conditions: i. The fence shall be located in the side or rear yard. ii. The fence shall be located at least three feet from the property line. g. Chain link and metal wire fences utilizing wood for the support structure shall install the chain link and metal wire on the fence owner’s side of support structure. (c) Prohibited fences. (1) Electrical fences. (2) Barbed wire fences, unless permitted by an exception. (3) Any fence, wall, hedge, or other visual obstruction of any kind which is not in compliance with section 36-76. (d) Height. The height shall be measured from the side of the fence with the lower ground level to the top of the fence or wall section. When there is a grade change between posts, then In the case where a fence has variable heights or where the ground slopes, the height of the fence shall be the average of the height measurements taken where the fence panel meets each post, but in no case shall the height of any one point exceed six inches above the maximum allowed by this section. Fence posts may exceed eight inches above the maximum allowed by this section. (1) A fence or wall shall not exceed six feet in height if it is located in any side or rear yard. (2) A fence, wall or hedge shall not exceed four feet in height if located in a front yard. (3) Where a fence is attached to a retaining wall structure, the retaining wall shall be included in the fence height measurement. (e) Exceptions. (1) A fence or wall may be up to eight feet in height if placed in any side or rear yard which abuts Interstate 394, State Highway 100, State Highway 7, State Highway 169, or their adjacent frontage road. (2) A fence or wall may be up to eight feet in height if placed in any side or rear yard in an R district which abuts property in the C, O, BP or I districts, or abuts a railroad right-of- way, school, church, or other public building. Agenda Item No 4A – Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to fences Page 5 Meeting Date: October 5, 2016 (3) A fence or wall may be up to eight feet in height if placed in any side or rear yard when it is required for screening. (4) A fence or wall in one front yard of any through lot may be at the height permitted in a rear yard if it complies with all of the provisions of section 36-76, is used as a rear yard, and the fenced yard used as the rear yard does not adjoin a yard used as a front yard. (5) Barbed wire may be used by certain industrial and public service users for health and safety purposes. However, the barbed wire cannot be used at a height lower than six feet six inches, and the overall height of the fence including the barbed wire cannot exceed eight feet. (f) Construction and maintenance. (1) Every fence shall be constructed so the finished side of the fence is facing towards the neighboring properties, exposing the structural side to the party requiring or requesting the fence. Alternating board fences which are finished on both sides shall be considered as complying with this section. (12) Both sides of the fence shall be maintained in a condition of good repair. (23) Any fence that is potentially dangerous to the public safety or health by reason of construction or sharp projections or protrusions shall be removed or repaired. (4) Any fence over six feet in height shall be constructed of a nonmetallic material and shall be 90 percent opaque, unless the fence is used for security purposes in the I districts. (5) Any fence or wall constructed over six feet in height shall be considered a structure, require a building permit, and meet all uniform building code requirements for a structure. Agenda Item No 4A – Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to fences Page 6 Meeting Date: October 5, 2016 EXCERPT OF OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JULY 20, 2016 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich, Ethan Rickert (youth member) MEMBERS ABSENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Torrey Kanne STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Nicole Mardell, Jennifer Monson, Gary Morrison D. Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to Fences, Sheds and Signs Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 16-28-ZA Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He explained the amendment proposes to establish and clarify materials that can be used to construct a fence; update the maximum size accessory building that can be constructed without a building permit; increase the size maximum allowed for signs in the R-4 Multiple-Family Residence district; and decrease the minimum setback required for signs at schools, community centers, libraries, religious institutions, and other similar uses. Commissioner Robertson spoke about the requirement that the finished side of a fence must face neighboring properties. He said the exception to that where it looks unsightly is a wood frame fence with chain link on it. He said he’d like to see a way to address that situation. Commissioner Carper said he was concerned about some fence materials which are excluded such as bamboo and reed. If maintained properly and replaced regularly those materials can be aesthetically pleasing. He discussed a pole type of fence. He said he wasn’t sure about the definition of a rigid plastic fence or if flexible material was not considered acceptable. Mr. Morrison said he had included language such as “other naturally decay resistant wood” for alternative materials. Bamboo would hopefully fall into that category. He said he wasn’t sure about reed. He said maintenance is obviously an issue. The zoning ordinance comes into play when a fence becomes structurally unsound. He said he wasn’t sure what the commissioner meant by a pole fence. He said proposed language was to differentiate rigid plastic fences from snow fences. Agenda Item No 4A – Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to fences Page 7 Meeting Date: October 5, 2016 Commissioner Tatalovich asked why there is a minimum gage requirement on chain link fences. Mr. Morrison said that was for structural integrity and safety. Vice Chair Peilen opened the public hearing. No one was present to speak and she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Carper stated he was uncomfortable with proposed wording regarding exceptions to materials. He said he wasn’t confident that enforcement would be consistent. Commissioners discussed tabling the fence portion of the ordinance for further discussion. Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment pertaining to sheds and signs; and to table the fence portion for further discussion. Commissioner Tatalovich seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0. Commissioner Carper stated he would like to discuss hedge height as part of the fence discussion. Agenda Item No 4A – Zoning Ordinance Amendment pertaining to fences Page 8 Meeting Date: October 5, 2016 EXCERPT OF STUDY SESSION August 3, 2016 The study session began at 7:05 p.m. 1. Floodplain District Zoning Map and Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, reviewed the proposed amendments which are required to comply with new and updated Federal regulations with regards to the National Flood Insurance Program. 2. Proposed Zoning Text Amendments for Fences Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, reviewed the proposed amendments regarding fence materials that will be allowed and prohibited. He shared photographs of several fence material types that Commissioners Carper and Robertson suggested the Commission should consider. Based on the discussion, staff will present the changes to Commissioners at an upcoming regular meeting for a formal recommendation to City Council.