HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.i. Security Fences Text Amendment 05-38-TAJuI VVUI 1'..11 ,YIIIIINI �..�w va.
AGENDA ITEM: Case 05 -38 -TA Security Fences Text
Amendment
AGENDA SECTION:
PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, A I.C.P.
Assistant City Planner
AGE AGEoEfitig i
Ai
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Security Fence Ordinance, 09 -27-
05 08 -23 -05 PC Minutes, Section 12.7
Conditional Uses
APPROVED BY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt an ordinance amending section 7 2.C.1.h
designating security fencing not exceeding eight (8) feet in height as a conditional use
within the PI- Public /Institutional District
4 ROSEMOUNT
CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
This text amendment was initiated by staff after recognizing that some uses in the PI
Pubhc /Institutional District may warrant higher security fences with barbed wire. Under the existing
ordnance, fences are hunted to six (6) feet in height in the PI Pubhc/Insututional District. Barbed wire
is only permitted m the AG Agriculture, AGP Agriculture Preserve, RR Rural Residential, IG
General Industrial, and WM Waste Management Districts The text amendment would designate
security fencing not exceeding eight (8) feet in height as a conditional use within the PI-
Pubhc /Institutional District.
As a conditional use, eight (8) foot security fences in the PI District shall be subject to the approval
process and performance standards outlined in Section 12.7 Conditional Uses (see attached) including a
public hearing before the Commission and approval by the City Council These performance standards
include:
1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare of the
neighborhood or the city.
2. Will be harmonious with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and city code provisions.
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible or similar in an
architectural and landscape appearance with the existing or intended character of the general
vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area, nor substantially di n rush or impair
property values within the neighborhood.
4. Will be served adequately by existing (or those proposed in the project) essential pubhc facilities
and services, including streets, pohce and fire protection, drainage, structures, refuse disposal,
water and sewer systems and schools.
5. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, material equipment and conditions of operation that will
be hazardous or detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive
production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
6. Will have vehicular ingress and egress to the property which does not create traffic congestion or
interfere with traffic on surrounding pubhc streets.
7. Will not result m the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature of major
importance and will comply with all local, state, and federal environmental quality standards.
8. These standards apply in addition to specific conditions as may be applied throughout this code.
As a conditional use, the ordinance provides that the Commission and the Council may attach whatever
reasonable conditions they deem necessary to mitigate anticipated adverse impacts associated with such
uses, to protect the value of other property within the distract, and to achieve the goals and objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan and City Code provisions. The Ordinance further states that m determining such
conditions, special consideration shall be given to protecting immediately adjacent properties from
objectionable views, noise, traffic and other negative characteristics associated with such uses.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
This item was first presented to the Planning Commission as an accessory use. After reviewing this item
and holding a public hearing on August 23, 2005, the Commission directed staff to revise the amendment
to designate security fences with barbed wire as a conditional use within the PI Public /Institutional
District. Staff made this change and brought this item back to the Commission on September 27, 2005.
After holding another public hearing, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City
Council adopt an ordinance amending Section 7.2.C.1 h designating security fencing not exceeding eight
(8) feet m height as a conditional use within the PI -Pubhc /Institutional District.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This item was first before the Planning Commission during the August 23, 2005 meeting. After reviewing
this item and holding a pubhc hearing, the Commission directed staff to reassign security fencing from an
accessory to a conditional use within the PI -Pubhc /Institutional Distract. Staff has made this change and
the Commission voted unanunously to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending
Section 7.2.C.1.h designating security fencing not exceeding eight (8) feet m height as a conditional use
within the PI- Public /Institutional District. The spirit and intent of this regulation is to ensure greater
security for some specific uses However, staff feels it is necessary to balance secunty with the health,
safety and welfare of the community as a whole. In general staff does not support the use of barbed wire
in more populated areas for obvious safety reasons. However, it is believed that the proposed text
amendment balances both these concerns and therefore, staff recommends approval.
