The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMiscellaneous ,<; , ,.-. EMERALD FOREST NEWSLETTER Vol. 10 No.2 June 1991 I am stire everyone wants to know exactly what is happening to the main entrance of our subdivision. The answer is not an easy one. We are working closely with the city on planning a beautiful entrance, one that we are all proud of. The agreement that we have reached is to maintain the new entrance. In return for this agreement the city will landscape the area to our sa tisf action. The main focus in the center island at our en- trance can vary from plain grass to an elaborate show- piece. The landscape committee feels that we need a sign to show that highway 2818 does not continue into our subdivision. The cost of the sign does not fall un- der our agreement with the city. Sign,prices have varied from $2300 to $4500. The most inexpensive sign would be made of stone and look similar to the existing walls at the main entrance, only it would have plastic letters. The most expensive sign would b~ made of wood, cement or stone. The stone sign would either have letters made of a different material or a wooden inlay with a stylish design en- graved.If anyone has either knowledge of sign design or knows of 4 contact regarding the purchase of a sign, please share this knowledge with me. (Cindy Wolfe 693-6823). Also, I would like general feedback from everyone concerning a sign. Please fill out the ques- tionnaire at the end of this letter and return it. At the annual meeting there was great concern about tbetreesinthe center island. The landscape committee has decided to wait until December or Jan- uary, when t)Ie trees are dormant, to replant the trees that are currently in the islands. Whether they remain in the same position will be determined at a later date. The committee will bring in some live oak trees and plant them where they are needed. Next Spring the committee plans to make two or three new flower beds to help beautify the parkway. Current steps taken to enrich our environment include the planting of periwinkles and the removal of dead trees. Lorne Dunham helped a great deal by get- ting us a bargain on the flowers. To keep wi'thin the budget we took bids on tree removal and accepted a $300 bid to remove seven trees from the center strip and along the tennis courts. This work should be com- pleted within the next two weeks. Ernie Davis and Rob Holt have volunteered their time to the com- munity by removing shrubs from the area under con- struction and replanting them near the pool area. Thanks guys for your time. Since the last newsletter, the pool fence has been fixed. New boards were required to fix the dam- age. Bids were taken and only one company responded and their bid was $750. Thanks to a member of our community the fence was fixed for under $30. This person spent two hours and replaced broken boards and nailed over two pounds of nails. This work should help the fence last a few more years. Volunteers are needed to renail the fence that runs along Emerald Parkway. A date has not been set but if you feel you can help please write on the questionnaire that you are willing to volunteer. Include your name, phone num- ber and possible dates you can work. If you live near a lot where grass exceeds the allowed height and would likeit taken care of, you can call the City of College Station (Wes 76,*-3570). The lot owner is notified by certified letter and,is allowed 10 -14 days to respond... If the ,party negl~cts their duty, the city will gladly dotb.e job and billthe owner. Also. the city can help to control raccoons.andl other animals The animal control wardens (764-3600)willshow you how to set up a trap and they will remov~ dIe raccoon, etc. The traps used are "Have a Heart" Jrapsso there is no bloodshed. This is a very humane an~wer to splving a pesky problem. Spealdng.of animals,fL.EAS.E KEEP YOUR DOGS ON A LEASH OR IN AN EN- CLOSED AREA. It has been suggested that we have an Emerald Forest sidewalk sale. The purpose of the sale would be to lessen the traffic produced by the weekly garage sales (if you are an anti-garage sale person)whileit would enhance buyer turnout (if you are.. a pro-garage sale person). This is something we needtovote on. On the ballot at the end of the newsletter, please,fill out any information you deem necessary' concern,ing a garage sale. The dates of the salewould.,beeither July 13 or 20. The location will be anhe en.~ i;pfiEmer~ld Parkway on the left side. Thereat;e noh,pOlesat ,that location, so the disturbance wouldbe~if~i~al. 'I"he times would be from 8 to 1. Ea()h persp,~ ~ould ~e re- sponsible for setting up their own Jable.~nd havin,g their own money, etc. You can leave as you see fit,and Published by Emerald Forest Community Improvement Association you can seU anything you wish. The Homeowners As- soc. would buy the newspaper ad ($7.00) and each per- son would keep aU proceeds from their own sales. If you desire, at the end of the sale we will take any re- maining items to the Twin City Mission and/or Red Cross to save you the trip. Please respond on the ques- tionnaire either positively or negatively towards this event. Thank you. 2 Emerald Forest Newsletter ,>, The Social Committee can use some help. If you would like to volunteer please call either Josie Peacher or Pat Bickham. You can also write on your questionnaire that you are interested. The pool hours are from 12 o'clock noon until 8:00 p.m. Rick Peacher gives private swim lessons. You can call him at home (696-3101) or reach him at the pool. June 1991 CHAPTER 7 HEALTH & SANITATION SECTION 1: STAGNANT WATER, TRASH, GRASS, ETC. A. PR<>>ImITED CONDITION~ DEaIGN.^.TED STAGNANT WATER PROHIBITED It shall be unlawful for any person who owns or occupies any lot in the City to permit or allow holes or places where water may accumulate. and become stagnant to be ortoremain on such lot or to permit or allow the accumulation of stagnant-water thereon or to permit the same to remain thereon. B. PROHIBITED CONDITIONa DEalGNJ'.TED ACCUMULATION OF TRASH. CARRION. . FILTH. ETC. PROHIBITED It shallbe.unlawfuI for any person who owns or occupies any house. building. establishment, lot. or yard in theGity to permit or allow any trash. rubbish. carrion. filth. Of other impure or unwholesome matter to accumulate or remain thereon or 'therein. C. PROHIBITED CONDITIONa DKaIGNl'.TKD WEEDS AND GRASSES IN EXCESS OF TWELVE INCHES IN HEIGHT PROHIBITEDOTHER ~IGHTL Y VEGETl'.TIO~J It shall be unlawful for any person owning. claiming. occupying. or having supervision or control of any rea1property within the City to permit weeds. grasses or brush. s.r aay ebjeetieBable SF liBBigktly ',<egetatieB to ~ exceed twelve inches (12"1 in height, due to lack of vegetation management,1:1:pOB ~ sliek r-eaJ pr-eperty when such vegetation is within one hundred feet (100') of any property line or within fifty feet (50') of any structure. It shall be the duty of such person to keep the area fromthe line of his property to. the curb line adjacent toU free and clear of matter referred to above. ObjeetioBable sr l:lBsig1:Jitly 'J@~tion inemdes all .....~eas aRa gr..asses wHiek 8Kee8d tv.~lv@ inel16& (12") iBheigkt. Definitions for the purposes of this section are: Weeds and Grasses- includes Sow Thistle (Sonchus asper), Johnson Grass (Sorghum halepense), Rag Weed (Ambrosia sp.), Grass Bur (Cenchrus incertus), Curly Dock (Rumex crispus), Dove Weed (Croton capitatus), Goosefoot (Chenopodium sp.), Pig Weed (Amar8.Jtthus sp.), Horse Weed (Conyza eanadensisis), Poison Ivy (Rhustoxicodendron), St. Augustine Grass (Stenotaphrum secumdatum), Bermuda.Grass(Cynodon dactylon). Other llaW'll grasses, turf grasses and weed Ukeplant. having characteristics similar to those Hsted above shall also be defined as weeds and grasses for the purposes of this section. These characteristics may include but are not Umited to nuisance and safety characteristics ofunmaintained tall growth such as: increased fire load, habitat and food source for pests, prolific seed producers adding to the "seed bank" of unwanted Plants, impairing. sight-distance on corners and adjacent driveways, concealment of criminals, v8.Jtdals or other persons on mal-intent as wen as stolen property, concentrates blowing trash, and provides source for dead plant materials blowing onto adjacent property. 7-1 " Brush-. adense growlhofuncultivated.multi-trunked or stalked. low-lying woody plants. Specifically included .from this definition are all yaupon and holly (Ilex sp.) and any cultivated ornamental shrubs. Lack of vegetation maintenance- allowing weeds. grasses and brush to exceed the specifications of this ordinance. Exempted from. the provisions of this subsection are the following: (1) State highway rights-of-way, Agricultural areas. agricultural meaning crop production and/ or grazing. Heavily wooded areas filled with uncultivated underbrush. The e1:1UivatioB sf eOBeeatratea wilQ4l~:!@r9 frsm Mai'eh IllBtH J 1:1Re 15 of eaeh yeai' Hi ai'eas ':!Here grasses aBEt \V@eaS ao Bet 8*Eleea eigJateeB ..i:B.{!];}es (l~"liB Heiglat~H In the event that any person owning. claiming. occupying. or having supervision or control of any real property permits any condition to exist thereon in violation of this section. the City may notify such person of IHs-failure to comply and direct the Him te esrr-eet.correction -remedy. or removea1 of such condition within ten (10) days after &QElIr.notice is received.. :!illeh &Notice shall be sent to thepersoR at his pas office address by certified maiL Ifth~ person's address is unknown or if notification may not be.obtained by. letter, then notice maybe given by publication in any two issues within ten (10) consecutive days in any daily. weekly. or semi-weekly newspaper in the City. Eafor-eeme&t of the oFEHBaBee shall Be the el:1a.rgeof tHe BlliWiBg 01lieial. Up9B a aetenniBa4iElR ef the 8aREYRg 01lieial that taere is a '~R of the. er4HiaBee. kesJaaR 80 BatifY the pe.rsOB O'l.'niRg. elaimiBg. oee1:lpyiBg.. or Ha.\"'..ng 8Yfl8n1BieB er eeRtrel ~.'@r ta.e ~ealprepe~. In the event that the person disputes the determination of a violationdeeisioB of tHe 81:1HGiBg 01lieial, ke may appeal that determination may be appealed within five (lOa.) days of the receipt of the notice of violation. Appeals shall be made to th~Zoning Board of Adjustment by filing a written noticeofappea1 with the CityBWlding Offieial. If the determination of violation aeeisiea of the B1:HIQ.mg OfIieil;H is not appealed. it shall be unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to comply with such notice. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall provide a hellling. . The City code enforcement ofticeBWldiBg 01lie.ial shall make a presentation as to the violatlon and the. appellant may appear. present evidence. and cross-examine witp.esses. The Zoning Board of , Adjustm~nt shall thereafterclpse the. hearing and may reverse..afllrm or modify in any regard the determination...eftHe 8liHdHigOiBeiaJ. Such hearing shall be held.within thirty (30) days ofthe receipt of notice. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall issue its decision within five (5 ) days of the. hearing. In the event that the appeal is not fil~within the required time as specified herein. the appellant may request a waiv~r of such requireIIlent by the Zoning Board of Adjustment if it finds unusua).circumstances and. in the exercise of its discretion. may waive such . requirement. It shall be unlawful for any person who has.:6ledan appeal to fail..or.refuse to comply with an order of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. (4) (2) (3) / The appeal procedure provided for above shall not be available when the determination of violation Bst.meatioB By tBe8aRaHig Oftleial is based on the presence ofweedsT or grasses over twelve eighteeB inches (12"+8!) inheight,..aa4 tlie BEltmeatieB oeears after .Jl:lFl:8 ll~tH eftaat yeai'. F. Penalty Violations of this section shall each constitute a separate offense. and shall each 7-2 , '" be punishable as a class C misdemeanor and shall each be punishable by a fine PursWUlt to Chapter 1, Section.5 of this Code. 7-3 ~ ~'''c.Jl ~"\ ($~.~~h~- S\'l~')~ - S'^""" ~ -~~? Followw-up to Council Issue #8 Fences and Common areas In August staff presented information and recommendations to Council concerning Council Issue #8 - Drainage. At that time there were several periphiral issues identified to be addressed separately. These included: Screening Fences along thoroughfares, yard fences with regards to easement enclosures and permit requirements and common areas in subdivisions. These items are addressed below. Thorouqhfare Screeninq Fences These are fences located along the rear and/or side property lines of lots that abut a public street or thoroughfare. These fences, walls or screens are not addressed under current ordinances. The purpose for addressing such fences relates to Community Appearance. In order to determine the best way to deal with these fences it is necessary to reach a consensus with respect to what we are trying to accomplsih- Screen rear yards from street view. S \~ '^" I ;J '" f-I? t-' <:.Y Cl '{- 'i ....~~ - c...l"", ,- \::',..1 k ~ Prevent piecemeal or patchwork fencing along public streets. ..~ ~...'" '<<.r"'-......,,- Provide standards to address long term condition., ~~..J.'. 'l. i/ appearance of such fences. .s ~ -Q .....1{~."..;> <:J-., "'\ - ~,.J ~\.-'1 [~. I - l~"''''''~ ~ ' ~".~ Other, such as protect residences from tr.affic noise, ( light, etc. SW"{ - .s.....,,~o.i~, "f'i'''''''''' ~.-,...~ ~1l There are two basic approaches that can be taken when considering this issue: Require such fences under certain circumstances; Regulate such fences, establish standards to facilitate maintenance, etc. There are reasons for both the public and private sectors to be interested in providing thoroughfare screening fences as well as standards for installation and maintenance. Providing for community appearance and facilitating compliance with anti-neglect codes is in the public interest. The creation of more desireable lots is a goal of the development community. The Urban Land Institute recommends that lots backing onto traffic ways be deep and be screened by fences or walls and planting. The Institute recommends in The Community Developers Handbook that the developer install a permanent or long lasting fence or wall with landscaping as part of the development site improvements. This will provide for a permenant and consistent treatment along traffic ways. Fences, walls and landscaping use for this purpose can create focal points, entryways into subdivisions and can serve as a visual amenaty for the entire subdivision, not just the adjacent lots. ~crl'\- ~ sl'F 5"-~"t"1 )-~~ V.. N\,~ / J;--' 40't~he original scope of this issue was the screening of ~ :esidential rear yards. Recommendations made in the recent Streetscape Plan presentation provided for screening of other types of areas. Parking lots, dumpsters and commercial service areas have a greater potential impact on community appearance as they are exposed to high volumes of traffic. Screening recommendations and standards from that plan should be considered and implemented along with any requirments for residential areas. ~e~\ 11 c'lJ [VO . \ ..J \',J o,J.--t' ..()ll,'l" tV- IV ./f.\ ~ sc..- ~ ',,') s~~(' u~'- ,~~h r ~4 Oil Q y.,-.-r f..--' .)sr C;.6 It will be necessary to revise current ordinances if requirments and/or standards for thoroughfare or similar screening fences are desired. A draft ordinance was prepared by the Legal Division (insert reference to date). A copy of that draft is attached. This ordinance provides good concepts and a basic framework for establishing requirements for fences and walls that will screen rear yards from street view. However, there are several concerns relative to the approach taken in this draft. These are discussed below. The most effective approach to dealing with this issue will require two or more ordinance amendments. The earlier draft required screening of residential yards from public streets. As stated above, there are other areas where screening should be addressed. Screening requirements for single family lots should be addressed as part of the subdivision plat. Lots, once platted, may not be built on simultaneously. Some may not be built on for years. Screening fences or walls should be constructed at the time of the other subdivision improvements. For this reason the requirements for such screens should be made as part of the subdivision regulations. Commercial service areas, parking lots for commercial or multifamily parking lots and other areas to be screened could be dealt with as plan improvements. In many cases screening needs would not be identifed until actual site design work was completed. Platting is not always part of the development process as mauny commercial sites are either platted as large tracts or exempted ("grandfathered") unless further divided. Zoning regulations may be the best mechanism for dealing with these uses. Standards set forth in the previous draft provide a good starting point. Standards which allow more flexibility with respect to heights and materials, particularly landscaping materials in addition to or in leiu of masonry materials, would allow for creativity. Additionally, such flexible design standards would be more consistent with streetscape recommendations. Long term maintenance- Should be able to place responsibility for maintenance on prop. owners. May bring up prop. owners assoc. issues. To be further addressed under heading of "Common Property". ~Q~~~\ {(/O~ ,. '6)<Il.~ -o~ '( ~ sy-;\~ ~ f" 'trl (\.t) " ~ ~ 1 \). . \~ ___ I }.~ \ 1 (;\, J I \~ ~t1 \" }..^'- c) Maintenance of areas "outside" of fences- Mowing, litter, landscaping of areas outside of sub. screening fences has been problem in other Cities (according to S Scp consultants). Any ordinance should address this and give consideration to the fact that weed/rubbish ordinances do not address appearance. Existing subdivisions Too much fencing can have the same ill effects on landscaping as too little or none at all. Too much of the same kined of fence or wall construction can be monotonous. If lotting practice leads to excessive thoroughfare screening an impression of a "walled city" can develop. The ULI Residential Development Handbook recommends that the designi of fences be geared to the overall lot areas, style of housing, topography and landscaping. Cost- Any new requirement will be an added cost. (.. ,rt. ~ .... Consistency with Streetscape- Streetscape plan addresses screening of parking lots, dumpsters based on view from major streets. Does give standards that can be adapted. Streetscape standards recommended for parking lot screening are flexible. Parking lot designers can choose from berms, walls, landscaping or any mixture of the same, to allow for creativity. This same kind of flexibiltiy could be considered in this case. This would allow screening "devices" other than fences. Fences (walls), berms, landscaping, or combination of all three should be allowed, particularly when topography or other characteristics of the site merit flexibility. While fences and walls provide effective screening they can also block desirable views and vistas. One ordinance examined, form the City of Lakeway, limits the height of fences to five feet. That City has topography and views that are not found in College Station. However, developments such as Pebble Creek could have both natural and man-made features that add to community appearance. Excessive use of screen fencing could detract from such views. Plano- Recommends requiring landscaping. Tunnel appearance. 