Consider Preliminary Policy Direction Regarding Fence Standards and Front Yard Definition in City Code Chapter 117 (Zoning)

Purpose

The purpose of this case is to seek preliminary policy direction regarding existing City Code provisions related to fences and the definition of front yard in the R-1 Residential District (detached single-family).

Background

The impetus for this case is a result of Citizen Input at the August 25, 2015 City Council Meeting. At that meeting, the Property Owner at 14024 Dysprosium St NW objected to the construction of a fence proposed at 14026 Dysprosium St NW and requested an ordinance be drafted to amend City Code to clarify the definition of 'front yard' in City Code Section 117-1. It is Staff's understanding that this amendment is being requested for situations in which one property's front yard abuts another property's side yard.

Notification is not required at this stage. If an actual amendment to City Code is proposed/requested, a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Commission and will require certain notifications.

Observations

In working preliminarily with Staff, the Property Owner made the request to the City Council to amend the definition of front yard as she felt that although the proposed fence is located in her neighbor's side yard as defined by City Code, the proposed fence would obstruct the view of her front yard.

In reviewing the case since August 25, 2015, it is Staff's belief that the situation at hand is more the result of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval for Flintwood Hills that allowed the clustering of four (4) homes with a shared driveway along Dysprosium Street rather than the City's definition of front yard. While this layout may have provided a unique development concept and reduced project costs for public roadways, there were other, less desirable outcomes, such as the current situation, that have arisen. The fact that one home is allowed to be constructed between another home and the public roadway presents potential conflicts.

With any amendment to City Code, the potential for the creation of non-conforming structures does exist. Staff has not had the opportunity to analyze how many of these non-conforming situations would be created with an amendment to City Code, but the current situation is unique and not frequently encountered within the community. Additionally, it is noted that this situation is common in Flintwood Hills and that approval of the fence would not appear to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. In fact, many of the rear homes along Dysprosium Street are obstructed from view of Dysprosium Street by the primary garages of the adjacent home.

Understanding the unique nature of this development, Staff has continued to work with the property owners in an attempt to mediate a mutually agreeable solution short of an amendment to City Code. That being said, Staff recognizes the potential impacts of either outcome (approval as proposed or amendment proposal).

Potential Ideas

Amend Fence Standards. Amend City Code Section 117-111 to state that a fence located in the side yard cannot exceed four (4) feet in height if the side yard abuts another property's front yard as defined in City Code Section 117-1.

Amend Definition of Front Yard. Amend City Code Section 117-1 to amend the definition of front yard to include situations where one property's side yard abuts another property's front yard. This would mean that all required bulk standards, including primary structure setbacks, would be based off a definition of front yard. This has a high potential of creating a number of non-conforming structures. Staff does not recommend this alternative as it relates to this specific case. However, as part of review of this case, Staff has identified the potential to clarify the existing definition of front yard to avoid gaps in definition and improve the ease of reading of the definition to attempt to reduce confusion in future interpretation.

Alternatives

Alternative 1 - Direct Staff to develop an Ordinance to Amend City Code related to the construction of fences.

Alternative 2 - Do not direct Staff to develop an Ordinance to Amend City Code related to the construction of fences.

This case is being handled as part of normal Staff duties.

Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to perform additional research on this matter to better understand potential policy implications before preparing an Ordinance and refer the matter to the Planning Commission. Additionally, Staff recommends that the impacted Property Owners work with Anoka County Mediation Services in an attempt to resolve the matter in a way that does not require an amendment to City Code.

Motion to direct Staff to perform additional research on this matter to better understand the secondary policy implications before preparing an Ordinance and refer the matter to the Planning Commission.