2
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE B-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING REGULATIONS
PERTAINING TO SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS
(SECURITY FENCES)
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 7.2.C.1.h of the Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended as follows:
fence, providing the arms do not projcc
he public right of way-or-any-aeljaeent
d in an amount as sct forth in Minnesota
Statutes Section 566.01. (Ord. B 21, 6 16 92)
Security fences not exceeding eight feet (8') in height are permitted in the IG General
Industrial and WM Waste Management Districts but shall be a conditional uses in the
PI Public /Institutional. Said security fences are subject to the applicable standards list
below and throughout this Ordinance.
1. The Conditional Use standards in Section 12.7 (P/I Districts Only).
2. Barbed wire may be permitted on top of a security fence where the applicant
demonstrates the barbed wire is necessary for greater security and will not be
harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the community.
3. The barbed wire portion of the fence may not have more than three strands, the
lowest of which shall be at least six feet (6') from finished grade.
4. No portion of the barbed wire shall project over the public right -of -way or any
adjacent public or private property.
5. No security fence (with or without barbed wire) shall be constructed without
issuance of the applicable Citypermit.
Section 2: Ordinance shall be effective the day following its publication.
Adopted this day of 2005.
William Droste, Mayor
Public Hearing:
5C. Case 05 -38 -TA Security Fences Text Amendment. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the staff
report. This item was before the Planning Commission during the August 23, 2005 meeting.
At that time staff explained that this text amendment was imitated by staff after recognizing
that some of uses m the PI Pubhc /Institutional District may warrant higher security fences
with barbed wire. Under the existing ordinance, fences are limited to six (6) feet in height in
the PI Public /Institutional Distract. Barbed wire is only permitted m the AG Agriculture,
AGP Agriculture Preserve, RR Rural Residential, IG General Industrial, and WM
Waste Management Districts.
Acting Chairperson Zum asked the Commission if they had any questions for Mr. Lindahl.
Mr. Zurn questioned if neighbors around the Pubhc /Institutional District were notified
again about the public hearing. Mr. Lmdahl stated there was not a separate notice sent out
specifically for this public hearing. It is standard procedure when an item is forwarded to a
date certain that the previous notice is sufficient to meet the statutory requirement.
Acting Chairperson Zum opened the Pubhc Hearing.
MOTION by Schwartz to close the Public Hearing. Second by Schultz. Ayes: All.
Nayes: None. Motion approved.
MOTION by Powell to recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance amending
section 7.2.C.1.h designate security fencing not exceeding eight (8) feet m height as a
conditional use within the PI- Public /Institutional District.
Second by Schultz. Ayes: All. Nayes: None. Motion approved.
Mr. Lmdahl stated this item will go before the City Council on October 18, 2005.
Public Hearing:
5E. Case 05 -38 -TA Security Fences Text Amendment. Mr. Lindahl reviewed the staff
report The text amendment was uutiated by staff after recognizing that some of uses in the
PI Pubhc /Institutional District may warrant higher security fences with barbed wire.
Currently, fences are limited to six (6) feet in height in the PI Pubhc /Institutional District.
Barbed wire is only permitted in the AG Agriculture, AGP Agriculture Preserve, RR
Rural Residential, IG General Industrial, and WM Waste Management Districts. The
proposed language would allow eight (8) foot security fences in the PI Public /Institutional,
IG General Industnal and WI Waste Management Districts with barbed wire in such
cases where the apphcant demonstrates the barbed wire is necessary for greater security and
will not be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the community.
Chairperson Messner asked the Comnussion if they had any questions for Mr. Lindahl.
Commissioner Schultz went back to the military fencing noting there would be shrubs and
greenery around the fencing and wondered if other applicants would be required to have the
same screenug. Mr. Lindahl stated currently the language does not include that
requirement. Mr. Pearson stated it could be problematic to require landscaping when fences
are up to a property hie which is normal in the General Industrial district.
Commissioner Messner feels there would be a problem with determining landscaping on the
mere fact that a fence is m place. The concern being based on which zoning district the
fence is adjacent to Mr. Lindahl stated the security fencing is not a conditional use. The
only requirement is to come m and apply for a pemut. Staff could then require screening for
the fence.
Ms. Lindquist stated the expectation is that this would be used very scarcely. If there is a
concern about the landscaping, staff could write something conditional regarding the
landscaping similar to fencing.