2. Fences- Yard fences Review of current regulations- Minimal- Can't impede drainage, Subdivision regs state "Utility easements may be fenced if unlocked gates are provided to allow free movement of excavating machines, maintenance equipment and personnel throughout the length of the easement." Per subdivision regs as ,,-,C!, ~~ ~e ~ 'vi'" , '\ adopted in 1970, no indication that this section of regs has ever been enforced or complied with. Zoning regs state that "Fences of wood, chainlink or similar material, and less than eight feet in height; and, fences of brick, stone, concrete or similar material, and less than six feet in height, shall not be construed to be structures, nor shall they require a building permit.." Specific reference to fences in building code seems limited to situations when construction fences are required for public safety. Review of current problems Access to easements for maintenance and repairs- Fences limit access to, through easements. Question- are fences only impediment- Would removing fences from easements provide access or would other obstacles remain- What about trees, gardens, patios, play equipment, etc. How does public util deal with these problems now? Fence encroachment in to sight distance- proble;l for corner lots. Question- what is the extent of the~ problem. . -. Blockage of drainage- Problem- Yard fences impede drainage or cause the potential for debris to accumulate and impede drainage. Question- What is the extent of problem? Is problem due to fences going in easements or due to allowing drainage easements in areas that are highly likely to be fenced. Additional regulations/permits needed- Are additional regulations and/or permits needed to address problems caused by yard fences? Problem associated with applying regulations (new) to existing fences- Non-conforming status- lenght of time in which to comply- lots with existing fences/easements not platted or designed with "new" fence requirements in mind- ex-25' rear setback, In - 20' util easement, - superimpose new regs could result in 5 - 15' rear yard inside of fence Easement encroachments/blocakages- Keep fences out of easements could create strips of "no mam.1.g man.1.g person's land" or DMZ (De-Mowed Zone) between tiers of lots. Is cure worse than illness? Pub. Util response Pub Servo response PO response Code Enf. response Alternatives- Continue as is, use enforcement tools to deal with sight distance, etc. Determine where to allow yard fences, develop permit system to control. Develop new policies to improve on current situation, establish fees for fence removal, replacement when easements are blocked, be more ~~-'3 Use of common areas ~~ Drainage- nut to be disoussed heape.. covered / -.''0 l ;::., - r 'W/J separately under proposed drainage ord. revisions. ~ Cm~ Amenities- recreational facilities, subdivision ~ entrances, landscaped medians, Thoroughfare screening '~r fences Other- Streets, parking lots, open areas- \ greenspace . ~ Maintenance and appearance p ~,~ Standards for construction to provide for LP durablilty, long-lasting and maintainable facilities. ~, Appearance- how to address? Fences, wall s- Through establ ishing approved '\)f'.')<""" materials, heights, etc. ~ Recreational areas.. etc.- Through compliance ~ with landscape codes, streetscape recs such as )r screening of parking, etc? Leave to private sector. ".)- \.'" unless visible from outside of subdivision or from what". -Q....) ~~...r will become (or is) thoroughfare? ..r "^" Through maintenance/anti neglect codes (less ~ad{ emphasis on design?) ':> /1' <.9\ .,.r Alternatives ~ l ~ ~:.." ~),. '7\r ~ c~~.~),~ J~...I( fI\ ,J)... 0 JV"fJ \) " ~ ~./ )r' .,J~\ \vJ . ) \- - .-..\. ~x~~ f"\t.< .. ~~)- ~ I ~ sensitive to fence conflicts when establishing standards, approving drainage plans, etc. 3. Common areas- Ordinance requirements/revisions (ref draft drainage ord) 4. Maintenance, enforcement, development AII- Common areas V CO's Long term maintenance Short term maintenance Information/education Public/owners Boards/Commissions Staff 5. Street rights of way- Maintenance out to the curbs. Where code enf. V. pub. maintenances? 6.a Committee recommendations- Thoroughfare screening devices Yard Fences ~ dtf -L 1. o . ... \.- ~ ..~. t .,. ~. ,.,..:..",j ~ I&JI [I '0 'y. \..".~ ,..'\, y \ lfI'I"'\'':> IN IIL.J ~~~ \r. I 'l\. \........ \ ... '"'~~,\....~ V \ ~ -.>,1 -;/ f:1 J ., ~ ~ f ~) b ~ )., ...t ~ ...... \\ 'xt~y ~~~,.~ .". \ \. r" "'}.... ~'> ~~., U ~- ':-0"- ~J- Fences and Common areas -r..f...."f Fences- Screening fences Purpose (Community Appearance)-a ~creen the rear ofJ (~l. . properties from street view.- ~-<l.....\ --( ~c'<a.......---vJ \'l"''''':'--''''j s~.....J ~~ Types of areas to screen Residential back, side yards- Original intent of issue. Commercial service areas- Probable even more important. Should be screened from view from rights of way, public places and residential areas. Will probably have greater impact in terms of numbers of people V appearance due to higher traffic volumes in commercial areas. Parking Lots- Recommended in streetscape plan. Ordinance amendments necessary to accomplish Which ordinances to amend- ^ <J.j.' \ Residential areas (SFamily)- Requirements should be established in subdivision regulations. Lots, when platted, should be ready for building permits. Fences should be treated as an improvement just like streets, parks. Commercial service areas, parking lots for commercial, multifamily, CUP, etc.- Could be site plan standard (zoning ordinance) or subdivision requirement. If subdivision requirement should be able to defer to building permit (consistent with park dedication requirement). Standards- Standards set forth in the draft ordinance from legal look like good starting point. May need some refinement, options. Problem areas Long term maintenance- Should be able to place responsibility for maintenance on prop. owners. May bring up prop. owners assoc. issues. Maintenance of areas "outside" of fences- Mowing, litter, landscaping of areas outside of sub. screening fences has been problem in other Cities (according to S Scp consultants). Any ordinance should address this and give consideration to the fact that weed/rubbish ordinances do not address appearance. Existing subdivisions ___ Cost- Any new requirement will be an added cost. Consistency with Streetscape- Streetscape plan addresses screening of parking lots, dumpsters based on view from major streets. Does give standards that can be adapted. ~~ ~ ,. ~ / fl.'t v= ~\ Streetscape standards flexible, would allow screening "devices" other than fences- Fences (walls), berms, landscaping, or combination of all. May want to consider this concept in addressing this issue. 2. Fences- Yard fences Review of current regulations- Minimal- Can't impede drainage, Subdivision regs state "utility easements may be fenced if unlocked gates are provided to allow free movement of excavating machines, maintenance equipment and personnel throughout the length of the easement." Per subdivision regs as adopted in 1970, no indication that this section of regs has ever been enforced or complied with. Zoning regs state that "Fences of wood, chainlink or similar material, and less than eight feet in height; and, fences of brick, stone, concrete or similar material, and less than six feet in height, shall not be construed to be structures, nor shall they require a building permit." Specific reference to fences in building code seems limited to situations when construction fences are required for public safety. Review of current problems Access to easements for maintenance and repairs- Fences limit accesS to., through easements. Question-' are fences only impediment- Would removing fences from easements provide access or would other obstacles remain- What about trees, gardens, patios, play equipment, etc. How does public util deal with these problems now? Fence encroachment in to sight distance- Problem for corner lots. Question- what is the extent of the problem. Blockage of drainage- Problem- Yard fences impede drainage or cause the potential for debris to accumulate and impede drainage. Question- What is the extent of problem? Is problem due to fences going in easements or due to allowing drainage easement~ in areas that are highly likely to be fenced. Additional regulations/permits needed- Are additional regulations and/or permits needed to address problems caused by yard fences? Easement encroachments/blocakages- Keep fences out of easements could create strips of "no mam's land" or DMZ (De-Mowed Zone) between tiers of lots. Is cure worse than illness? Pub. Util response Pub Servo response PD response Code Enf. response Alternatives- Continue as is, use enforcement tools to deal with sight distance, etc. ~- . - Determine where to allow yard fences, develop permit system to control. Develop new policies to improve on current situation, establish fees for fence removal, replacement when easements are blocked, be more sensitive to fence conflicts 'when establishing standards, approving drainage plans, etc. 3. Common areas- Use of common areas Drainage Amenities other Maintenance and appearance Alternatives Ordinance requirements/revisions (ref draft drainage ord) 4. All- Maintenance, enforcement, development Common areas V CO's Long term maintenance Short term maintenance Information/education Public/owners Boards/Commissions Staff 5. Street rights of way- Maintenance out to the curbs. ~.pfl CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ ~ LEGAL DEPARTMENT . . Post Office 60x 9960 11 01 Texas A venue College Station, Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3507 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: March 4, 1993 You have asked me to review the screen fencing ordinance that will be an amendment to the city's current subdivision ordinance. You might want to particularize the streets that you want to re- quire screen fences on. When I read ordinance sections 6-C.5.10, 6-D.4.2.2 and a-W.1, it appears to me that screen fencing is mandatory on particular streets even to the extent of being in- ternal to the subdivision. By way of example, since my house has a common side line with a residential street then a screen fence is mandatory. Although you probably do not intend for it to apply in this manner, I would recommend that you make the appli- cation clearer. My other comments are more minor. I would recommend that you re- quire owner association maintenance not only of the screening de- vice but also the right-of-way on the other side of the device. I don't recall a definition of irrigation in the subdivision ordinance. The word "irrigation" seems open ended enough that someone could install a hose bib and hose or a manual sprinkler system. It would be a matter of what your expectations are. And finally, do you intend to allow an eight foot berm even if the slopes are not a safety hazard? CL:jls js/a/screen :l r- U ~) ~~.pf~......CITY OF COLLEGE STATlON ~..~ . .... .. PLANNING DIVISION .. . . . Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texa' Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3570 December 17, 1992 MEMORANDUM TO: Jane Kee. Senior Planner~\\ V FROM: Jim Callaway. City Planner \\{\ SUBJECT: Thoroughfare Screening Fenc s. I would like for you to prepare an outline of a subdivision ordinance amendment that requires such screening fences. Major points to be inclUded are: Purpose- require visual barrier when residential lots abut street ROW along side or rear lot lines or where side or rear lot lines or separated from a ROW by and alley. service roadway. access easement, etc. Defme fence, wall or visuW barrier, acceptable materials- Masonry, wood. berms. irrigated plant materials. combination. Standards. specs? See PIano illustrations. esp.the additional land area required for "living screen dedication". Height?6'? Intersection visibility requirements - should match other ordinances. Completion to be treated the same as streets. other infrastructure requirements. Maintenance (and ownership?)- Assign maintenance responsibility to property owner(s) in a subdivision. Where screening fence or wall extends across more than one property require that a property owners. association be established to provide for maintenance. We might want to expand this section to deal with all common property in subdivisions (private parks. pools. landscaped entrances, etc. A logical alternate section to consider is similar screening requirements for comm.ercial and other non-residentialuses.. However. it may be difficult to anticipate where screening would be needed in non-residential development (cx:-Post Oak Mall has "fronts" on all sides). lwould like your thoughts on non-residential screening requirements (site plan screening reqq.irements would be a logical fIrst step in the implementation of streetscape by the private sector). Attached is a copy of the materials I presented to the development focus group. Also attached is a copy of the draft prepared. by legal (there are a few good points in this. draft). I would .like to discuss this subject with you before you proceed. .. FENCES AND COMMON AREAS WI RESPECT TO DRAINAGE I. Thoroughfare Screening Fences Pose no real problems if fences designed to accomodate flow should fence cross a drainage facility. II. Yard fences A. Existing fences Have the same problem as utilities in existing areas. Fences constructed in easements have to be removed to allow crews and machinery in to work. Should City enforce fence permits for existing fences, Public Services and Utilities will be able to identify problem areas, and remove problem fences. However, there would need to be some public education for staff to enforce this effectively. B. New fences Problems occur in how the drainage facilities are platted. Drainage facilities platted as common areas can have fences as long as the maintenance entity is set up (such as was done in Brandon Heights). Not all common areas will want fences as the common areas often function as greenbelt type amenities. Drainage facilities platted as private properties, along rear and side lot lines, should not be allowed fences. The fence will be located along the centerline of the creek (the property line), causing blockage of flow problems and maintenance entry problems. The new drainage ordinance discourages new open ditches along lot lines. However, should drainage swales along lot lines be used for lot drainage, a note should be placed on the plat prohibiting fences in those areas. And, finally, should this note be. overlooked, the new drainage ordinance states "no barriers or fences shall be allowed within drainage facilities or impede, constrict or block the flow of water in drainage facilities." This can be enforced if fence permits are required for residential properties. The new drainage ordinance also states, "the City will not be responsible for the maintenance, erosion control, and/or the operation of said drainageways....The City shall have the right of entry for the purpose of inspecting the maintenance work by the property owners...The City may, in case. of threat to health, safety or welfare, enter on and make improvements. to, take correctional or maintenance action with regard to the Property. The City may assess a lien against the property for the costs of such remedial action." I would think this wouldinc1ude the cost of tearing down and replacing a fence the property owner has constructed. I recommend that the areas not suitable for fences, be identified at the plat stage., to prevent requests for permits to be considered at a later date. Enforcement of a fencing/no fencing policy, should not be considered by engineering staff (i.e. whether or not they impede flow) when building permits are issued. It should already be decided, and evident by means of note on plat or some other appropriate means, where fences are allowed/not allowed, for building staff to enforce. c:\word\dk\fn\fence , ,# -i:iW r~l ~L <Lc 1"'1-- /i-,.(C1TY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ PJ . PLANNING DIVISION Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas A venue College Station, Texas 77842~0960 (409) 764-3570 February 10, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Community Appearance Committee Jim Callaway, City Planner\\.'-- Fences - Subdivision scree~~g Fences and Walls. Subdivision screening (fences and walls) is one of several fence related areas that staffwill address during the next few months. Subdivision screening fences. (or "devices") are those fences, walls, berms and landscape items usedto.screen residential lots that are adjacent to public streets. Examples of these are found along Emerald Parkway, Rio Grande and Rock Prairie Road.. Examples of older fences can.be found along Southwest Parkway in the South Knoll area. Fences and walls constructed for the purposes of screening residential subdivisions from street view are not required or regulated by the subdivision regulations. We have been reviewing this subject, evaluating the screening now in place and visiting other cities to examine similar situations. Based on our review we recommend the adoption of regulations to: Require subdivision screening. fences or devices where residential lots are adjacent to streets along a side or rear lot line, including situations where alleys. or. access easements are located between the street and lot; Establish basic standards for the design of such devices while allowing flexibility for developers; and, Requiring a mechanism for maintenance. This type of regulation will have a major impact on the appearance of College Station as it continues to develop. Additionally, we feel that such regulations, particularly maintenance . requirements, will aid in maintaining property values. The attached ordinance is to be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 18. The ordinance is an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations and as such is the purview of the Commission and the City Council. However, there are major community appearance .r,. impacts associated With this ordinance. I would like to receive the Community Appearance Committee's comments, advice and support before I present this item to the Commission. May 14, 1 9 9 1 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Jim Callaway, City Planner SUBJECT: Subdivision screening fence ordinance. Planning staff has reviewed the draft subdivision screening fence ordinance. Comments and recommendations regarding this ordinace follow and are given as general comments on the question of requiring this type of improvement as well as specific comments on the draft as prepared for review. GENERAL COMMENTS: The concept of sreening fences required as subdivision improvements is a goodcidea. This item relates directly to Council issues re: community appearance. The ordinance requrires screening for "single family subdivision lots adjacent (to) public streets". Other residential uses, duplex, townhome, condo, etc. are as likely to impact community appearnce from the street as are single family developments. Some of our worst cases are commercial development. Additionaly, a development can easily be platted and zoned for one use, ie duplex, and then be constructed as single family. The ordinance is styled as an amendment to the zoning ordinance. However, the ordinance sets forth subdivision requirements and ties those into the financial surety required by subdivision regulations. Anti-neglect requirements, structural standards, enforcement of subdivision requirements by the Building Official and appeal or these various elements to the Zoning Board of Adjustment are all intermingled into a zoning ordinance. While the requirments of the ordinance are generally good (or will be with minor modifications), the Plannng Division is oppossed to inserting these requirements into the Zoning Ordinance. Planning staff recommendation to P&Z and Council will be to keep subdivision requirements in the subdivision regulations. The timining of the ordinance is out of synch with our streetscape planning project. SPECIFIC COMMENTS: 8. 