Loading...
07-336Amended May 23, 2007 ORDINANCE Council File #`��' Green Sheet # d SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented by ��� An ordinance to amend Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 33.07, to clarify language requirements regarding fencing at a corner lot location. 6 Sec. 33.07. Fences--Requirements. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 I8 19 2� 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 (b) Height of fences. No fence shall be erected exceeding six (6) feet six (6) inches in height above the sidewalk or finished grade of any lot in a residence district or on any lot occupied for residential purposes. The applicant shall '��•��t�iat fences and all supporting structures shall be completely within the boundaries of such lot with no portion encroaching onto adjacentpropertv. All fences erected between the front property line and the front setback line as defined in section H8:229H 60.207 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code shall be no more than four (4) feet in height. T'�� °�'°°^� ° �F �'��:�';~'� �� -~°'°' . ,.r,.��� > � ,� 1.'�..o ,� .�7 a,. +t,.. .,, „o+L...,.i, 7:«,.� G,.... +1,�,:« ..,.:..r ,.F:..+„ «�cc`"' r �31 1 COYlleY IOt 3t tW0 1llteTSeCt1Rg each lot line unless the structure is more than 80 % open• Fences for nonresidential uses in residential zoning districts shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height, except fences around tennis courts, which shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height, back stop fences, which shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height, and golf range fences, which shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height. The selvaee end of chain link or metal fences sha11 be smooth; knuckled ends are permitted, tcvisted ends are not permitted Section 2 28 This ordinance shall take effect and be in full foxce thirty (30) days following its passage , approval and 24 publication. Yeas Na s Absent Benanav i / Bostrom :/ Harris ; i Helgen ✓ Lantry � Montgomery ,i Thune �/ J L% Adopted by Council: Date �'�L f�-� � Adoption Certified by Council Secretary By: Approved a D f O°7 By: Requested by: Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection By: , � ��� � Fonn A rov by � ity ttomey B � 2S �� Form A rov d ayor for Su ission to Council By: - ''�t'? "��°� �j' o �-3a� � Green Sheet"Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � DepartmenUo�ce/council: � Datelnitiated: ' GPeell SheeL NO 3038093 ; LP - LicensrllnspecriodEnviron Pro� ; 26-MAR-07 i ; ConWCt Pereon & Phone: � Jce Ehrlich � 266-902'1 ��, puign , Musf Be on Council Agenda by (Date): '� Number For Routing : Doa Type: ORDINANCE ''� Order E-Docummt Required: Y Document Contad: Robert F4umphrey Contact Phone: 266-9'123 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) 0 i 2 3 4 5 City Attorney � ' Mayor'S Office i VlayodAssistan[ ' Council ,City Clerk � GtiN Clerk j Approval of an Ordinance clarifying fencing zegulations at a comer lot locarion. ioanons: v.pprove (H� or ne�ec[ (rc�: ! rersonai servwe coniracu must qnswer me touowmg euesaons: Planning Commission I 1. Has this persoNfirm ever workeB under a contract for this department? CIB Committee Yes No Civ�l Serv�ce Commission 2. Has this personf5rm ever been a city employee? I Yes No 3. Does this personlfirm possess a skill not aormally possessed by any . current city employee� Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet � Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunfty �.Who, What, When, Where, Why): I Customers have pointed out that current city code is confusing. Advantages If Approved: I Disadvantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Not Approvetl: Transaction: Funtling Source: Financial Information: (Explain) . , ..�. _ ,� ,^.�� '"`fY ,`� «"°` =Y:� — J CostlRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number. March 26, 2007 1:52 PM Page 1 S- ��-0� � - -� 1�I 0 �� � � Sec. 33.07. Fences and Coiusr=Ciearane,e--Requirements. (b) Height offences. No fence shall be erected exceeding six (6) feet six (6) inches in height above the sidewalk or finished grade of any lot in a residence district or on any lot occupied for residential purposes. The applicant shall ensure ��re that fences and all supporting structures shall be completely within the boundaries of such lot with no oortion encroaching onto adjacent oroQertv. All fences erected between the front property line and the front setback line as defined in section b8� 60.207 of the Saint Paui Legislative Code shall be no more than four (4) feet in height. 'T�° °��� > t�et�3eff�1'+� nr,, re..,.o . ..,�� ,.t,.�.�.wo_.� .. ,.tH,,.. „�....�.,.,:,... +,. . .,1�,...o ., i ..otl.....L q.,..� F«,.... A.o:« «,.:«t ..F:«�.,«�o..��_ On a corner lot at two the lot included within ten (10) feet of the corner along each lot line unless the structure is more than 80 % open. Fences for nonresidential uses in residentaal zoning districts shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height, except fences around tennis courts, which shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height, back stop fences, which shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height, and golf range fences, which shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height. The selvaQe end of chain link or metal fences shall be smooth; knuckled ends are permitted, twisted ends are not �ermitted. �(5l23/2007) Pattie Kelley - Fwd: Fence ordinance Pege 1 LL , � �� From: Pat Harris To: Kelley, Pattie Date: S/23/2007 8:03 AM Subject: Fwd: Fence ordinance �� • 2�� Attachments: Fence Ordinance.doc �� »> Wendy Lane 5/14/2007 2:37 PM »> Councilmembers, Thank you for laying over the Fnal Adoptlon of the fence ordinance changes, Ortlinance 07336, M May 16. Our smff met with Rachel Gunderson in the Gry Attomey's Office and discussed the issues Matt Mfang raised about retaining walis and vegetatton in front comers of comer lotr. 1) We concur that "insure" should be "ensure". 2) We don't U�ink retaining walls should be up to the comer on comer lots to a heighT of tlie finished grade as wggested by Matt. It would allow property owners to fill in the corner to any height. That would not be in keeping with the intent of restricting comer heights which was adopted many years ago to maximize the visibility of pedestrtans, and kids on bikes, in residential areas for drivers in vehicies. Retaining wal(s have not been allowed exceeding a height of fwo feet on comers for decades. While fhere certainly are existing retaining walls exceeding two feet on comers, they are pre-e�cisting, or nonconforming. State law allows nonconformities to be replaced. Thus, if Matt wants to rebuild his retaining wall at the same height as the current retaining wall he wuld do so. Furthermore, if there are unusua! site or terrain conditions on a comer lot (e.g., erosion issues, wide 6oulevard), a variance tould be sought as identified under Sec. 33.07 (c): , "A vaziance ofthe fence fieight regulations may be eranted if, after invesrigat�on by [he building official, i[ is found that site, or te=raiq or nuisance ammal condi[ions warrant a waiver of the height restric[ioas. M applica[ion fee of twenTy-feve dollars ($25.OD) is reqnized for each variance request " If the Councit agrees, we wiil draft a separate ordinance change to this parag2ph io say that Me vartance is of fence fieigfit "or comer clearance" regulations. 3) The vegetation proposal is not enforced by our building inspectors under the perznit process. If the Council wants resfictions of vegetatlon on comers, it shouid be in Cfiapter 34, probably under Sec. 34.08- Exterior property areas. It would fhen be inspected by Code inspec[ors. We think the existing ordinance could be made clearer and I've attached a few changes we are recommending. Please let me know if you want an amendetl ordinance, signetl by the Diredor and Gty Attomey, for Yhe Councfl's consideration on Wetlnesday. Rachel said a separate ordinance is not needed for these changes because they are not substantive - an amended version would woric. Wendy Lane Zoning Manager S1P26 96 081�DSI) � ��� � ��� � ��� � /�i, ��I/ �7� r .