Chairperson Messner questioned if a fence is over 6 ft. if it could become a conditional use.
Mr. Lindahl explained the process and options. He further stated additional language could
be added similar to the C -3/C -4 Districts regarding buffer zones with landscaping when a
property is adjacent to non commercial or industrial use.
Mr. Powell suggested that the lowest strand of the barbed wire be 6 feet off the ground. Ms.
Lindquist stated the intent is the fence is 6 feet and the barbed wire is located above.
Commissioner Powell was concerned about the language in the ordinance related to the
health, safety, or welfare of the community and asked for it to be removed Ms. Lindquist
responded that the language is common for base standards and zoning authority and would
be the basis for the City to deny fences with barbed wire m locating where it could be
problematic.
Ms. Lindquist suggested continuing this item. Commissioner Zum stated he was in
agreement with Commissioner Schutlz's concern. Commissioner Messner stated that every
situation is different and that perhaps a CUP is the answer.
Comnussioner Messner opened the Public Hearing.
Jams Blumenthal, Blumenthal Architects, Brooklyn Center, stated as far as crime prevention
fencing and landscaping axe two different things and when put together there is a chance for
someone to hide m between bushes and fences.
MOTION by Messner to continue the Public Hearing. Second by Powell. Ayes:
All. Nayes: None. Motion approved.
12.7: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (CUP):
A. Purpose: The purpose of conditional use permits is to allow for those uses which
are not generally suitable within the zoning district, but which under some
circumstances may be suitable. The applicant for a CUP shall have the burden of
proof that the use is suitable and that the standards set forth in this subdivision
have been met.
B. Application, Public Hearing, Notice and Procedure: The application, public
hearing, notice and procedure requirements for CUPS shall be the same as those
for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, as identified in Section 16.2 of this
Ordinance. CUPs may be granted only by a 4/5 vote of the entire Council.
Specific submissions required to complete an application for a CUP shall address
all standards applicable to the proposed use. The applicant shall provide
information as required in the site plan review.
C. Standards: The Commission shall recommend a CUP and the Council may issue
such CUP if it finds that such use at the proposed location:
1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general
welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
2. Will be harmonious with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and
city code provisions.
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be
compatible or similar in an architectural and landscape appearance with
the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not
change the essential character of that area, nor substantially diminish or
impair property values within the neighborhood.
4. Will be served adequately by existing (or those proposed in the project)
essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire
protection, drainage, structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems
and schools.
5. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, material equipment and
conditions of operation that will be hazardous or detrimental to any
persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production
of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
6. Will have vehicular ingress and egress to the property which does not
create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public
streets.
7. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic, or
historic feature of major importance and will comply with all Local, state,
and federal environmental quality standards.
8. These standards apply in addition to specific conditions as may be applied
throughout this code.
D. Conditions: In reviewing applications for CUPs, the Commission and the Council
may attach whatever reasonable conditions they deem necessary to mitigate
anticipated adverse impacts associated with these uses, to protect the value of
other property within the district, and to achieve the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan and City Code provisions. Such conditions may include, but
are not Limited to, the following:
1. Controlling the number, area, bulk, height, density, intensity. and location
of such uses.
2. Regulating ingress and egress to the property and the proposed structures
thereon with particular reference to vehicle and pedestrian safety and
convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or other
catastrophe.
3. Regulating off -street parking and loading areas where required.
4. Specifying utilities with reference to location availability and
compatibility.
5. Requiring berming, fencing, screening, landscaping or other facilities to
protect nearby property.
6. Ensuring compatibility of appearance.
In determining such conditions, special consideration shall be given to protecting
immediately adjacent properties from objectionable views, noise, traffic and other
negative characteristics associated with such uses.
E. Revocation: Failure to comply with any condition set forth in a CUP, or any other
violation of City Code provisions, shall also constitute sufficient cause for the
termination of the CUP by the Council following a public hearing.
F. Expiration: In any case where a conditional use has not been established within
one (1) year of the date on which the CUP was granted, the permit shall be null
and void. If the conditional use is discontinued for six (6) months, the CUP shall
be null and void.
G. Permittee: A CUP shall be issued for a particular use and not for a particular
person.
IP