16. : H.2- Requiring a permit for any fence is a substantial departure from the current situation. This may be a good change, but what is the purpose? Would fences that were built without a permit become non-conforming? If so, some 80% or more of the residential lots in the City become non-conforming. H.3.a.- This section addresses single family subdivision lots. Other land uses should be included. The requirements should be expanded to include all plats, not just preliminary. This would allow us to deal with any case that may occur October 14, 1991 MEMORANDUM TO: Elrey Ash, Director of Development Services FROM: Jim Callaway, City Planner SUBJECT: Drainage Policy Follow-up. Three areas need to be addressed as part of the follow-up to the recent staff work on drainage policy. These are fences, common areas and code enforcement. These areas will be addressed as follows: FENCES Staff assigned- J. Callaway, S. Volk, J. Kee, D. Keating and N. Coates. Other staff to have input include M. Smith, B. Riley and R. Havens. Issues to consider- Possible requirements for subdivision screening fences: possible permit requirements and location standards for yard fences. The basic outline will include those elements listed in Tom Brymer's memo of August 14 and will be expanded to include other relevant items as they are identified. Action to take- I will call a meeting of this team for the week of October 14. We will meet weekly to maintain progress. It is anticipated that the team recommendations will be available in approximately six weeks. COMMON AREAS Staff assigned- J. Callaway, S. Volk, J. Kee, D. Keating and N. Coates. Other staff to have input with respect to functions of common areas. Issues to consider- Basic requirements and regulations for common areas in subdivisions. This item will be addressed with respect to appearance and maintenance as well as drainage. Action to take- Action to be take concurrently with the work on fences. CODE ENFORCEMENT- Staff assigned- ~. Callaway, E. Ash, J. LaBeau (as assigned in the memo of August 14). Additional staff to include S. Volk and N. Coates. Issues to consider- Basic outline to include those items listed in the memo of August 14. These will be expanded to include other areas (such as ROW mowing) where code enforcement could supplement or replace City maintenance activities. Action to take- I will call a meeting of this group for the week of October 21. We will meet weekly to maintain progress. It is anticipated that the team recommendations will be available in approximately six weeks. Memo October 14, 1991 page 2 Followw-up to Council Issue #8 Fences and Common areas In August staff presented information and recqmmendations to Council concerning Council Issue #8 - Drainage. At that time there were several periphiral issues identified. These included: Screening Fences along thoroughfares, yard fences (with regards to easement enclosures and permit requirements) and common areas in subdivisions. Thorouahfare Screenina Fences These are fences located along the rear and/or side property lines of lots that abut a public street or thoroughfare. These fences, walls or screens are not addressed under current ordinances. The purpose for addressing such fences relates to Community Appearance. In order to determine the best way to deal with these fences it is necessary to reach a consensus with respect to what we are trying to accomplsih- Screen rear yards from street view. Prevent piecemeal or patchwork fencing along public streets. Provide standards to address long term condition, appearance of such fences. other, such as protect residences from traffic noise, light, etc. There are two basic approaches that can be taken when considering this issue: Require such fences under certain circumstances; Regulate such fences, establish standards to facilitate maintenance, etc. There are reasons for both the public and private sectors to be interested in providing thoroughfare screening fences as well as standards for installation and maintenance. Providing for community appearance and facilitating compliance with anti-neglect codes is in the public interest. The creation of more desireable lots is a goal of the development community. The Urban Land Institute recommends that lots backing onto traffic ways be deep and be screened by fences or walls and planting. The Institute recommends in The Community Developers Handbook that the developer install a permanent or long lasting fence or wall with landscaping as part of the development site improvements. This will provide for a permenant and consistent treatment along traffic ways. Fences, walls and landscaping use for this purpose can create focal points, en't;rywaysinto subdivisions and can serve as a visual amenaty for the entire subdivision, not just the adjacent lots. The original scope of this issue was the screening of residential rear yards. Recommendations made in the recent Streetscape Plan presentation provided for screening of other types of areas. Parking lots, dumpsters and commercial service areas have a greater potential impact on community appearance as they are exposed to high volumes of traffic. Screening recommendations and standards from that plan should be considered and implemented along with any requirments for residential areas. It will be necessary to revise current ordinances if requirments and/or standards for thoroughfare or similar screening fences are desired. A draft ordinance was prepared by the Legal Division (insert reference to date). A copy of that draft is attached. This ordinance provides good concepts and a basic framework for establishing requirements for fences and walls that will screen rear yards from street view. However, there are several concerns relative to the approach taken in this draft. These are discussed below. The most effective approach to dealing with this issue will require two or more ordinance amendments. The earlier draft required screening of residential yards from public streets. As stated above, there are other areas where screening should be addressed. Screening requirements for single family lots should be addressed as part of the subdivision plat. Lots, once platted, may not be built on simultaneously. Some may not be built on for years. Screening fences or wall~ should be constructed at the time of the other subdivision improvements. For this reason the requirements for such screens should be made as part of the subdivision regulations. Commercial service areas, parking lots for commercial or multifamily parking lots and other areas to be screened could be dealt with as plan improvements. In many cases screening needs would not be identifed until actual site design work was completed. Platting is not always part of the development process as mauny commercial sites are either platted as large tracts or exempted ("granq.fathered") unless further divided. Zoning regulations may be the best mechanism for dealing with these uses. Standards set forth in the previous draft provide a good starting point. Standards which allow more flexibility with respect to heights and materials, particularly landscaping materials in addition to or in leiu of masonry materials, would allow for creativity. Additionally, such flexible design standards would.be more consistent with streetscape recommendations. Long term maintenance- Should be able to place responsibility for maintenance on prop. owners. May bring up prop. owners assoc. issues. To be further addressed under heading of "Gommon Property". Maintenance of the landscaped or grass portions of the street right-of-way outside of thoroughfares is a concern. Mowing, litter control and landscaping have been problems in other cities (according to the City's Streetscape Planning consultants). Any ordinance considered should address this and also give consideration to the fact that weed/rubbish ordinances do not address appearance. There are several options that were found in other ordinances. These are summarized as: Landscaped areas are improved by developers and dedicated to the City for Maintainence. In some cases the developer maintains the improvements for a specified time period then kturns them over to the city for maintenance. In some cases the develop must make a dedication to a municipal maintnenace fund. Areas are maintained through a perpetual maintenance arangement established by the developer. The city must approve of the arangement. Areas are maintained by a homeowners association. The city may retain the right to remeove landscaping if the association fails to perform. Traditional code enforecemnt techniques are not recommended for addressing the maintenance of street rights-of-way and landscaped areas outside of thoroughfare screening fences. Problems associated with code enforcement in this case include: Current code standards address health and safety, not appearance. Maintenance through code enforcement results in a lot- by-lot approach, leaving a peicemeal or patchwork appearance where a consistent, uniform appearnce is needed. Existing subdivisions and developed areas pose a problem if new regulations are established (Question for Neal- can regulations be established to requrie existing development to comply? Will any such requirement be workable?) Too much fencing can have the same ill effects on landscaping as too little or none at all. Too much of the same kined of fence or wall construction can be monotonous. If lotting practice leads to excessive thoroughfare screening an impression of a "walled city" can develop. The ULI Residential Development Handbook recommends that the designi of fences be geared to the overall lot areas, style of housing, topography and landscaping. Cost- Any new requirement will be an added cost. Consistency with Streetscape- Streetscape plan addresses screening of parking lots, dumpsters based on view from major streets. Does give standards that can be adapted. Streetscape standards recommended for parking lot screening are flexible. Parking lot designers can choose from berms, walls, landscaping or any mixture of the same, to allow forqreativity. This same kind of flexibiltiy could be considered in this case. This would allow screening "devices" other than fences. Fences (walls), berms, landscaping, or combination of all three should be allowed, particularly when topography or other characteristics of the site merit fleXibility. While fences and walls provide effective screening they can also block desirable views and vistas. One ordinance examined, form the City of Lakeway, limits the height of fences to five feet. That City has topography and views that are not found in College Station. However, developments such as Pebble. Creek could have both natural and man-made features that add to community appear!ance. Excessive use of screen fencing could detra'ct from such views. Plano- Recommends requiring landscaping. Tunnel appearance. Yard Fences Current regulation addressing yard fences are minimal. The Subdivision Regulations state "Utility easements may be fenced if unlocked gates are provided to allow free movement of excavating machines, maintenance equipment and personnel throughout the length of the easement." This sections is currently stated as adopted in 1970. There is no indication that this section of regs has ever been enforced or complied with as many, if not most, residential lots include easements that are fenced without gates as described. Current drainage policies prohitfences or other drainage easement and structure encroahcments that would potentially impede the flow of water. The Zoning Ordinance provides that "Fences of wood, chainlink or similar material, and less than eight feet in height; and, fences of brick, stone, concrete or similar material, and less than six feet in height, shall not be construed to be structures, nor shall they require a building permit." Specific reference to fences in building code seems limited to situations when construction fences are required for public safety. Elswhere in the City Code fences with self lathcing gates are required around swimming pools. Fence gates cannot be locked when utlity meters are.. inside Review of current problems Access to easements for maintenance and repairs- Fences limit access to, through easements. Question- are fences only impediment- Would removing fences from easements provide access or would other obstacles remain- What about trees, gardens, patios, play equipment, etc. How does public util deal with these problems now? Fence encroachment in to sight distance- Problem for corner lots. Question- what is the extent of the problem. Fence conflicts with drainage facilities couse problems similar to those related to utility easements. Fences are one of the potential blockages face by maintainence forces. Fences also impede drainage. A fence can block the flow of water or can cause the potential for debris to accumulate and impede drainage. Existing fences have to be removed in order to Question- What is the extent of problem? Is problem due to fences going in easements or due to allowing drainage easements in areas that are highly likely to be fenced. Additional regulations/permits needed- Are additional regulations and/or permits needed to address problems caused by yard fences? Problem associated with applying regulations (new) to existing fences- Non-conforming status- lenght of time in which to comply- lots with existing fences/easements not platted or designed with "new" fence requirements in mind- ex-25' rear setback, 10 - 20' util easement, - superimpose new regs could result in 5 - 15' rear yard inside of fence Easement encroachments/blocakages- Keep fences out of easements could create strips of "no mam~s mafl~S person's land" or DMZ (De-Mowed Zone) between tiers of lots. Is cure worse than illness? Pub. Util response Pub Servo response PD response Code Enf. response Alternatives- Continue as is, use enforcement tools to deal with sight distance, etc. Determine where to allow yard fences, develop permit system to control. Develop new policies to improve on current situation, establish fees for fence removal, replacement when easements are blocked, be more sensitive to fence conflicts when establishing standards, approving drainage plans, etc. 3. Common areas- Use of common areas Drainage- not to be discussed here, covered separately under proposed drainage ord. revisions. Amenities- recreational facilities, subdivision entrances, landscaped medians, Thoroughfare screening fences Other- Streets, parking lots, open areas- greenspace. Maintenance and appearance Standards for construction to provide for durablilty, long-lasting and maintainable facilities. Appearance- how to address? Fences, walls- Through establishing approved materials, heights, etc. Recreational areas, etc.- Through compliance with landscape codes, streetscape recs such as screening of parking, etc? Leave to private sector unless visible from outside of subdivision or from what will become lorislthoroughfare? Through maintenance/anti neglect codes (less emphasis on design?) Alternatives Ordinance requirements/revisions (ref draft drainage ord) 4. AII- Maintenance, enforcement, development Common areas V CO's Long term maintenance Short term maintenance Information/education Public/owners Boards/Commissions Staff 5. Street rights of way- Maintenance out to the curbs. Wher~ code enf. V. pub. maintenances? 6.a Committee recommendations- Thoroughfare screening devices Yard Fences Intro- Previously presented info/recommendations re Issue #8 - Drainage. Related Issues identified - to be addressed later: Screening fences where residential lots. backed onto Tfares, yard fences V. easement conflicts, permit requirments, common areas in subdivisions as they relate to drainage. Tfare screening fences- Describe process to research, reach conclusions, sources. Define- Located along side or rear residential prop lines that abut Tfare. Not addressed by current ordinances. Relate to Community appearance - show slides of good and bad examples of fences or lack. .Must determine purpose for addressing issue to determine best way to address- Screen rear yards from public views, public places (slide from Humana, SW athletic) Prevent patchwork of fence types, etc. Provide stanards to address long term condition. Other- Protect residences from traffic noise, light, etc. Two basic approaches- Require fences as part of development. Establish regulations for such fences for cases when developers, lot owners, etc~ choose to build. Public and private intrest, motivation for having such fences. Fences- Yard Fences- Partition or property line fences erected by lot owners. Thoroughfare Screening Fences- Fences that screen side and rear yards along streets from public view. Yard Fences- Problems. Encroachments into drainage easements, utility easements, sight distance at corners. Encroachments create a "reactive" enforcement situation where correction would require removing or relocating fence. Current codes-Fences or encroachments into easements are addressed in several locations: Building code- Fence references are limited to requiring construction fences when necessary for public safety . Zoning Ordinance- Requires screening fences for site development in certain cases. Addresses yard fences by stating "Fences of wood, chain link or similar material, and less than eight feet in height, and, fences of brick, stone, concrete or similar material, and less than six feet in height, shall not be construed to be structures, nor shall they require a building permit." Subdivision Regulations- Easements are defined,. the ordinances states that "Utility easements may be fenced if unlocked gates are provided to allow free movement of excavating machines, maintenance equipment and personnel throughout the length of the easement." Thereis no evidence that this portion of this 1970 vintage ordinance has ever been enforced. Drainage Ordinance- Establishes, empowers an "administrator". Defines easement, development and. encroachment. Allows the administrator to "Limit, control or prevent the use of existing or proposed drainage easements such that the easement remains useful for its intended purpose." Current Practice- Fences are allowed to enclose utility easements. No gate or other special requirements are imposed. Treatment of fence intrusion into drainage easements is not allowed. Response to intrusions seems to have varied over time- some have remained. Require Permits- Requiring permits for fences would allow City to verify construction is in accordance with ordinances (gates required, out of f;light distance, does not intrude into drainage easements). Pros- Allows City to verify locations of fences, advise fence installer of special circumstances (easements, etc.). Addresses problem up front rather than after the fact. Cons- Places additional demands on inspectors. Lack of established checkpoints (such as slab inspections prior to pouring slabs. Fences often "weekend" projects, lack of homeowner awareness of permit, setback .other requirements. Sometimes homeowners aware of requirements but disregard them. In either case, City still faces a "reactive" enforcement capability. Addition of gates or keeping fences out of utility easements would not eliminate. conflicts caused by trees, gardens, play equipment, patios, etc. Recommendation- Although there are adequate codes in effect now, and despite the "cons" involved, a fence permit system should be put into place- "Up front" approach to problem always best approach. Violation of permit requirements will put the City in more effective position for dealing enforcement situations. Prior to putting permit requirements into effect City should determine if it is able and willing to dedicate manpower resources to inspections, enforcement, etc. More consideration of the impacts of fences, gardens, landscaping, other typical rear yard improvements, should be included in considering lot, drainage and utility layout. Thoroughfare Screening Fences- Problems- Residential lots with side or rear yards abutting streets can have impact on community appearances. Lack of standards for fences erected along streets results in both maintenance and appearance problems. Fences constructed along rear and side lot lines can .create "common areas" and can inhibit maintenance by individual lot owners or create piecemeal maintenance situations. Current codes, practices- Thoroughfare screening fences, walls not specifically addressed by codes. Screening or lack of screening at discretion of developer. Screening decisions may not take adjacent land use, development, etc. into account. Anti-neglect andw.eed ordinances address maintenance, but there is often no single entity responsible for maintenance. Require Thoroughfare Screening Fences- Screening of residential rear and side yards from street~view could be accomplished by amending.the subdivision ordinance to require screening fences or walls as part of the development of residential lots. Screening requirements could be written to minimize maintenance (require masonry walls) or could be written so as to provide for flexibility in design and appearance. . Requiring materials such as masonry walls could result in less overall maintenance, but could create situations where any maintenance or repair was more expensive than. other types of screens. Allowing the use of plant materials.or living screens..could result in more attractive and diverse designs but could require extensive maintenance. Screening fences and walls, whether developer initiated or required by ordinance, should include a maintenance mechanism. or entity. Pros- Requiring screening walls and fences would enhance appearance. Establishing standards, requiring maintenance entity would minimize long term fence or wall problems. Cons- Increased costs. Recommendations- Establish screening fence and wall requirements. Allow flexibility in use of plant materials, berms, wood and masonry products. Require maintenance provisions. See attached illustrations. F. THOROUGHFARE SCREENING OPTIONS 1. LIVING SCREEN }C'"LIVI H ~ 6C.1<.EEN '4' 6lDE\<IALKJ~. 