Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[06] Ordinance Amendments • cm' OF ST. JO I PH Planning Commission Agenda Item 6 MEETING DATE: July 2, 2012 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance Amendments a. Ordinance 52.21 Corridor Overlay District b. Ordinance 56 Fence SUBMITTED BY: Administration PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On June 4, 2012 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the amendment to Ordinance 52.21 Corridor Overlay and Ordinance 56 Fence. Upon closing the public hearing the Planning Commission tabled action and requested staff provide additional information. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: On June 20 the staff meet to consider the Ordinance Amendments listed above. Staff participating in the discussion included: Pete Jansky, Terry Thene, Tom Jovanovich, Randy Sabart, Lori Bartlett, Joann Foust and Judy Weyrens. The following is a summary of the unanimous recommendations of staff. CORRIDOR OVERLAY The Ordinance has been revised as follows: • Impact area has been re- written to add clarity and remove the six block developed area. • Setback area has been reduced to allow additional developable area. • Sign height has been raised to accommodate traffic speeds and need for visibility. • Viewshed has been modified • Fence provision has been removed and placed within the fence ordinance to avoid confusion. • Mechanical provision was a duplicate of commercial districts and has been removed • Grammatical error corrected • Outdoor lighting standard was updated to reflect general provisions. FENCE The staff had considerable discussion on this amendment. First, the amendment was brought to the Planning Commission for consider by request of the Council. One of the Council members requested the Planning Commission consider changing the setback of the fence ordinance based on a resident concern. The matter was delayed due to a compliance matter and was ready for discussion again in 2012. The Planning Commission spent considerable time reviewing and proposing a revised Ordinance. At the June Planning Commission testimony was received on the proposed amendment opposing the amendment as it related to allowing a fence to be located adjacent to a property line as in the residents opinion that provided ownership of the property line. The resident requested that the fence only be allowed adjacent to the property line if the adjacent property owner consents in writing. Staff discussed this provision and does not recommend requiring a signature to place the fence adjacent to the line for the following reasons: 1. The City could be creating adverse possession matters for property owners. If the property owner does not maintain the area, the adjacent property owner could make a claim after a number of years. 2. Maintenance could become an issue as two feet does not allow much room for maintenance and therefore it may not be completed. 3. Is changing the Ordinance to a two foot setback unless consent for the majority of the population or is the decision for a small percentage. Policy should be based on the greater good. 4. An adjoining property owner should not have veto rights to prohibit someone full use of their property. If there is a dispute and the neighbor wants a maintenance free fence and the neighbor objects, that owner would lose the right to use two feet of property. The current Ordinance without amendment already allows construction to the property line with a maintenance free fence. It is not understood what is meant by owning the property line as everyone is entitled to use their property up to the line. Property owners have utilized corners of fences to connect fence without issue. To address the testimony on competing ordinances and fence provisions, the section referred to has been removed from the Overlay district and placed in the fence ordinance. For ease of reading the Ordinances have been provided with redline and without. ATTACHMENTS: Request for Planning Commission Action Ordinance Amendment 52.21 Transportation Corridor Overlay Ordinance Amendment 56 Fence REQUESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Forward a recommendation to the City Council for possible adoption.