12' L.IV/H6-rl 6TREET RO\N'" 6C.'R.E'E'H , DEDI CATION EX16r'Nq ::$TRE:t:: I ,'to... '4 tt t.. 4' .( " , , l",,\ .. ," ... .' .", . I . ( \ \ "\ f: " . '. . lit...' ., I. II . I . \ \\ ( \ . \ ( \ , . . . . , , ,. '-"" 2. LIVING SCREEN WITH SCREENING FENCE 15' AL.LEY- R 0"""; f- b FEE1f .... ... ., c . , .. , .., 't · , (\ .\ "'.'t- , .. · . I . \ . , :..':: '. ....; ','. :;m ::':'''~ " . I , ., .., ,I. , ,. . 'tf ". 1.. f'" . ;,'" , ' .,' ,.1 t .... f C,..,. .,!" . I I . ( ,in ... I" f};;}~:.:o\.':: /?:1)/ !}\ 1 \ ;1. a .. ' '. '. .... . , . ." . I , 14 /I " , I I , I , J , I ."., ~LLE"Y' LIVtH ~ 6C.REEH ~ WOOD E14 ~Fet'4('E 'j'6IDEWAU<ff .. {'O' L.NIH.q~ EXI:S\lHq.On:ecr "ROW .. . · 6<:.l2eEN. f OE'DtCA'nOM It<< \' I I, ", I , ,', I l \ .\ ','I ''.: ", ,1f( 1 \. <, , I ( '. \ I' I \' I' h ~., ._.f (, "Tt'1 ," ',', :.., I,' 'f I,., \ 'r"', ~ :t/f':~\ :>1 Kt:,t:. ( RE 61t:>E'HTI AL LOT ." . \ \ I f \, , · . . ,. I . .. ., " . "",. I , ' , ," , I ( · #" f , I f I 'C ( ., ( \ , ,I ,"\ I, ( ~ I ',\,' ,., I "t I ,.. Y I '\' "'~, ' 1('. ,'" .1, ,", . , .' , .. If " ,. (,I I I J ( ., I ( .,' I "f (I I ' .. ' ',. \ ( , ' , " (' \ ' '" '.',' ',' qlf "C' ( t ( cI. I : I t 'I 'c I . . ' t: ....... II .. ~". t I \ ~f , , f . . \. \ ~ ., . ~ , . I ....,', I \ ( 'I. t \ ~ . \.... t I I 6 3. REINFORCED MASONRY WALL POt.tBLE B1<K.K MAt>CH1<:Y WALL 5' OrOE""'(ALKYI's' ALI.-EY--j 6~E'ET ROW DEDI CATiON I EXI sr. N €t t>~E'ET (f""'" .' I I ~ ',', c4 . f ""(," ( " , ",(,'1"" . \ \ \ r .. '" I ,. ( , ., '( , "I ..' ,UI,. "I ( , " ~I", , u, {; " ,'t I,'. I ,\ ( Ie "I, , I' 'I , I~, ,I ,( I" lIl'C'1 ... " " 4. WROUGHT IRON & BRICK FENCE ALLEY f , " I", , I " 'I' I " I ,<< i "" I ' ,,1 t, '(' ( II , I ','" ,'\ (f 1,1, I , ,1'(1(,,1',1 ,(,, . , ' " , "I '('(\I't'I'( ( I " (, 1 t l r( I, ( ( , " I 'I' , t " (,((d(~ I {'\ (( "" , II ., I " , I I " ,\ , " I ' I \ (, \ ,r t , " , ~OtJqHT IRONj JC '8~lC.K Fe:'HCE' ' 5'. ~"De:WAu:::.fJ I . IS' ALLEY-l.. ~l (<t:.t:.1 ROW' . . . OE'OtCA-TION I VARIABLE .1<0,,", DED' C.AT'Dt'-\ EXI~TINq ~t: E:I \\ f ,," f f f I". ',H.I ( t C' (\ r .. ~ I 't · I ',I , \. " " \ ,. \ ~, f' f," f . \ . f ,.cl ff" (f ,. "tfl' ( , t.. ',\111 ( ,ft , '.'. , ".,,1/. I · I ,', I, , , " , \ " . ~ ' , '( \, , . ' 7 ,. t "" I , \ ' " ,If rtf" I If 1 f I (( t( I r , , I ( J f' tl~tI('I'f' , , t f , t ,( 'n" ( (. J' ,I' " ( ; , " ( " I (. " . \ t , t d"r".'/ I , " 't',' I ,( ,\. . " , \ r' \ ( 't , \ . , ,'f' AL.LE"'(' 5. ORNAMENTAL FENCE WITH LANDSCAPED SLOPE ~ORHAMEHTAL FEM<:..E j{'1?ETA1H IH~ VIALL ~., ~. lOEWALK5. J-'-!iLf-t.S' ALLEy-i ~TIEe:r ~OW"-'~LOPE I 'DEDIC.AT'ION I VeD. EX'6TINq ~"1?c:.f:: I 'I , " I " , I " ~ I 't 'f \ ' I' 11 .", 'I ".\q 1\ ',-II,,' I , ", ( , , , , I " '... ' '. II , , \ · , , , C1 \,( If '. , l 6. BERM WITH RETAINING WALL , I I . I C t I , \ - 3: I q1?Al=E ~ I ' " T \ , ,,'. II 'I '\. ., I II I I ., , , " "\ t , " . ",' I II . I \ ( , 1 " If," (', " ( I ,,\ '('/cl,' i ' . " << \ , \ ( I , I I"~ r I(\'(..\", ALLEY RETAIH IH~ ~ WALl.. '-/' 6'DEWALKf kVA1<IABLE R6W-I-ISI ALLEY--! EX'5TIH~ ~"l'1<.EET l<ow---l 'DEP,CATfCt-{ . .OE'DIC.ATfOH 1 51 Rc:.t::. I " . , , , << :""',', "" , 'I', ,\ J,I'. I, t I ,'I , " ," I ' , " I' ' ,1 .',' I I '1.,:: "t h I I' "~'I I, , '. , I I . I ~ ,I, " f I 1 (t ,t ',J .c ! ,- t, f:, I, " f\' \ " , I " ' , , , ALLEY' 8 OPTION 1 - LIVING SCREEN PERSPECTIVE .:~:::~~~~ -::,.... ,. ::.~e-...,..;~&; .. .s.' . .Jr..&I.~~-". ......, .- ..- .u'/r.H ..41.,.....::.:. I'i . .."..,..".,...~ ' .. J .. .... .u......l.. .............'tUI&',.. ' ~, .. '''''..J~~' ~ .. " ,.."...,,1.......... '" ~,. U,,4, ,tU,U H'("tlttle,., I., 'tl. if"" "'It 111'::.:. II,... Ifj;"~ , ulu~.,ltllffl't.(IIIIJ,/(h <III ""//11'- i"'f4 7 ~~:/'(I.t4..litl.{.;,. / 11(.,.,14" ~ . "'( II t ", '14 t (I I 1111 I u (I (, 'j/' !(/tl'ft I I.t, 'I "'tl,.. ELEVA TION STREET SIOEW ALK LIV1NG SCREEN , : . , I :~~~.~.~~:.:~~~::~:.~ ~ ~;1;::~' '.. .. ~. - PLAN V1EW~_ ~ ~ \0 1 : 1 . I \ ~---~ . :::.<~ .~':..; ". . . .' ~ . f . ; . . 9 ,; f:::'''''':' 1 .' oi~'," . ". '"1'S ALLEY . ('-.c. ~:::;::J'-2. ~ 'i ~~ . . lb." I , I · . ' ---, - .J ...., I t:- I . .: --' ~ ).' fi\ \ -:- I (. t I _. '~,~..j.j . OPTION 2 - LIVING SCREEN WITH SCREENING FENCE PERSPECTIVE ELEV A TION STREET PLAN VIEW ......... '\" .... ...\\,).... ,,\._ i'\ ., ...., \.\II\.r, "- . I \..1\\\ ~:: .. ...\\ 'I \ \\\ \...... .- ~ J !.. 141 SIDEW ALK LIVING FENCE REAR Y ARO SCREEN !~~~~ '. .' ~. '.:: ':- .' .J..... .... '- -. 4~'~" ~ ..... ..... . ,:..-_ -.,,4 .. :~. ~;: :.". ~ '.~ ...:-.:. . '.-'.- ",'-; .... -', 10 4~' '\~~:~~::~~-=-~ \~<4~:' ;::~"- ..;. ..-;.. -~::-'... I" . \......~. -;?o-:.:r:;...- ~ " ......:..~.,. ..:t-..:-::....,. , -\ ;;........,;.;.:...............' -' . ~ '. '..:-'" ._ _.,' ..I.;.'......._.....Mo.~. .~ "'-I.lf".j:,~'" I ..... PERSPECTIVE.'\:~"" ........:;.. ..;1.:"....... ,. \ \ ......:1'.1111*:.... " "'I,,.;~t. __----- \\.4" .... I' I Li -" . \ ._. ._. f,,' ...f". ~__-- \.. ....... 1//(111"1'1" 11.;-.". \ _", /., 11,#4 J ", .......... \ !i:.: 1ft ~::t,141 il . .. '- ''\ ,,~"""l~l., ,I I... "',.. ,tlllfI,: ..... '. _ _ \,_ ,II" ''':'-'',- Ai"",HI IIU,,, 'f' ;;."" ",' ".,/1'" . I i ! t : I 1 ! 1 : .1 . j : i . I OPTION 3 - REINFORCEDMASONRYW ALL .--.--.- - ---. ...--. ~.----- ---- ELEVATION \ ~~ . ...., STREET PLAN VIEW '\ '.; . . ",..:. . ..... ........ ..'.' . ''''. '. .. .-. . -. .-, n:0~;i II.. . =--~ ,~<:. --. -... ...:'\ {-~; \ " - ". ",I .'-. " . -.. -. . . .' ~ ;\ r--nt] - II. I I i,;l ..' J ~ t - :' .I_...H .. , \ ) I .J""-.--A-r:"- ~ 11 OPTION 4 - WROUGHT IRON & BRICK FENCE , )1'(.",' -'" ~ '0."0 ~...,.. / "'1' -<", " \o{ .. '7 ". \I~,. -- \ / 't" t'\l ../i 11\. 'I '{It 'I.., ""\1 \'1 "t . 1'~A ...... .. . "(tt, ELEV A TION STREET SIDEWALK FENCE PLAN VIEW J-- ~--- -. -. .. ., +. . " -:'. '..:~.. . ..... ( :-/~-:.;.~.:-: ~..~ .':'-:\.':~;~ "xJ;,f.!.;K:;t ~;:i1S~//.: ~: N;\::{{.., . ..-....;....... .. ~:':':~:;'.:.::. .~:.:~:..:.:...~.~- . ..~.:.:., ". . r- _-::J /- \lL ;, , i'l '" '"__ l'~ , . - - :"".-. 12 " " '., "', " It t, 'I" ALLEY .-,,'u. -~~~ .., ~ n LJ fl '1 ~ .' ~ . .~~ "(:,> i.J ~. , .. '..- --:- ......, ~ .~c . OPT 10 N 5 - 0 R N A ME,r.fr:~:;Ji"I;N C E " :.':'.. :/: ,'i:};- ' WIT H f.i~bl..~~.~tl"~'" <~::':.AP::'E 0 S LOP E~,:~,~:~.;.;;:;:):~~:,~'~~.:(,~fi}>..;.:" :/~.. .!'f(~~'~A:~':'." }~:(.:-:~=., '.\:::i<, ~ :.;..:~,;.;.~' '. '\S.\: ~-t2E;~'vj'"z. ",..,.~:Sdr:-:<rz ~~..!~~ '1.-p,:~: .~.:> -;.,,.::. :"i~' ~J~~~'1:1.J);:;'.' c't_:._~(.~,.~..,-t.~../.;. .I!~ :-'-.:.,....;,.....;. _~ .,.~ ~'-:~~\"'..;.'t..;...t.-.I... . .... -..,...;~ -...v..... L....l'. ,. .. ~~' ..."'~.b.~:~.'../t..I;.).':.>,.. :~ ,~ . ~. ~ ~I-""') '':'~' r .~, ~~" ..~:.;."";~...?1<'. ....:.r- '.<;4i.~ ....~';'~ "~".~'" . Ii rJl:v- . .... ,-.(' .:af,. ........;./". . ~.~~. ;,,/.4,..," . ~;''i' _ . ''f..,~''. . ..)~.I~:1i.. e :':' . -i e.j' ,,~ ..r . .. ' " .:--;\ . .~. ", ~ . . \. . . ., I' . r _'1:,1 .' ...........~~-.... . . . .- '1 , , , lor' " ,,1 I ,. ...... ,. ,.1 -.- " ----...>-'\ ...,.... - . .....~ ' ...... .il~. ..1 , '-- .\ .f' 1.,/' ." J" 41 /III.. I I '.'...II':~..... ).. " '. .:...'t:'""",\..'/ ;'~'" ,....jF.. ~. ~...'. ..'. ,J" "".,' -.~ .. . '.' _ J ).. -.'-~-. .. ~*'~~ ~.c.~:<~ . ~. ELEV A TION '( STREET I P SIDEWALK RETAINING SLOPE WALL PLAN VIEW r'.'-"'.'''~-'...;.' : . J ... . . r ! ,: If I ~c~ \:t_,--,~: \. ' !\ 13 ., ..... ...4 I II!' .r 1:' J' ~ .,"-...J,J..:".- "'t ALLEY ~~ f---'- .-.,', J '~-'-l .-- I' I . --..~....- OPTION 6 BERM WITH RETAINING WALL PERSPECTI~ ELEV A TION STREET BERM RET AINING WALL PLAN VIEW__~____ , .-.-'1.::---- ~- ,\\ , , .1' ',.f I, .'. I:. I. i' 'r !T 14 ALl.EY '" ... S\\~.! ~ I Fences- Yard Fences- Partition or property line fences erected by lot owners. S\ ~~~~ Subdivis~on or Thoroughfare Screening Fences- Fences that screen s~de and rear yards along streets from public view. Will address Yard Fences separately, later date Problems. ~c; S\~j<:\, ~f-. Encroachments into drainage easements, utility easements, sight distance at corners. Encroachments create a Ureactive" enforcement situation where correction would require removing or relocating fence. Screening Fences- Problems- tt$ ~.f ~. S - JJ~ I ? ; ~ '.....~ Residential lots with side or rear yards abutting streets can have impact on community appearances. Lack of standards for fences erected along streets results in both maintenance and appearance problems. Fences constructed along rear and side lot lines can create "common areas" and can inhibit maintenance by individual lot owners or create piecemeal maintenance situations. Current codes, practices- (,Jc,.... \\ 5 '", W )11 ~,,}- tV \J,r' Thoroughfare screening fences, walls not specifically addressed by codes. Screening or lack of screening at discretion of developer. Screening decisions may not take adjacent land use, development, etc. into account. Anti- neglect and weed ordinances address maintenance, but there is often no single entity responsible for maintenance. '3 'r....J\~ . ,...I &~~~\' Proposed Ordinance )~ ~ ,~~~ ~Yr' ~I ( ! Require subdivision screening fences or devices where residential lots are adjacent to streets along a side or rear lot line, including situations where alleys or access easements are located between the street and lot; , Establish basic standards for the design of such devices while allowing flexibility for developers; and, Requiring a mechanism for maintenance. .." This type of regulation will have a major impact on the appearance of College Station as it continues to develop. Additionally, we feel that such regulations, particularly maintenance requirements, will aid in maintaining property values. The attached ordinance .is to be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 18. The ordinance is an amendment to the Subdivision Regulations and as such is the purview of the Commission and the City Council. However, there are major community appearance impacts associated with this ordinance. I would like to receive the Community Appearance Committee's comments, advice and support before I present this item to the Commission. Require Thoroughfare Screening Fences- fA-. '-CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~PJ .. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3570 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Elrey B. Ash, Director of Development Services ~ DATE: October 17, 1991 RE: Action plan for ordinance amendments (Council Issue No.8) Over the next few weeks there are a number of weighty issues that face us that will require ordinance amendments. I have attempted to outline a time frame that the staff will try to adhere to so that we can accomplish these tasks by the end of January. Following are the dates for action: November 7th P&Z meeting November 21st P&Z meeting December 5th P&Z meeting December 12th Council mtg. December 19th P&Z meeting January 9th Council mtg. January 16th P&Zmeeting January 23rd Council mtg. Review and comment on amendments to the subdivision regs. on sidewalks. Draft of the drainage ord. given to P&Z. Send recommendations to council on amendments to code of ordinances with regard to access and subdiv. ord. with respect to sidewalks. Discuss drainage ordinance Send recommendations to council on drainage ord. Amend subd. regs.- sidewalks Amend code - driveway access Discuss ord. amend. for fences and common areas. Amend drainage ordinance Send recommendations to council on ord.amends. for fences and common areas. Amend ords. on fences and common areas. "'Building a Better City in Partnership with You. ~~.pf~. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ ~ OFFICE OF TI-E CITY MANAGER Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3510 MEMORANDUM The purpose of this memo is to follow-up on the various assignments made at our most recent team meeting, July 29, 1991, where we discussed Council Issue #8. Those attending that meeting were; Elrey Ash, David Pullen, Veronica Morgan, Debbie Keating, Joe LaBeau, Steve Beachy, Cathy Locke, Dean Sharp, Tony Michalsky and myself. At our July 29th meeting we: 1. Agreed on the areas that needed to be addressed as a result of feedback from the. Council on.July 10,1991. 2. Agreed who would be in charge of each area and in some cases,who would work with that person. 3. Agreed that each area committee wouJd prepare an action plan to address that area. This included action plan steps and a time table for carrying out those steps. The following is a list of those areas, some of the key points they will work on, and those assigned to work on them: 1. Fences Team Leader: Jim Callaway Team Members: To be designated by Jim Callaway Page Two August 14, 1991 A. Screening Type . Subdivision Ordinance revision needed? . Zoning Ordinance revision needed? . Standards? Consistency with streetscape? . Date to complete related work? B. Backyard Type . New fences only? . Retrofits, should we address? If so, how? . Do we regulate placement of fences in all areas of private property or just when easements/right-of-ways are"Tnvolved? . Permit system needed? . Public information effort needed? . Date to complete related work? 2. Drainage A. Ordinance Changes Team Leader: David Pullen Team Members: Cathy Locke, Veronica Morgan . Finish proposed drainage ordinance changes . Look at process and schedule for presenting . Look at remaining key questions: - No drainage ways in rear yards? - Utilities in drainage ways? - Date to complete related work? B. CIP Drainage Plan Team Leader: Joe LaBeau Team Member: Debbie Keating . Upgrade existing drainage facilities to a more easily maintainable (by property owner) condition? . Funding source ($500,000 bond funds)? Action plan, prioritize work locations? . Assessments? . Which approach to use: cost/benefit vs. worst maintenance program? . Date to complete related work? Page Three August 14, 1991 C. Education Team Leader: Elrey Ash Team Members: Debbie Keating, Veronica Morgan . Defining maintenance responsibilities? . Communication, who's responsible for what? . Different levels of maintenance, explaining them. . Fences . How to communicate this? . Plan for communication? . Date to complete related work? D. Code Enforcement Team Leader: Jim Callaway Team Members: Elrey Ash, Joe LaBeau . How does code enforcement fit in with a citizen education program? . What type of code enforcement effort would work? . Date to complete related work? E. Drainage Utility Team Leader: Joe LaBeau Team Member: David Pullen . Feasibility? Study? . For new areas only? For existing areas only? Both? How would it be billed for collection (user fee)? . Date to complete related work? 3. Common Areas Team Leader: Jim Callaway Team Members: To be designated A. Subdivision ordinance revision required? B. Zoning ordinance revision required? C. Consistency with streetscape? D. Date to complete related work? .. Page Four August 14, 1991 4. Sidewalks Team Leader: David Pullen Team Members: Development Services Staff This is Council Issue #2, a presentation involving two different sidewalk design matters will be presented to Council on 9/11/91. In addition to the two design options, questions as to which streets sidewalks will be built on, pavement/right-of-way cross sections, timing of sidewalk constructi.on within the subdivision, consistency -with streetscape, design options impact on screening walls, etc. The questions identified above are not intended to limit your identification of any other questions that you or your team feel should be addressed. Some of you have already returned action plans with completion dates to me. Those of you who have not, I would like those action plans with dates for completion by August 26,1991. Please let me know if you have any questions on this. cc: Ron Ragland John Woody Marc Skocypec FROM STl\TiON P.o, 80x 9960 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 17840 ) REPLY . \':I\",,~ .Vs.--:-. .~~ DATE tG ,-l-~ SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 INTACT. PART 1 WILL, BE RETURNED WITH REPLY ~) RM.858.3 REPLIER'S COPY REPLIER KEEP FOR fiLE COPY 032288 M0200RD0001 ~ ". 672 f&'l i:C fl'-1lV I ;/(;>1.} c)l LAJC~;..!t"7 /3 i/-{1l!.r~1 '[..j(:f!e., (e) Screened or buried solid waste containers; (f) Boat Docks. have be to " " B, Drivl1lwa s Off-Street Parkin , and AcceSS to Public Streets, Each sing efaml.ly dwelling unit. in the ViI age shall be on a lot abutting a public street. Multi-family dwellings, including patio home, condominium and townhomeprojects,shall have access to a public .street or an improved private street. Where. acci:!sliis to.a private street, the project developer/owner and . all property o.wnersmusthaveand maintain an appropriate legal charter or agreement which adequately provides for street repairs and maintenance. All structures and dwellings of any type shall be so located on lots so as to provide safe, convenil1lnt . access for.. police and fire protection, and sufficient off-st.reet parking for a minimum .offour (4) standard size autqmobiles for.each dwelling.\lnit(e.g. two spaces in garage or carport and two .lipaces on driveway, clear of the private or public street). All driveways shall be of hard .surface masonry. Each< residence will provide an easily identifiable house number visible from the street. ,;:::..-/....:'. c. Exterior Lightin9 ' No exterior lighting shall be permitted which shines directly into the eyes of an occupant of a vehicle upon any public or private road or onto adjacent property, or where . .theillumination interferes with the visibility or readability of any traffic sign or device. The village mayauthorizetheinstallationof.properlY shielded street lighting. No exterior. lighting shall be erected on village right-of-way; nor shall any exterior lighting be a nuisance to neighbors. D. screening and Location of .all External Equipment. The following equipment, when placed above the ground, shall be screened as provided herein and shall not be located within street or golf course setbacks: --- (1) Air conditioning compressors; (2) Heat pumps; (3) Pool, spa, and hot tub equipment; (4) Fuel storage tanks: and (5) Other similar equipment. E. Fences, Screening and Other Enclosures. (l)Yard Fences: No fence structures, including plantingsthatwill form a hedge when mature, will be located along or. in the street.. or golf course setbacks. Yard fences may be approved at other locations provided they do not exceed four (4) . feet in height and do not unreasonably obscure views from other lots. TheVBC may grant exceptions not to exceed a maximum height of six (6) feet for: enclosures where a four. (4) foot high fence is insufficiently. high to contain<household pets. All fences shall be construct€!4.. so tha.taU fence runs are finished on both sides of the.fence. Fence supporting structures shall be well constructed, durable, and attractive. Yard fences. shall be constructed of wrought iron, masonry, or pre-cast concrete. Wood fences may not exceed four (4) feet. in height and shall have masonry supporting structures spaced at least every ten (10) feet. (2) Privacy Screening Structures: Privacy screening .structures for such features. as hot tubs, spas, swinuning pool " 31 / .,.1..-."... ..,,' ~~ .' " ~ M0200RD0001 032288 decks, patios, porches and decks and other similar strpctures may be constructed of any suitable, attractive and compatible material. The hei<3ht and location of privacy. screening structures will not unreasonably obscure views from adjacent and neighboring lots. and will not be enclosures. (3) . Equipmen t . Screening Stt'uctures: Screening structures for hot tubs, spas and pool equipment, fuel storage tanks, air conditioning compressors and heat pumps, . and other similar items maybe made. of wood, .masonry, plantings or other appropriate screening materials that .are durable, attractive and well constructed . Such structures. shall be of adequate height to screen the equipment, but not excessively high. (4) Electric Fences: Electric fences shall contain no more than three (3) strands Clnd shall not exceed three (3) feet in height. All electric fences must be within property lines . F. Fire Warning System. Each dwellinguni"l; shaH be provided with smoke detectors conforming to Uniform. Building Code Standard 43-6 and in compliance with. Section 1210 of the UBC. G. Floor Area. Each dwellJ.ngunit shall contain a minimum floor area of.heated and air conditioned space, exclusive of garages, porches or similar additions as follows: Zoning District R-1 Single-Family Residential R-2 Single-Family Residential, Zero Lot Line R-3 Single-Family Residential, C01llIUon Wall R-4 Duplex R-S Condominium Floor Area * 2,000 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft. * If the lot size, after taking into account setbacks, is insufficient in sizefot' a single story 2,000 sq. ft. structure, VBC may reduce floor area to not less than 1,800 sq. ft. H. Garages and Carports. All. dwelling units within the Village shall be designed with a garage or carport with a minimum capacity of two (2) cars. The carport or garage shall be directly attached to the house or connected to the house by a covered breezeway. The garage or . car.port shall not face directly onto a public street. All ca.rportsshallbe designed with adequate storage cornpartmentsto prevent unsightly storage from public view. The enclosing of any .. existing garage or carport shall not be approved unless additional garage or carport space with adequate.storage compartments is added to provide covered parking for at least two (2)au.tomobiles and there remains upon the lot ample off-street parking fo.r at least two (2) cars. I. Modular Prefabricated .Building or Mobile Home. No residential structure shall be of amodular,preconstructed, prefabricated or mobile home construction, nor shall such structure be a used structure. Exceptions may be approved by the Village Council. J. No Building or Structure of Any Type. No building or structure of any type shall be placed on any lot which (by reason of high walls or fences, excessive . height, special peak roof design, etc.) will unreasonably obscure the view from a dwelling located or reasonably likely to be located upon an abutting lot. (For this purpose "abutting lot" includes a lot separated only by a street from an adjacent lot~) K. Sewage Facilities. Each plumbing fixture shall be connected by adequate water ahddrC}inage Hnes to a 1icensed private sewage facility or to an approved, organized sewage 32 673 " ,,' .J"'".''' . .~." .. october 14, 1991 MEMORANDUM TO: Elrey Ash, Director of Development Services FROM: Jim Callaway, City Planner (()...\c\....I'''''\ ~ ~\"'Q"'\.) SUBJECT: Drainage Policy Follow-up. Three areas need to be addressed as part of the follow-up to the recent staff work on drainage policy. These are fences, common areas and code enforcement. These areas will be addressed as follows: FENCES Staff assigned- J. Callaway, S. Volk, J. Kee, D. Keating and N. Coates. Other staff to have input include M. Smith, B. Riley and R. Havens. Issues to consider- Possible requirements for subdivision screening fencesi possible permit requirements and location standards for yard fences. The basic outline will include: those elements listed in. Tom Brymer's memo of August 14 and will be expanded to include other relevant items as they are identified. Action to take- I will call a meeting of this team for the week of October 14. We will meet weekly to maintain progress. It is anticipated that the team recommendations will be available in approximately six weeks. COMMON AREAS Staff assigned- J. Callaway, S. Volk, J. Kee, D. Keating and N. Coates. Other staff to have input with respect to functions of common areas. Issues to consider- Basic requirements and regulations for common areas in subdivisions. This item will be addressed with respect to appearance and maintenance as well as drainage. ~ ~ ~ Action to take- Action to be take concurrently with the work on fences. CODE ENFORCEMENT- Staff assigned- J. Callaway, E.Ash, J. LaBeau (as assigned in the memo of August 14). Additional staff to include S. Volk and N. Coates. Issues to consider- Basic outline to include those items listed in the memo of August 14. These will be expanded t,o include other areas (such as ROW mowing) where code enforcement could supplement or replace City maintenance activities. Action to take- I will call a meeting of this group for the week of October 21. We will meet weekly to maintain progress. It is anticipated that the team recommendations will be available in approximately six weeks. t , ~.~(CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ PJ . OFFICE OF Tt-E CITY MANAGER Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3510 MEMORANDUM DATE: Elrey Ash, Director of Development Services Tom Brymer, Assistant City Manager/ . Community Services Group July 19, 1991 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Council Concern (Mcllhaney) Agreements with homeowner's associations cc: D.Pullen J. Callaway C.Locke R.Ragland ! .,\ PROPOSED FENCE REGULATIONS I. INTRODUCTION Fence regulations are justified by the interests of public safety, neighborhood integrity, and the right to light and air. Midland's ordinances may be somewhat inadequate in the protection of these interests, and may cause undue hardship to some landowners. The Zoning Board of Appeals has asked the Planning Commission and City Council to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to correct these deficiencies. This report outlines the current controls the City of Midland exercises over fences, presents potential dangers and problems, and makes recommendations for changes. II. EXISTING REGULATION OF FENCES The City of Midland currently regulates fences using applicable sections of the Uniform Building Code, theCode.of Ordinances, and the Zoning Ordinance. These regulations provide standards for the height and location of fences, in addition to requiring adequate maintenance. Sections .pertaining to accessory structu res also apply to fences. The maintenance requirement is found in the Code of Ordinances. Section 12-209 states that a fence will be removed if it is not cared for. Besides ensuring upkeep, the Code requires that junk yards and swimming pools be enclosed. The Uniform Building Code allows fences to be erected in school yards, provided they meet emergency exit standards. Construction and demolition sites are required to construct protective fences that are eight feet in height. In .the interest of public safety, Section 301(b)2 requires a permit to be issued for any fence over six feet high. Securing a permit involves s.ubmittal of a sit~/plotplan and a cross section sketch of the fence to be constructed. The Building Official compares these with design. manuals. When a fence design presents problems with construction standards, it is required to be designed by> an engineer. The permits are followed by inspections. Height and location of fences are regulated by Sections 29.4 and 29.5 of the Zoping Ordinance. Fences that comply with these two sections must also conform to Section 29.6 dealing with accessory structures. IIA. CITY OF MIDLAND ZONING ORDINANCE Article XXIX--Supplementary Regulations, deals with fences and accessory structures. Section 29.4 limits fences to si.x feet in height when located within three feet of the rear or side lot lines. If they are in the front or side street yard, they are restricted to 42 inches. Section 29.5 relates to vision clearance area for corner lots by limiting the height for fences, shrubs and structures within a given area. Figure I shows two corner lots and their vi.sion clearance triangles. These are measured from the corner of the lot at the street intersection to a distance of 20 feet along each property line. The fence may not encroach into this area unless it is 36 inches or less above the curb grade. , fIGU~E 20' 20' VISION CLEARANCE AREA VISIUI~ CLEAHAllCE .AREA Those located elsewhere on the property must conform to regulations ,'egarding accessory structures. According to Section 29.6, accessory structures cannot exceed 16 feet in height or come within six feet of the building (fences may extend up to the building). Although the regulations protect public safety and neighborhood integrity, some deficiencies and problems do exist and need to be examined. III. DEFICIENCIES AND PROBLEMS WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS A comparison of Midland's fence regulations with those of other cities, and issues which have arisen in ordinance administration, reveals some deficiencies. The lack of special provisions for lots backing up to expressways has caused owners of such property to seek variances to provide increased privacy and protection against crime and noise pollution. The Zoning Ordinance does not clearly define a "fence," and it does not, therefo/'e, contain a method for controlling "natu/'ally grown fences." Bushes and shrubs can have the same effect as fences after they reach a certain density. Dangerous fences are not defined, prohibited, or restricted. These include barbed wire and electric fences, as well as walls or fences with sharp tops. Although there is no evidence of attempts to erect dangerous fences in residential areas, there would be no procedur'e to restrict them should such a situation arise. Another problem has to do with determining fence height. There exists no method to define g,'ound grades; the fence is simply measured from the ground to the top. If the ground between 'the fence and the public right-of-way slopes upward substantially, the pu rpose of height limitations will not be satisfied. Similarly, there is nothing in the Ordinance to prevent a property owner from constructing a berm with an additional fence on top of it. Ordinances used in other cities were examined in order to find possible regulations that would address these Issues, I IV. RECOMMENDATIONS Defi n itionof "fences" The City of Midland regulates fences as accessory structures, but allows them to be constructed in'required yards. Other accessary structures, except driveways and walkways, are prohibited beyond the setback line. Fences should be defined separately.to describe the purposes they serve. The level of density beyond which shrubs and bushes fall into the category of "naturally grown" fences should be clarified. Fence height Height, construction standards, and location restrictions can be covered by the Zoning Ordinance. The current practice in Midland for determining ground grades is to measure the boards on the outward-facing side of the fence. Some communities use the mean. of the area three feet on either side of the fence: The Planning Department recommends this method for fences located anywhere on a lot except the front and side street yard and the vision clearance triangle. The six foot height limitation can then be measu red from the measu red grade. The Ordinance does not indicate the level from which the 42 inch maximum height should be measured for fences in the front and side street yard. To restrict the real height of fences from becoming excessive due to substantiall changes in ground elevation,. it is. recommended that the center line street grad~ be used as a benchmark to determine height. The Ordinance could then allow fences in the front and side street yard to be 60 inches above the street grade. This height would allow a. 42 inch fence and a slight natural slope on the public right-of-way and in the required yard, but it would reduce the fence h~ight on substantial slopes and artificial earth berms. Figure 2 illustrates the. different situations. FIGURE 2A. ALLOWS UP TO 42" FENCE 60" r-------- I I , I t I 42" ___ rlOR~IAl SLOPE 12" CENTER LINE STREET GRADE FIGURE 28 3' BERM AllOWS 18" FENCE 60" r-- - - - - - - - -- - - 18" I I I I 36" I I CENTER LINE STREET GRADE I . Illustration A shows a fence in a normal situation. Here, 60 inches permits a 42 inch fence. Illustration B, however, shows that the 60 inch limit would not allow a structure greater than 12 inches above the berm height. A clarification of requirements for double-fronting lots which back up to an expressway or controlled access roadway is needed. Such conditions exist along Wheeler and 'Wackerly Roads and the US 10 Expressway. The maximum fence height of six feet on rear property lines may not be high enough to meet the needs of the residents on these lots. A higher fence of eight feet has been proposed. . Clear vision on corner lots is another concern that needs to be addressed. Almost all communities have special limits that override all others for fences or plants located in the vision clearance area. The smaller cars of today put the eye level of drivers at a lower level. This "eye height" has been steadily decreasing over the years. If the motorist's eye is three feet from the street; a three foot fence on the corner would be too high. Figure 3 demonstrates the potential problem. FIGURE 3 EYE LEVEL r---- ~} ~ I I It is therefore recommended that nothing in the VISion clearance area be allowed to exceed 30 inches above the center line sheet grade. Protection of public safety makes construction standards necessary. Some materials are prohibited within city limits in various regulations. Restrictions on materials such as sharp metals and electric fences in residential districts should be adopted. Barbed wire may be permitted in industrial districts if it is placed high enough along the top of chain link fence!; that the public will not come into contact with it; this type of fencing may also be used in agricultural districts in areas that do not provide public pathways for the public. ,;;. \ ARTICLE IIuCONSTRUCTION OF LANGUAGE AND DEFINITIONS Section 2.1 DEFINITIONS (22b) FENCE. AN ENCLOSING BARRIER CONSISTING OF WOOD, STONE, BRICK, OR METAL, INTENDED TO PREVENT STRAYING FROM WITHIN, OR INTRUSION FROM WITHOUT. INCLUDED ARE NATU~ALLY GROWN FENCES, SUCH AS TREES, SHRUBS, BUSHES, AND THE LIKE, OF AN OPACITY OF SEVENTY-FIVE (75) PERCENT OR MORE AND OF A HEIGHT THAT IS COMPARABLE TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED FOR OTHER FENCES IN THE SAME LOCATION. ARTICLE XXIX--SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS Section 29.4 FENCES OR WALLS ~ In Residential districts, fences or walls ~ocated less than three (3) feet from rear or side lot lines shall not be greater than six (6) feet .'hI-Re4~Rt ABOVE THE MEAN GROUND ELEVATION THREE (3) FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. EXCEPTION: ON DOUBLE-FRONTING LOTS WITH A LOT LINE ADJACENT TO AN EXPRESSWAY OR A CONTROLLED ACCESS ROADWAY, FENCES LESS THAN THREE (3) FEET FROM THE REAR LOT LINE. SHALL NOT EXCEED EIGHT (8) FEET IN HEIGHT. EXGEPHHNt No fence or wa 11 sha 11 be over thfee-afle-6fle-hat.f-t3-tf2~-.feet-4fl-he4~ht-FIVE (5) FEET ABOVE THE ESTABLISHED CENTER LINE STREET GRADE when located in a required front or side street yard. Fences or walls, when located three (3) or more feet from a side or rear yard,. shall comply with the height requirements as provided for accessory structures. These regulations shall not apply to chain link fences erected in public recreational areas or school grounds. (Any fence greater than six (6) feet in height requires a building permit.) ill IN AREAS THAT ARE READILY ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC, NO FENCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OR MAINTAINED WHICH IS CHARGED WITH OR CONNECTED TO AN. ELECTRIC CURRENT, NOR SHALL ANY BARBED WIRE, GLASS, OR OTHER SHARP MATERIALS BE USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE OF FENCES OR WALLS. Section 29.5 'VISION CLEARANCE ON CORNER LOTS On any corner lot in any Residential or Business "A" district, NO FENCE, SIGN, OR OTHER STRUCTURE, OR PLANTINGS HIGHER THANtbfee-(3) TWO AND ONE HALF (2 1/2) feet above the established et:lfe--~faee~ CENTER LINE STREET GRADE except trees with a minimum clearance of eight (8) feet from the ground to the lowest branch, shall be erected or maintained within an area formed by the street lot lines and a line connecting points on the street lot lines twenty (20) feet from the lot line intersection. ., >~ TEXAS (j) (/flva/ if j; 1> If\NOVATION GROUP tke- · 10/31/91 Neal Coates Asst. City Attorney Office City of College S.tation PO Box 9960 College station, TX 77842 Dear Mr. Coates, In response to your inquiry concerning fencing regulations I contacted several places around the nation including Fort Worth, Lubbock, Wichita and Amarillo in Texas; Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Charlotte, North Carolina; Norfolk, Virginia; Akron, Canton, Hamilton and Parma in Ohio. I found the. following information: * Amarillo (City Secretary. 806/378-3000.) requires a permit f9r fences and. sets a limit of four feet for front yard fences, six feet for backyard ones. There is no. policy for city owned easements or subdivision screening fences. * Lubbock (Tony Bustillos, Code Enforcement. 806/767- 2113) requires abuilding permit for fences except backyard ones less than.six feet. The maximum height for. a front yard fence is 2 1/2 feet at the sidewalk line and increases gradually to 4 1/2 feet at twenty- five feet back from the sidewalk. Past twenty-five feet. a front yard fence c.an be no higher than 6 feet . Side fences can be no higher than 21/2 feet. There are no fence policies for either city owned easements or subdivisions. * Wichita (Sam Paschal, Building Inspection. 817/761- 7461). requires a permit for fences closer than twenty-five feet to the front of the property. The maximum height is four feet and it must be at least 50% open. Ii it entirely encloses the front property a gate must be installed. Six foot subdivision screening fences must .be built when any commercial property abuts a residential one. The city does not have any policy regarding fences on city .owned. easements. Mr. Paschal said that he would be sending us information to forward to you and that he would be glad to answer any additional questions you may have. * Fort Worth (Barbara Means, City Secretary. 817/870- 6000) requires a building permit for fences over six feet high, unless it isa chain metal fence. No permit for such fences is necessary. Ms. Means said that she would be sending youadd~tional information on Fort Worth's fence regulations. PO Box 861003 Plana, Texas 75086-1003 Phone: 214 '578>7391. 7392 (con ti nued) Fax 214.578-7393 .....__v,.... ,_....-..."....... .....--:- ....-;-~';:'-..":.......i--... Art. V. 1620 NORFOLK CODE (~; 520. Vision Clearance at. Intersections, R or C-l Districts. Ata street intersection in 'anyR <>tC~l District, . nothing shall he $reei.ed, plaCt'Kl .01' .plant.ed or allowed to. growin$uchamauner as to matrrially impede visibility above 2th. feet~ within a visibility triangle incl",ding. at least. the area within the first 30 feet along the intersecting edges. of the... roadway . (a8. projected where the intertlecti()n is rounded) and a line connecting the ends of such 30 foot lines. Materinl impediment to visibility shall be defined aa any impe(li.tnent which might conceal a child on abicyc1efrornthe vision of a driverr4PPto8chingthe. intersecticm.lleight shall. bem.(las",red frQm the curb level.(Ord~ No. 26,388,.5-6-72) 52~. Fencea and Walle. Afen<:eor waiL not more than 6 feet in height may be loca.tedin any required side or rear .yud . in i any . di8triet~Qther ..than a required yard adjacent .to8>streetexcept as setout below. No fence or .w~whi~h createa 8solidacreen may exceed2V2i feet in height in any r$q\lir~d yard adjacent to...$tJ"eet~except that Jences having a uniform . open area of 50% or mpre may be erected toa maximum heigl1~()f4feetin ..aucbrequired ..yards. Hei611t8~alll)e meas\\redfromthe Civerage gr()\l~d le.vel.djacent to tllefenccof wall. Oll~nwire .. fences .... not . exceeding 8 feet. in . heig~t..m~y.be er~c~d in any. required. yard when -.vh(.)l1Y orp~rtbilly.enclO$)ing any.public 8ChQ()1, park;, .recreationailor ... playgroundaite ()r~llup~i~ ~tjljty. Height. shall be meuwtld frorntbeayel"age level ot'the ground adjacent to . t118 (el1~ .'~l' . walL Such open.. wirefenc$8 may' ..lle'allp~~dby ..8pecial. exception.. at. other loca~io~ut>ona>findingthat. . they are reaaonfibl)'. required to. protect safety or pro~rly. (Ql'd.. N~. 25,553,. 7-7-70; Ord.. No. 26,388,6...16-72) 530. MotQl.' ..Fue1 PUD1P8~ lalanda .-nd Curbs. t9r Automotive Facilities. In any commercial or manufacturing dis- . trict. nO motor fu~l pumps or islands from , I snme shall be .~ected closer than 12 feet to any requited f fit or side yard or to any streot prQPort ..line. · All.. ...ol;~ supply stations. aut01l1~. bile service 8tat~ons, parking lOts., Off-street.. lir king areas. ..di&Playor 8a lea area$fQl'moto . vehicles of any type shall erect a safety urb in back of all building lines, exdusivelof driveway. entrances,at least 7 inches \in height and 6 inchea in . . . j WIdth. All such: curbs shall beM approved construction a~ be otherwise designed to prQhibitanyov~rhangot motor vehi(:les upon anypublicright:-of.way. I I (j35. . Corner L~tSlteSUbdiVided. I :~~~~~l~~g~EF~~ ::;:::::l:::::;:uWiylmon. Where a lotislor a sufficient. size and depth to permit thec:ration. of an additional..lot in ~:;:::~~,~~~8~~dl~~1\o~a:~Jt~:3:d r~~ such a way 8sitocreate Domoreth4n 2 g~~~j~~~~;e 27,077~ 8-28-73); . , 546. Soml-det4ched dwelUn"8-Side Yard.. i 1 For . the. purp~c:of tide yard regulation8, =~f;a~~=";i: 5&O.ProJectlo $ P~rmlttl!ld into Be.. quirod Ya a. and Cour&tI, 650.1.. [Samf':-] orte Cochere,and Covered Unenclos Porches.. Permitted in Re- quired Si eor Rear Yard8. Porte cOchere and covered porches, open on the 3 sides ~ ept COt peceaaary supporting (~ J! -1,: ...,~.<:~ .:~f~ .~~.,....J 'll '~..< ~F~: ~ 3312; ,. 5 190.930 AKRON ~ 190.930 CHUTES FOR R~10VAL OF MATERIALS. (A) Chutes for the removal of materials and debris shall be provided in all such parts of demolition operations that are more than 20 feet above the point ..'here the removal of material is effected. (B) Chutes shall be completely enclosed, and shall not extend in an unbroken line, but shall be equipped at intervals with substantial stops to prevent descending material from attaining dil.ngerouS speeds. (C) 'l'hebottom of each chute shall be esllipped. with a gate or stop, with suitable means for closing or regulating the flow of material. (Ord. 528-1949, passed 10-11-49; Am. Ord. 512-1982, passed 7-26-82;. Am. arc. 621-1985, passed 7-29-8.5; ;'..rn. Ord. 299-19136, passed 5-5-86) Penalty, see g 199. 999 5 190.931 SPRINKLING TO PREVENT DUST. Chutes, floors, stairways, and other places affected shall be spr ink1ed suffiCiently to prevent cust from creating a nuisance or from becoming injuriOus to health. lOrd. 528-1949, passed 10-11-49; Am. Ord. 512-1982, passed 7-26-82; Am. arc. 621-19135, passed 7....29-85; Am. Orc. 295-1986, passed 5-5-86) penalty, see g 199.999 S 190.933 REGULATION OF LOTS. (A) Grading of lot. When a building has been demolished and building operations have not been projected or approved ,~he vacant lot shall be f HIed, gradec, and maintained in. conformi ty to the established street grades at curb level. The lot shall be maintaineo free from the accumulation of rubbish and. all other unsafe or hazardous conditio!1s which endanger the life or. health of the pUblic. _provision shall be made to prevent tl1e acc.umulation of water or damage tOfny foundations on the premises or the adjqining property. (B) Utility connections. All service utility connections shall be discontinued and capped in accorcance with the approved rules and the reql.liremen~s of the author i ty having jurisdiction. Penalty, see 5 199.999 5 190.934 SCAFFOLDS. (A) Load capacity. Scaffolds and their components shall be capable of supporting-without failure at l~astfour times the maximum intended load, All platforms and supporting elements of * BUILDING CODE 68 scaffolds shall be designed and constructed to support uniform minimum liv.e loads in pounds per square foot of the platform area in accordance with the classifications described in the table below. SCAFFOLD LOAD CAPACI~Y Classification Service type Load (pounds per square f 00 t ) 25 25 Light duty Carpenters Stone setters (no s tone on scaffold) l1iscellaneous (no material scaffold) Bricklayers Stucco Lathers and plasterers Stone masons 75 25 on l1ecium duty 50 50 50 Heavy duty fB) Ere.ctlon. Built-up, swinging, and suspended scaffqlds shall be erected by competent workers only. (C) scaffold ing. Scaffold ing be constructed in accordance divisions (l) and (2) below. shall with (l) All buildingS. All scaffolding exceecing 85 feet (25908 mm) or seven stor ies in heioht used in construction operations ibvo1ving the erection, alteration, or maintenance of buildings, shall be constructed of l")oncombustible or fire-retardant materials complying with the provisions of OBBC. (2) Institutional buildings. All scaffolding used in construction operations involving the repair or partial demoli tion during occupancy of hospitals, sanitariums, day nurseries, orphanages, jails, prisons, refo.rmatori es, and similar buildings shall be constructed of noncombustible or fire~retardant materials complying with the provis ions of OBBC. 5 190.935 INSPECTION AT DAY'S END. A thorough inspection of the entire building shall be made at the close of each cay's work by someone designated and instructed for that purpose and who shall report conditions to the watchman on cuty. (Ord. 528-1949, passed 10-11-49; Am. ora. 512-1982, passed 7-26-82; Am. Ord. 621-1985, passed 7-29-85; Am. Ord. 299-1986, passed 5-5-86) 5 190.936 BARBED WIRE AljID ELECTRICALLY CHARGED PARTITION FENCES ~. (A) No person shall construct or cause to be constructed a partition fence ;, 141 CHAPTER 199.9: section 199.999 Penq1ty 5 199.999 PENALTY. (A) A person who violates a provision .of this. building code, or fails to comply therewi th, or who erects, constr.ucts, alters, or repairs, or has erected, constructed, altered, or repaired, a building or structure, in violation of a detailed statement or plan submitted and approved thereunder , or of a permit Or certificate issued thereunder is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree, and shall be fined not more than $ 500 per cay the offense exists. Each day on which anysuchper.son continues to violate any provision of the buncing code or fails to comply therewith or .'d th any requirements thereof, after having been nOtified. of such. yiolatipn or of such failure to comply, shall constitute a separate offense. (B) The owner of a building I structure I or premises, where anything in violation of this coce is placed or exists, 'and an architect, engineer, builder, contractor, person, or corporation employed in connection therewith, and who may have assisted in the commission of a violation are each guil ty ofa misdemeanor in the third - degree <and shall. be fined not more than $500 and sentenced to . not more than 60 days.. Each. day onwhi ch any such person or corporation continues to violate or allows to. be violated any provi sion thereof after having been notified of such violation .or such failure to comply shall constitute a separate offense. (C) Whoever, knowingly and willfully, obstructs or abuses a duly appointed employee of the Division of Building Inspection in the performance of his duty, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree~ (D) An owner of a structure vlho is in violation of S 190.702IC) by allowing a structure to be not. "~ecuren after having secured the structure. at least one time .."ithin the prior 365 days upon order to do.. so by the Division of Building Inspection, is guilty of ami sdemeanor of the first degree and shall be fined not more than $1,000 per day the offense exists and/or sentenced to 180 cays in jail for each day the offense exists. (Ord. 512-1982, passed 7~26--82; Jl.m. Ord. 621-1935, passed 7-29-85; Am, Ord. 299-1986, passed 5-5-86; Am, Ord. 219-1987, passed 3-30-87) * PENALTY ", S 153.286 AKRON (1) The ordinary projection of eaves, soffits, fascias, \dndowsills, chimneys, air conditioners, and other similar devices may be permitted but not to exceed 20 inches. (2) A fire escape, stairway, or balcony may project not more than five feet into a side or .rearya:rd, provided that it does not extend closer tllan four feet toa lot line. (' 75 Code, S1276.08; Am. Ord. 739....1987, passed 2-23--87) ( E) Exterior lighting. No exterior 119hting shal.l in any way impair safe movement of traffic on any street or high.....ay or otherwise create. a nuisance. (' 7':J Code, S1276.10) (.Am.Ord. 322-1976, passed 4-13-76~ ..Am.Ord. 511-1982, passed 7-26-82) penalty, see 5153.999 ~ 153..286 RESIDENCE REQUIREHENTS. ( A) Development requirements for re~sidence uses.. Except as hereinafter provided in this chapter,evey:ystructureused in \o.'holeo):" .in part forrel>idence purposes shall be located in. a use district in which such use is pe:rmitted .and shall conform with the :requirements listed in this zoning Code. No lot shall be so reduced or diminished in size thatthe.ay:eas, Ya.rds,and open spaces are smaller .tharlprescribeclin this zoning Code. Noresidence.shal.l provide less than the minimum requi:rements specified in this Zoning Code. '75 Code, Sl276.12) ( B) Lot size requirements for various residence uses. (1) S.i.n~ge-familY or rooming house. A single-familypwelling or a rooming house for five or fewer roomers shall be erected only on a 10tsepa:rate1y Owned, orfor the purchase .of .wh~cha contract. had . been executed, a t tl1e time of passage of Ordinance 8169 (Aug1.lst1':J,)1922), or on a numbered lot in a recordeda.llotment that wason record in the oHide of the County. Recorder. on. such date, or on a lot created by S153. 285( A) but in no case shil.llthe lot. contain less than 4,000 squa.re feet. (2) . Two,family . dwelling, large rooming house,.. f:raternity or. sorority house, or apartment. .A two-family dwelling, rooming house for .overfi.ve roomers, . apartment house, or fratey:nity o.r sorority house shall be located on a lot with the following minimum requirements: ( a) The lot shall have a minimum area of 7, 000 square feet. (b) The lot shall have a width of 60 or more at the building line, (c) The lot shall have a width of 50 feet or more along the line located 130 1991 5-4 ZONING CODE 82 feet back of and parallel to the street line, or have a width of 50 feet at the rear lot line if the lot is less than 130 feet in depth. ('75 code,S 1276.14) (C)A skatebo.ard ramp shall mean <my structure designed and principallY intended to perm t persons on, s ka teboards to m()ve continuously from one side to the other, commonly known as ramps or half-pipes. (j~ Ord. 840-1990, passed 10-1-90) (D) General residence requirements. (1) In a Class U2 District, eVI~ry apartment house shall have access to and be accessible from a public hi9hway. If located in the rear of another building, or on a lot that does not have frontage on a public highway, there J?ha1L be provided for ingress and egress .a strip of land not .less than 16 feet in width, connecting such building or lot with a publiC high,,'ay. . Such strip of land shall not be built on or be otherwise occupied or obstructed, but shall. be maintained as an easement. for ingreSS and egress until a public high.....ay is provided in lleuther.eof. No such easement or private court shall forma part of any yard or lot areas required intl1is Zoning Code. (2) In a Class U2 District, where an apartment house exists or is erected in the rear of another building or on a lot that does not have frontage on a public highway, there shall. be pr.ovided a front yard, exclusive of a private couy:t or e.asement for ingress and egress, which shall be in its least dimension not less than one-third of the height of the building and in any. case not less, than 15 feet. This front yard. shall not be a part of the required yards for any other building on the lot. ( 3) In any Ul, U2, ULE, or UD District classification except for a fence, which is 85%, or more open space, no wall, vegetation, fence, earthbank, or'ot-her"'obs'truction to .visibHi ty , shall be permitted to a height greater than:p-lo feet six inches above the curb, closer .t.han 20 feet .1;0 the street, in the front or side yard of any lot (at a location within 20 feet of any dri vewa.y or"street) ~ "''''II- 'the"building <line or lines on: pny l.ot.are less than 20 feet, the open. space . required' -above ma y be reduced to conform to the building line, but not to less than ten-feet." ThE{-purpOse ofth'is section is to permi1;;",fvehicles...and"':pedestrians', .to., be visibletc:tl)ersons,.entering o,r leaving any lot and theappHcatiori' bfthissection shall be so construed. (' 75 Code, 51276.16) (4) In any U1, U2, or UD District classification, it shall be unlawful to construct, erect, place or I1lB.intain: (a) A skatebo.ard ramp exceeds three feet in height; o.r which 1 I t, ;:: ., .~ /) V If / (:.>' p l%;l '" ...., ~ .. .il 101 AKRON (b) The minimum size of each required loading berth shall be 60 feet in depth by 14 feet in width. The minimum heioht of each enclosed berth shall be 14 feet. Off-street loading berths shall be so located that vehicles loading or unloading will be completely of.f the street and not intr ude on the public sidewalk. (10) Drive\^lay access. Only .one driveway entrance per re-use parcel shall be permitted off Wolf Ledges, provided, however., that for re-use parcels with more than 200 feet of frontage. onJ-lolf Ledges, one driveway entrance shall be permitted for every 200 feet of such frontage or major fract.ion the.reof. (11) Building materials. All sides of buildings fronting on streets of 60 feet or more in . width shall be faced with brick or other suitable material subject to the approval of the planning staff. ('75 Code, 51282.06; Am. Ord..322-1976, passed 4-13-76; A;n. Ord. 408-1982, passed 6-28-82) Penalty, see 5153.999 Cross-reference: Management of ci ty property, see 55 34.15 et seq. Sale, lease, and vacation of city property, see 55 34.25 et seq, OPPORTUNITY PARK URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT; CLASS URD-Ra9 3 153.330 LAND SUBJECT TO CHAPTER. In order to achieve the objective of the Urban Renewal Plan for the Opportunity Park Area, Ohio R-89,.the use of land in this urban renewal area will be made subject to the regulations. and controls specified in this chapter, notwithstanding the provisions of any zoning ordinance or regl.llation now or hereafter in effect, provided, however, that the regulations and controls of this Urban Renewal Plan shall supersede existing codes and ordinances wherever such regulations are more rest!: icti Ve, ('75 Code, 51284.02; Am. Ord. 322-1976, passed 4-13-76) Cross-reference: Department of Planning and Urban Development, see Chtr. sec, 101 5 153.331 PERMITTED LAND USES. Uses to be permitted the following in the classification districts: shall include various use (A) Residential single-family, Hulti-family, convenience shops; 1987 S-l ZONING CODE 5 153.999 {E) Commercial; (C) Ordinary industry. ('75 Code, 51284.04; Am. brd., 322-1976, passed 4-13-76) Cross~reference: Classification ofuses~ see 55153.090 et seq. 5 153.332 PRbVISIONS AND REQUIREI1ENTS TO BE I}WOSED bN PROPERTIES ACQUIRED FOR REDEVELOPMENT. Redevelopment of proper ty withi n the Opportuni ty Park Urban Renewal Area shall proceed in. accordance.. with the Opportl.lnity Park Urban Renewal Plan, as amended. A copy of this plan is attached to original Ordinance 322~1976, passed Apdl13,1976, as Exhibit "A" and ;nade a part hereof as if fully rewritten herein. Such Exhibit "A". is on file in the office of the Clerk of Council and is known as Document No. D228. The design zones described. in the plan are shown on the project boundary. maps. ('75 Code, 51284.06; Am. Ord. 322-1976, passed 4-13-76) Cross-reference: 1'1anagement of ci ty property, see 53 34.15 etseq. Sale, lease, and vacation of city property, see 55 34.25 et seq. 5 153.333 PLANNING COill1ISSION APPROVAL OF PLANS REQUIRED. Archi tectural and si te plans for the constructi.onof improvements on the land shall be. submitted .tothe City Planning COmJl1ission by redevelopers, prior to commencement of construction or issuance of a building permit, for review and approval. so that the city may determine compliance of such plans wi th the Urban Renewal Plan. ('75 Code, 51284.08; Am. Ord.. 322-1976, paSsed 4-13-76) Penalty, s~e 5153.999 Cross-reference: City Planning Commission, see Chtr. Sec. 100 5 153.334 PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED USES, Within the Class URD-R89 District, no building or premises shall be used, and no building shall be erected which is arranged, intended, or designed to be used,. for other than a ClassURD-R89 Use as described in ')5153,331 through 153,333, ('75 Code, 51284,10; Am. Ord, 322-1976, passed 4-13-76) Penalty, see )153.999 " 3 153.999 P:E;NALTY. Unless violates or otherwise fails to whoever any of provided, comply wi th f,,,,c.A '<' I'Q \. $: ~)kw ~>>..J.. I 'l..{ , 1', d. L,.>..-J. . ., Q L.,~y .. (,...(.l,...4~~s..~ 4-Nl{;I\' ~~:Jl~' I 1"\1'# ....\\9J - __..J - \ '" --(. '" ~y....", ~ ~ c...~~ ,....: ~ .-.I') \-'\ "" c-S S - - S "'" ~. J..';'-J '.~ ".~ "-J ~ 1 '-J \....1." ~ r...J --=;p ~.. .~~ J~v~(~~ ~-v~ ~ 'f- \ evvJ k'"l ~ .J \l~ ----? ~ .(.... otJN - .-") C)/ j, h7'" r, ..~ ./ -7' Jh )} '\- "'-i"'" . .~.' v-' 9 ",v. 'C"",.I/",,_ \ _J ~c:..l A, .... ..,..- r .. JV L' 4- ? y\')...., .....\... ."~$ ""."...\ V' fl~r Is ...J-.. '1 (l'IvJ) loh s c....v""~ ~ t1 'f v.q,~'. .~,...) ~.~l ~.. \\~.~. L "'u{" ~"') / s u (.. ___ 4 .J- ~GCl~~ Q-t-~.l.( f __u->~v~l~"\...~~" p-- y~ j e>.. f ....h =~/~ ~11 s w ~ ^ ,fk"'^''''-7 e1 - \-) ~ .J; _ 5 W '(J. /(^-L"'-- - UQ J) ~ ! (0 Jf ~ ~ V':) ~l~ \:~ ' >t..... ~ f1V.wr.. ~ ~ CQ\\-- ~ w ~~, tif 1':1\ .-J %( r- }\b..: ~ { Q.. "'- ~ ~ ~ '1 S .B.~ .'0 ~.~...~ .If. (A ~ls .,S.... ....zu, "'-'. t""ll....,s 1 I " Re.-t h\r-. 'J ~ .er ve "- v' 1~)'- \' "~\...,.. ...<.....'" \I::)\lm\o'. .....""'- - t\",",,,, '_ "'\ l~ ~ "'" II '{...,.. (;.."\/ ~"'~__' ( \."Nl,f.J~ ~ ~ {I j ,.. v-~ ... '> - - c*- ~\--r~~ ~ ( , _ '-'<l...l\:'N.,)" \."""'\, "^"~,1,,,, ,,<\.... ~ l~-..J ~ ~~s {\;\\1'1 ~J~,,< I... IJ(~ h", ,J mQ' r.;ik,) ~\,,~~1 \. -.~ ~<~. c ,,"0\ ~>,.,. "C". lJ"f",,,,,, J.. k ls( r. s ~.. ~ . '{lQ'1--' S f( / .. '<1-,\1 ,,~.,J ~ '1/ At V^,, "". ~ l'f~j,l--. ~ J,. /.... ~ ~~" v, ~ :' ~ ; R: ?~)7' ";:~, C:.h ,,:"" f' ~~ .1,,," ~ rA :J"'~_ \~ ~ b' I i ~~ ('\~""..,I<..s\!)~<v-.--~~J ,0;,...J ) h ~~.... <h)-,.~"\" L~I11l1 \"'U\"'1' 1.1 G>>f"""1'" \ , \ \ \1 .-1' \~ - o^a. \ . "\,..., c)\A ~\ S ~ ~ :');~rr'_ ~: ~k. v-.~ Q r..J SSe.. Ln: t .\ ~ ;V ~ 'l-\- l\~~\A~J }Ao ."." ~~""'~ 'V ,-./ ~ ---5 ~ Q ,<, cA \ S?;, \-l,'l m'oN ^"l ~ J , , i , o ~ .sJ. ~~ '.1 r ve,- ch-..k, s cb~ "(' v" h ~.-I~\~) --b~'k~/(GJ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Jim Callaway, Planning Director Sabine Kuenzel, Staff Planner October 22, 1991 Fence regulations in Midland, Michigan As requested, I am summarizing the fence and wall restrictions that were in place during my internship in Midland, Michigan. The Zoning Ordinance set special setback lines for fences as follows: Front: Rear: Side: Side Street: 30' 30' 8' 20' If the fence is located within the front or side street setback area, it may not exceed 42 inches in height. Portions of the fence located within the rear or side setback area have a maximum height of 6 feet. Fences located behind the setback lines can be as high as 16 feet and are regulated as accessory structures. No permits are required unless the fence exceeds 6 feet in height. cc: Jane Kee, Senior Planner ! AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET );TEM SUBMITTED BY: Jane Kee, City Planner FOR COUNCIL MEETING OF: August 26, 1993 DIRECTOR APPROVAL: EXECUTIVE TEAM MEMBER APPROVAL: ITEM: Public Hearing and Consideration of Amendments to Various Sections of the Zoning Ordinance Dealing with Nightclubs, Restaurants, Parking Requirements, Sexually Oriented Enterprises, and Project Review Committee Discretionary Review Items (Screening, SIdewalks, Streetscape). ITEM SUMMARY: These amendments consist of "housekeeping" items, responses to advice from Legal in light of recent case law, and response to Community Appearance issues. The change in the definition of nightclub is in response to recent case law where it is not permissible to vary certain regulations based on alcohol sale. Currently we require use permits for nightclubs and not restaurants. The current definition of nightclub hinges on the sale of alcohol. The proposed definition deals more with the nature of the operation aside from any alcohol sale and consumption. The change in the definition of restaurant allows us to make a distinction between "regular" restaurants and fast food restaurants with drive through facilities for parking calculation purposes. Other proposals deal with requiring use permits for sexually oriented enterprises (City Code currently regulates sexually oriented enterprises but there is no special permit required), and strengthens the PRe's ability to require sidewalks at site plan time, visual screening of dumpsters and certain parking areas as well as incorporates reference to the City's adopted Streetscape Policies and Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: P&Z recommends approval. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: NA CITY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDATIONS: Approved as to form. COUNCIL ACTION DESIRED: Approve amendment as presented. SUPPORTING MATERIALS: 1. Proposed ordinance 2. P&Z minutes ~~.~~cITY OF COLLEGE STATION S1 ~ PLANNING DIVISION Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3570 July 26, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jane R. Kee, City Planner RE: Proposed Ordinance Amendments There are two ordinance amendments on your agenda. The first involves amendments to various sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The change in the definition of nightclub is in,response to recent case law where it is not permissible to vary certain regulations based on alcohol sale. Currently we require use permits for nightclubs and not restaurants. The current definition of nightclub hinges on the sale of alcohol. The proposed definition deals with the nature of the operation aside from any alcohol sale and consumption. The change in the definition of restaurant allows us to make a distinction between the two types for parking calculation purposes. Other proposals deal with the parking requirements for multi-family housing, requiring use permits for sexually oriented enterprises (City Code currently regulates sexually oriented enterprises but there is no special permit required), and strengthening the PRe's ability to require sidewalks at site plan time, visual screening of dumpsters and certain parking areas and require compliance with the City's adopted Streetscape Policies and Plan. The second ordinance amendment deals with the Subdivision Regulations and simply explicitly states the instances when platting is required. This amendment is proposed based on advice from our Legal staff. ._ w..\\ \,'y~\) ~v{~ IJ"~ \ U~+ (I&~~l\ '~~Vl~~ << ; cl\o~ . - ~~ "l.\..J ~ ~ ~~ IQ~"?~-\- IV 0""" ~ 1 U q. b ~ "'^' () '{.- ~A1~~- - ~.~ - A..J.v~"'l (1"- ~ ~~""r"".J"-v\o/ v '. V~~ r - ;1J~ \- ~ ~V~ ~t( -- ;Uo~ J-h.~ .~6.-~. C)~ ~~~~~~t ~i--'~\.---'~ ~c1ts~ - UJ,.\\ \!~"J.vq, ~~~\\~~ 6r.U-ov~ ~-' -~\JL'j' S4L~- ("v~>r \r-J\-k~) ~~~(J'~~~/v41--.1,~~ ~ CJ2l('ft~, w/o...;'>s- Q. ,~)- - ~";11 ~......1-- - \NS.~ ~~ <)~ ~N!;~ J~~l:~~.,..JI , C. '<0 \..!- 1"'..('. b J.<...CA '(f"'~ 4.Q...i[J.,v' \,. l,......J <'Z~~ '" MA,....\~~ - wdJ >{ ~ "'c M \-. ....,~ \\" N\ ~ ct q",~ 'I.~J/1J, t.....k <>-I r+ - ~ .f.....V'~ .$\...,,-- \"/')rV")\-\r-'~~ - - ? NJ \-O\~ .-, ~(l'\\..~ ~t.~q~v'"~__ - ~~\J...l /4J<..- 0 f- ~'-v~~~, AN ~,.J .rN'oJ Co ~ \ ..l 3 "'oj c It. r- 'Qr~\.~~'i -- G 'f ~ N ,\ Co IY''-\)~ ~/\J ~ ~... ~ 'I ....... k~'C,..,..;. oJ ~l ~,I../~",. ~J..-~ , ~ ~JJ (I.v-( Jt\.-t ~ \M. . ~ Hd JI\--." . "f f fI .... ~ h ~- ~"';. ~ J -~.. "-- - ~\-- ~"1~'J..-J, -- \-^,eoG.l'1. i '" ~,..\, (~.,~ - ~ ~~ ..".-...JA.",:r., ...-.!'..C,,k. L S "-"\,,,",,). - ~~ a~\..,,~~....- ~s.ll-~.-.~ ~ ~.\~ ~~J- ~,~~ :r:., -("\.~ l$~ .0 t ('I"" ~.........~. ....a.-JJ""s .. - __.'1C\.~~..... .';'.('0/ -..Jl~... - ~ n::. ~\.,..~ ~ -~ g,..._--:'A..,i ~"1--r:'f.............. ~~"'.'~...:-T) r;,....,~~- ~ Y~I.J ~,-Jc:..o':os .~.. .(~lo~--\ ..:: .~ ~ (!""'-\r(J D\..~~ Jr;> -9x""",,:-".-y "\')c:~-;) .'".. ~~ -~\;~CZ,.... ~~'VVllil ~ - - ~".")w.- J,~~ <f, "J.~"f~~!: -d . /(_~ ~Js.-,-..... ,," - C-., (lj'... ..J'cr~ ~ '- - -~\~ - "2 O/V~I'J'1 - ~...~ ...... .. P r- o.,.'.-v 0,.,,\ <i .... G,J-I~"'..J~ . .... ~:f.....,~'...~.... It '\\~ <r ..../.. v ~ ,..J<J'f'l.( ~~) ....-: U~ -b \J, (" ~ ~ ~.(\,..~'Cl.~. ~ ~ I ~ ,rJ ~~~n .. \ \,N\.~ r-oa....... do. ~o...>~ ~- '\ 9f (Y'SJ ~ r ~,,^-k - JJ\i...:s."j. . &l.." .~..~.;) ....a\f. --.Ar\\~H.N - - -. .. - J 4I\'f r~'-l.e. o-..~~~ . ~ -.~.~~~\~~Nj.. ~~~~O~\ - &. ~ - \(""'~ ~c.J~,) (:)~ 'it ot ~ o-S ~ ~j c.; - SS$~~~\J .......~...~~v;:~/ r~lYb.-- /'"""' ~~') I\a~ N~c..,$o.s~d~ 1.N\('" r 'f';Af ~.\..l>. - ,.. c>t .~..'('..~. qtlo..H~t... - 9 e., two \-- .M4> "lC,A_"'~ ..:~ ~ A~l....~~'\.}~~-y~~ e.S, ~ {'f}..\ ""--"'C-v~ ~.. \:'.,q. '^-Ie,,"\'Ot ~ '{"'d~-Y.lV\2IJ3- A""1er\~ -- L...L.... Q~. ~ __ iJ_, 1.. _ ct..........ll (~to t'Jv~ S,rv'l>"-'" Where abuilding line has been establi shedbypl at appravedby the Plann ing&Zon tng Cammi ss i an and such 1 i nerequi res a greater or lesser front yard setback than is prescribed by this ordinance for thedtstrict in which'thebuildingline is located, the }'equired front yard sl)a.ll comply with the building line so established by such plat. Except as herein provi,ded, the frant yard shall be .open and unabstructed framapoint 40incnes abave thegeneralgro.und level of thegraded\ lot ... to the' sky". Eaves and roof extensions .or, a porch without pasts or columns may project into therequi red Jront yard for a distance, not. to exceed four. feet, and sub-surface. structures, platforms,arslabsma'yno~projecti nto the front yard toa height gr,eaterthan4Q>.i nches above the average grade .of the yard. (See Appendix.lllustratian 6) 3-504 For.existingfhroughlots,a required front yard shall b~ provided on path streets unless a building. 1 inefor accessory buildings has been established.alongone frontage on the plat or by ordinance,/in which eVentonl~ .anaccessorybuilding may be built on th,e line thus established." The. mai n ,building must observe the ,. front yard requirements for both streets. (See Appendix Illustration?) 3-500 3-501 3-502 ,. 3-503 ~. ;:: W"CITY OF COLLEGE STATION FRONT YARD REGULATIONS f5)OCT 3 1 1991 ~ Where the frontage On one/side of .a stre.lIl1e'.$.~4Vn r . ting streets .i sd i v i dedby two .or more zoning di st ri UGAL _;.~on yard shall comply with the requirements of the most restrictive eli strict for the entire frontage. (See Appendix Illustration 9). ~<-- In the case of existing through ,lots which are ,bounded o~,thY'E~e sides by str,~ets, all yards between the ma tnbuil ding andastryeet,sha 11 be regulated as front yards unless a front, side and rear building line have been established by plat. 3-505 If, bui] dings along, the, frontage of any street between two intersecting streets in any residential districtbave Tobserved an average setback wh i ch is. greater or lesser in d imens ion than the minimum front yard or setback establ ished for the district in which the street frontage is ,located, and if no front buildtng line has be,en establ ishedby plat, then the average setback of all buildings fronting upon such street between two intersect ings-preets shall e~tablish,.themi nimum front yard ,requi rement.. Allyacan't lots shall beasspmep'to have a minimum front yard specified forth~:district in computing',the average front yard. These provisions ~I)all not be interpireted as requi ri ng a setback or front yard ofmore)than 10 feet greater than the front setback observed by any bui:ld tog on a contiguous. lot. The provisions shall be superseded on ~nYl()t where aminimumbui 1 di ng 1 tne hasbeenestabl; shed by pl at,or 9'r'dinance and tl)e front yard or setback prov; sions of such pl at or orqinance shall be observed. (See Append; x III ustrat; on 10) 3-15 3-506' In all districts except CB and CB-l, the distance as measured fr()m the front lot line to the face of the building shall in no case be Jess J.h~n one:-half the height of the building. In. cases where a lot : ;:15>/ across, ~be. street from or adjacent to a residential zoning - aistrt<;t,~ee Section 3-511. 3-507 Gasoline service station pump islands shall not be located closer than 39 feet to the front property li ne. Canopi es for pump islands shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the front property line when the canopy thickness is three feet or less. An increased setback of ten feet will be required for each additional foot or portion of a foot in excess of three feet. 3-508 Except in the CB and CB-l d i stri cts, on any corner lot, no fencle, wall, screen, billboard, sign, structure, or foliage of hedges, trees, bushes, or shrubs shall be erected, planted or maintained in such a manner as to obstruct or interfere with a clear line of sight for the drivers of approaching motor vehicles within a triangular area formed by extending the two curb 1 i nes a distance of 45 feet from their point of intersection, and connecting these points with an imagi nary 1 i ne, thereby maki ng a tri angl e. I f there are no curbs existing, the triangular .area sha1l be formed by extending the property 1 i nes a di stance of> 30 feet from thei r poi nt of intersection, and connecting these points with an imaginary line, thereby maki ng a tri angl e. In cases where streets do not intersect at approximately right angles, the Traffic Engineer shall have the authority to vary these requirements as he deems necessary to provide safety for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic; however, he shall not require site distance in excess of 275 feet. Within this triangle, vision shall be clear at elevations between 30 inches and 9 feet above the average grade of the street. 3-509 For corner lots with a curved corner lot line, the building line shall be established as provided in Appendix Illustration 5. 3-510 In residential developments except in the PH District, the minimum front yards specified in Section 3-800 may be reduced by a maximum of five feet when such yards front on the bulb portion of a cul-de-sac. In no case shall the required front yard be reduced to less than 25 feet under this provision. (See Appendix Illustration 4). 3-511 In all districts where buildings or structures are erected or altered to exceed two stories in height, such buildings or structures shall not be located closer to any residential district boundary line than a distance equal to the sum of the requi red yard specifi ed for the zoning .district in which such building or structure is located, plus 25 . feet, plus twi ce the hei ght of the portion of the buil ding above two stories. 3-512 Except where staggered setbacks are permitted and util ized, residential building lines shall be uniform along the entire frontage of a street between two intersecting streets or alleys. However, the building line may be staggered for lots fronting on an eyebrow or bulb portion of a cul-de-sac in the SF-9, SF-7, SF-6 and 2F 3-16 I .l" 3-1000 SCREENING, FENCE AND WALL REGULATIONS 3-1001 Screening Walls or Visual 8arriers 1. In the event that anMF-l,MF-2, MF-3, 0-1, 0-2, CE, CB-l, R,LC, LI-l or.LI-2 District sides or backs upon an ED, SF-20, SF-9, SF- 7., SF-6, SF-A, PH, 2For RH District, orin the . event that any non-residential district sides or backs to anMF-l, MF-2, or MF..3 district,a. solid screening wall or fence of not less than six nc)r more than eight feet in height shall be erected on the property line separat ing these.. districts. The. purpose of the screen i ng wall or fence. is to provide a visual barrier. between the properties. The owner of such property shall berespons ibl e for and shall build the required wall or fence on his property line dividing his property from the residential district. In cases where the Planning & Zoning .commission finds this requirement to be impractical for immediate constructi on,. it may grant a temporary or permanent waiver of the required screening wall or fence until such time as the screening . wall or fence may be deemed necessary by the City .Counci 1. In cases where the Planning & Zoni ngCommi s s ion findsthi s . requi rementto be. better met by an irrigated ]ivi ngscreen, the same maybe substituted for the screenin~ .wall. 2. Any screeni ngwall or fe.nc:e required under the provi s i onsof th'j s section, a Specific Use Permit,. Planned .Development District, or other requirement shall be constructed of masonry or reinforcl~d concrete which does not contain openings constituting more .than 40 square inches in each qne square footofwal.lor fence surface, and the surface of such wall or fence shall constitute a visual barrier. All wall or fence. openings shall be equipped withgatl~s equa 1 in hei ght and screen i ng characteri st i cs to wa 11 or fence. 3. No fence, screen, wall, or other. visual barrier. shall be.:so located or placed that <it obstructs the vision of a motorvehic"le driver approaching any. street or drive intersection, in accordance with Section 3-508. 4. Where an alley intersects with a street, no fence or plant tall,er than 30 inches may be placed within a sight visibility triangle defined by measuring eight feet to a point along the property lines and' joining said points to form the hypotenuse of. the triangle. 5. All required screening walls .shall be equally finished on both sides of the'wall. 3-1002 Fence and Wall Regulations in Residential Districts In any residential district or along the common boundary between any residential and non-residential district where a wall, fence, or screening separation i serected, the fall owi ng standards for height, location, and design shall be observed: 3-24 ./ 1. Any fence or wall 1 ocatedto the rear .of the minimum required front yard.l i ne as determi ned by the provi si ons of Section 2-800 shall not exceed eight feet in. he i ght above the grade of the adjacent property. When a retaining wall is two feet or more in height, no fence greater than six feet in height may be placed on the wall. 2. The maximum height ofa fence or wall in a required front yard of a single-family, duplex, patio home, or single-family attached di str.i ct shall not exceed 40 inches. Combinations of berms and fences shall not exceed 40 inches in height. Fences for outdoor play.areas located in the front yard of day care centers may be a maximum of 48 inches in height. 3. All fences and wall si n the requ i red front yard except headli ght screens required by Section 3-1110-2, shall be at least 50% open. 4.. Where a corner.l ot is . platted wi th two front yards, and a house is constructedfaci ng one of. the. front yards , the second fy'ont yard shall be deemed to be aside yard, which may be fenced in the same manner as any other side yard adjacent to a street, except that the. fence shall be constructed on an angle beginning at the intersection Qf thebu i 1 d i ngl i ne with the 1 ot line, andEmd i ng at a point on th~ street right-of-way located. a minimum of 15 feet from the lot line (See Appendix Illustration 8). 3-1003 Mechanical Screening Requirements In all non-residential developments, roof mounted mechanical units shall be screened from view with a parapet wall , mansard roof or alternative architectural element. The height of the :screening element shall be equal to. or . greater than the height of the mechanical unit(s) provided that the element shall not extend more than five feet ab9ve the roof on a one .or two story buil di ngor more than 13 feet above the roof on a buil di ng of three or more stori es. A mechanical unit which is taller than the. maximum permitted height of the screening feature shall be set back from> the screen five feet plus two feet for each foot it exceeds the height of the screen. 3-25 ~ .j;vOFCOllEG~ON ~ z lO)o :0.: e 5, ~:9~ 1ffi6/)( APPENDIJ{ A-zbNlNG REGULATIONS If\lIS Q8 IS IV ~ 10 of buildings and the minim~Tons of yards shall be as follows: (1) Height. No building hereafter erected, re- constructed, altered or enlarged shall ex- ceed twelve (12) stories, nor shall it exceed one hundred and twenty (120) feet. (2) Front yard. Same as District "F,," (3) Rear yard. No rear yard shall he 'required, except where .a "K"District abuts on a dwelling district, in which case, there shall be a rear yard of not less than tEm (10) feet. (4) Side yard. Same as District "J." (5) Lot area per family, D~ellings excluded. (18) (19) dred (500) feet of a more restrictive district; Lamp black manufacture; Magnesium casting, machining or fab- rication; Manufacture or reclaiming of rubber or manufacture of heavy rubber products; Ore reduction; Packing plants, . including. slaughtering ofanilllals and processing of byproducts; Paper or pulp .manufacture; Petroleum products, refining or whole- sale storage. of petroleum in tanks of more than ten thousand (1(),000) gal- Ions capacity; Rock crushers or stone quarries; Rolling mills; Smelting or reclamation (by reduction) oftin, copper, lead, zinc or iron ores; Stockyards, feeding pens or slaughter- ing. of animals; St()rage, salvaging, sorting, processing or baling of rags, iron, scrap paper or junk; Tanneries, curing or storage of raw hides or skins; Tar or asphalt roofing or waterproof- ing manufacture; Motor vehicle junkyard or storage yard, or used automobile junk area, as a special exception upon approval of the Board of Adjustment after a report from the Police, Health, Public Works, and Fire Departments, subject to the follow- ing limitations: a. Said area shall not adjoin the side or rear of any residential zoning district. b, Said area must be completely en~ closed by a screening fence. c. First approval-A period not to ex- ceed ten (10) years, d. Each. extension-A period not to exceed ten (10) years. (Ord, No, 7286, ~5, 1-12-76; Ord. No, 9958, .~ 6, 9.15-87) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (B) HEIGHT AND AREA REGULATIONS, In the HK" Heavy Industrial District the height Supp. No. 15 Sec. 16. Accessory uses. (A) No private . driveway or walk on private property in Districts "A," "A~R," "B" or "R-l" shall provide access to Districts "C-R," through "K." (B) . Buildings or structures or uses which are accessory to the uses permitted in one district shall not be permitted in a district of am ore restrictive classification. (C) Fences: (1) No fence in excess of four (4) feet in height shall be erected on property within the min- imulll required front yard, platted front yard or established front. yard; provided, however, that with respect to a front yard which is, in effect, the rear.yard on a double- frontage lot .. abutting an ..existing or pro- posed arterial street, screening walls or fences in excess of four (4)[eet'shall be per- mitted. Said screening walls or fences shall not exceed eight (8) feet ir1 height onr~si- dential property. Whent~e IPlatted-frontH- yard or established front yal'd is less than the minimum required frdntyard, the set- back of the minimum required front yard shall be met. (2) No fence over eight (8) feet in height sur- rounding residential property shall be per- mitted behind the front building setback line. 3008.1 '" "" ,J ~. t t i'~,' .....-- U6 ( ! FORT WORTH CITY CODE '"" ., L (3) No fence exceeping two (2) feet in height shall be permitted on a corner lot within or along a triangle formed by measuring twenty (20) feet in each direction from the point of corner of the property line at the street intersection. (4) The height of the fence shall be measured from the highest adjoining grade parallel to the fence. (5) The city plan commission, for good cause shown at a public hearing, may modify or waive fence restrictions on a unified resi- dential development site plan. (D) No attached or detached accessory struc- tures such as carports, porches supported by col- umns, greenhouses, garages, swimming pools or similar uses shall be erected on property within the minimum required front yard, platted front yard, or established front yard except as provided in section 3(D)(2), "A" One-Family District. When the platted front yard or established front yard is less than the minimum required front yard, the setback of the minimum required front yard shall be met. (Ord, No. 6643, S 1, 3-13-72; Ord. No. 7805, S 1, 9-12-78; Ord. No, 8976, S 12, 11-15-83; Ord. No. 10445,S 1, 11-14-89) Sec. 16A. Unified residential development provisions. (A) LEGISLATIVE INTENT. It is the legislative intent of the city council, in adopting these unified residential development regulations, to encourage the most appropriate uses of land; to provide larger amounts of usable open space; to consolidate recreational facilities and other community amenities; to reduce the cost of utilities and public services; to recognize building sites where unique topographic or- other Supp. No. 15 3008.2 CITY OF PARMA, OHIO ^/ YlM~ V pv , 1529.23 ,,) .-.----.. \ 66C General Building- Regulations \-- 1529.19 DOWNSPOUTS AND GUTTERS. (a) All buildings and dwellings shall be provided with proper metallic downspouts and gutters forconduct:qlg water from the roof to the ground or sewer in such manner as shall protect the walls and foundations from ' damage. (Ord. 1177. Passed 3-3-30.) " ' J ~ . . .1 (b) The pipe for conducting water fromdowuspout to sewer, may be' of any 'mat,er'iaI approved by the Building Commissioner. (Ord. 196-57. Passed 7-29-57.) .' L...'... ; (c) In no case I~hall downSpouts be allowed to discharge ,water upon sidewalks. or : adjacent propertiel;. unless approved by the City Engineer. (Ord. 353....89. Passed 10-16-89.) 1529.20 FffiEPREVENTION. All walls built adjoining interior property lines shall be dead walls and no such wall shall have windows or other openmgs.(Ord.1177.Passed3-3-30.) 1529.21 CELLARS. No cellar shall be used for human habitation or occupation. (Ord. 1177. Passed :3-3-30.) ~~ \ '-, . 1529.22 CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY. : Whenanybuilding?r part Jhereof is to be converted ,to another use or occupancy,; the , construction andequipmeni.'~f'the.~ilding'shall,be made.to,conform,to'the requirements '0(' this Building Code, as specified "for its intended use. No person shall so alter or o~cupyi: ," any. building, or part thereof,withouthavingf4"stsecured a permitto do so frofuJh~Buiiding Commissioner. (Ord. 1177. Passed 3-3-30.) . ,:'".,'" . f'52.~f~~~a:;i{~;FE'NCEs~~FHEjj'qJ~~J~~!R,~?;~~!t~~~~;~:~,. ' ,'c'. " (a) No fence, hedge,. trellis or'~o.t~er;;deV1Ce)"used to mark or~estabhsh bound- arylines around property, or' within . the' property . line , exceeding : six . feet ,in. ~'.. .., height, shall, be erected, altered .recoIlstructed or relocated on any law,nadjacent._ to any boundary lin~()f..lll1y.lot~()r:par~~h,of..18.Ild,or anY part thereof, in the, City. Permitted. fences'iIi.'C811'residencedistricts' shallinclude the..following . types: picket, ranch"(inclumIlg split-railand western-rail). basketweave,s!oc~a~e;'.f.boar.d:-on- board and chain link. Masonry wa1lsofbrick.:~randoxn.stone or' ashlar " . coursed stone or ashlar, or'decorativeblock,arepermitted,'subject to the approyalof , the City PlanningGommis~ion.;Prohibited fences include panel fences where the panels are made of plastic, . metal or fiberglass, wire mesh .. fences which have open- ings between the wires of larger than four inches, and individual strand-type wire fences. . Fences shall be permitted only in rear yards , as. defined in Section 1505. 25 (b) . In no case shall fences. extend . any further. towards the street than five feet past the side door or the steps to the side door of the residential structure. If no. side door exists, then the fence shall be no further towards the street than the rear of the residential structure. .~ '-'. (b) Before any hedge, trellis or other device used to mark or establish. boundary lines, or within the property line ,is erected, the owner of the land shall first secure a permit for the same, from the Building Commissioner. The fee therefor in set. forth in Chapter 185. {the General Fee Schedule)'.'~ 1990- A Replacement ~1529.23 <<i6D BUILDING CODE .(c) B.~fo~ any fence used to. markar establish boundary lines, ar within the property line'; is ere'cted, the. owner. of the land shall first. secure a permit. . for the same fram the Building Commissioner~ The fee therefor is set fo,rth in . Chapter 185 (the GenerafFee Schedule). . No permit for any such device, other than those which replace existing permitted devices, shall be issued until the happening af one of the following:' (1) . Submissian.to .the. BuildingCammissioner af proof that notice has been given to all affected prapertyawners, by proof of signed waiver of the permit application ;or (2) Submission to. the Building Department of verification by a registered professional. surveyor establishing the .applicant's praperty lines. (d) The height of any fence shall be the distance vertically from the surfa.ce of the ground to the top of the fence. (e) Erection of fences on a corner lot shall not . start any closer .to. thestrleet than the setback of the house andnat less than one faot off the sidewalk on the side af existing property. (f) . No fence shall be erected from the sidewalk line of any propertytoJhe front prajectianof the building thereof, otherwise defined as the building setback line. Nath- ing contained in this section-shall apply to shrubbery far decorative purposes, which in no. event shall be permitted to. growabave thre.e feet in height. when more than fifteen feet from the intersec~i8naf a driveway with .the public sidewalk, or eighteen inches in height when less than:1flfteen feet fram the.intersectionofa driveway with the public sidew,al~.,Any trees{:Withinaside yard shall have the branches trimmed so as to. provide a minimum. distance of five feet frgm., thef ground to-'tnEtlowest'>Qranches when such .branches are located within fifteen,~eet'of.tIie intersection of a driveway'V4th the public sidewalk . (g) The. supporting.posts. offences, hedges,.. trellises or oth~idevices used to mark or establish boundary lines>aroundproperty,C?r.within theproR,~&tY line,. where pos~ are necessary,shall he erectec:t.onthe side of the propertybeing.;fenced,. In other words, :{)o,sts shall be erected an the inside of the fence, hedge, trelli.~1tkw., and not on the outside' thereof. . ,;<;,,:;f,~i::;Y .".',-..... (h). . This section shall apply to pUbUc'.facility, retail, office, commercial and industrial lots. except for s~bsectian<(d)' h~reof.Far such lo.ts,. fences in excess afsix feet in height may.. be. a'pP17ovedby the?lll:rl:ning Commission in. order to more adequately screen such lots.from the .~ewof -adjacent residential ~roperty. . - ..~.,,'..'~.''''~ (1) No person shall install,erect, place,' maintainor permit or cause theinstallat:ion, erectian, place~ent or .~aintenance of any sta~e,sti~k, pole, stone, rock or other . dangerous or hazarqous objed to mark, d~slgnate or~e"s~lish any property line. Any objector.devicewhich once installed, erected, placedc)rmaintained to mark, designate or establish:a property line, will be be a danger toJ~fe or limb of thase perso)1s re~Son- ably using the area in the vicinity where such object or. device is located is prohibited. (D All c~mmercial compactors, storage bins, refuse containers and mechanical equip- ment shall be contained.wholly within enclosed buildings, ar enclosed by a solid wall or fence af such nature arid height as to. conceal campletely all operations thereof, or use thereof,.and all materials therein, from any observer's view,. if the observer is standing at the grade level on an adjacent p.remises, or viewed from a roadway. 1990-A Replacem'ent ~. ; .~ '-'_. ~ I ~ ~ ..~ .~ f '-.../ \~ "'--- ' 66E General Building Regulations 1529.24 (k) Snow fences are permitted to be installed not earlier than November 1 and must be removed on or before April 10f the following' year. The maximupt per:"" mitted height shull be four feet. and snow fences shall not be placed closer than four feet to any front. side or rear property line. . . (Ord.255-89. .. Pass~d3-:1,9,-90;,;',Ord~108':'90. Passed 5-21-90; Ord~;122-90 ~ ",: Passed.' 4~16-90.) 1529.24 WARNING LIGHTS AT CONSTRUCTION SITES. (a) Red glass globed lanterns, amber lights or other warning lights or dev'ices approved by the Building Commissioner shall be displayed and maintained during the whole of every night wherever fences are built or excavations are made along orin any street, alley or courtway. One. sueh.lightordeviceshall be securely and conspicuously posted on or near the excavation or obstruction for each .ten feet or' fraction thereof of excavation or obstruction. (b) In no case shall building materials be piled in any street, alley()r any other public property without a . special permit being issued by the Department of Public Service. (Ord. 1177. Passed 3-3-30.) 1990-A Replacement .~~;_OU_"-----"""'F-'---'--'-'"- ,-" I . I I I ~-,-,~-",,---,------~"----"'---~~""- "--"-'"'''''-~,."....,''''' ".. -- -- - ; , i, '* planning advisory service I I I I .AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANNING I I I I_________~------------------~----~- OFFICIALS 131 3 E A S T 6 0 t h STREET - CHICAGO 37, ILLIINOIS __ _______t______ . ""~r" 1'\"'1 r.. ~._I'{:S '. '_~..'- "" 1. .' ~ ".. ~.b'''-'\' f,,'fj ., n ", .1 ""T7 '-' l "" ....-r.>T. ("' n~. ' - p~(_ --~ir, ';,' .~ ,\~~r'~~~ August 11958 Information Report N FENCES Good fences make good neighbors until attempts are made by or- dinance to restrict height or type of fence! This relatively unUnportant topic can be the subject of ~ense controversy. The Text of a Model Zoning Ordinance, with Commentary, by Fred H. Bair, Jr. and Ernest R. Bartley, Public Admin- istration Clearing Service of the University of Florida, 1958. _6'~'---"'-- --' Historically, courts have recognized the importance of the right to fence property.1 In many of the western states this right was turned into a re- sponsibility. Settlers who wanted to keep cattle out of their eorn had to fence the fields. However, common law, as evolved in most eastern states, generally requires a property owner to fence in his animals to keep them from trespassing on his neighbor's property. Special agencies have been, developed through court action and st.a.te legislation to handle ruralfen.c- ing proh1ems. The days of shooting it out with the neighbors about fenc,- ing the waterho1eare over except on TV. There are lengthy fence statutes in many states. Generally speaking, they apply only to agricultural land, but sometimes all land in the state is covered by a fence act. Fence districts created for the purposes of erect- ing and maintaining fences are sometimes provided for by law. Fence viewers an appeal board that settles fence disputes -- also stem frOlll state acts. Of partieu1arinterest because it is COllllDOD in urban areas, as well as rural, is the partition fence. A form of division or property line fence, it 1.s usually erected jointly by adjoining landowners. State law may,establillh the rights and duties of the two proprietors . Both are equally responsible for maintenance and constructionu~less they arrange otherwise by~reeaent or written contract. In case of <iisagreement, appeallUY be made to fence viewers or to the eourts. In urban areas, attitudes toward fences are different frOR those in rurn1 areas and the fences serve different purposes. Joint building and maint:e- nance is probably less common. FrOlll experience, the urban property owner lRay Hamilton Skelton, The Legal ElementIJof Boundaries and Adjaeent Prop- erties (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merri11 Co., 1930), pp. 501-513. Copyright. American Society of .Planning Officials. 1958 -'-".....,"~ ~' is cautioned to build his fence several inches back from the property line to avoid legal entanglements due to opposition from a neighbor or to faulty surveying. To stave off spite fence battles, dealers in fencing materials often advise a prospective fence builder to tactfully approach his neighbors and explain why he wants to put up a fence. Another graceful gesture advised is to turn the best side of the fence toward the neighbors. In sane residen- tial areas, covenants should be checked because they may prohibit or strict- ly limit fences. These notes of caution are testimony to a changed attitude toward fences: our ancestors built fences because they wanted privacy and independence; we fight fences because we want everyone to conform to nlew norms of sociabili~y and neighborliness. The contemporary pattern of residential development is the single-family dwelling near the center of a lot and surrounded by yards, most of which are open to public view. Little privacy is possible, even in the back yard. However, there are many situations in which fences are appropriate and nec- essary. They can be used to guard a toddler, to keep a dog in the yard, to protect a lawn or garden, and to safeguard against the dangers of yard pools. Moreover, fences and walls can block off the hot sun and break the cold wind; they can shield against unsightly neighboring yards, outside noises, and in- quisitive eyes. But these censiderations se1dOlll take into account the right of adjoini:ng property owners to light, air, and view. However, fence regulations can be drawn so they serve both the property owner and the public -- his neighbor, for the DIOJJt part -- with little conflict. Fence controls should, of course, be determined on the basis of what is appropriate for a particular com.unity. This report first considers general municipal regulation of fences, includ- ing control of materials that might cause injury. Because much of the im- petus for fence provisions in zoning ordinances comes fran citizen interest in preventing spite fences, they and how they are handled in zoning ordinan- ces are discussed. Regulation of other fences, walls, and hedges through zoning ordinances is reviewed. Vision clearance provisions are also analyzed. Finally ,SClme developing issues in the use and control of fences are e:s:p1ored. ********** Barbed wire and electric fences, and fences and walls with spikes, broken glus, or other sharp points that can cause injuries are usually forbidden by lIlUnicipal regulations. In many instances, however, a barbed wire top to an open wire mesh fence is allowed, provided the barbed wire is of suffi- cient height above the ground -- usually eight feet. Sometimes the barbed wire BlUst face away frOlll the side of the fence that fronts on a sidewalk or other public way. The purpose of that restriction is to prevent projections that might cause injury to - people falling upon them., running into them, or carelessly touching the fence. Regulations dealing with the safety of fenc- es are salletimes incorporated into a zoning ordinance provision on fences. Gates and doors. swinging outward acrosa a sidewalk are generally permitted. Such swinging obstructions have been held' not to be nuisances per se but may 'become 80 by negligent use and by interference with pedestrian traffic.2 2Eugene McQu- il-lin, The La f~' i i 1 Co ti (3 d d Chi :w 0 ~'~un c pa rpora ons r e.; cago: Callaghan and Co., 1949-1951), Vol. 10, p. 755, sec. 30.98. 2 Information Report No. 113 ~ The control of unsightly fences and walls is also a problem. Nevertheless, most courts would probably not look kindly upon an ordinance that required fences and walls to be built of specific materials or in a particular pat.. tern just because they might be better looking. For example, the issue of fence materials arose ip a junk yard fencing case, City of New Orleans v. Southern .Auto Wreckers, 193 La. 895,192 So. 523 (1939). The court said that the ordinance under attack (not a zoning ordinance) was "an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the police power, because the requirement of a tight board fence instead of a substantial fence built of other materials, in no way tends toward the accomplishment of the object for which the city's power was exercised in this case.1I Spite Fences Any discussion by laymen of legal technicalities calls for statements of principles that are carefully qualified. The following remarks on spite fences.attempt to present only broad principles.3 The layman regards a spite fence as one built to annoy his neighbors. Often it is. considered such because the neighbors' feelings are hurt; they feel snubbed by being cut off from conta~t with the fence builder. If the fence is obnoxious in appearance, damage to neighborhood ego is compounded and the neighbors are all the more .sure of the spiteful intentions of the builder. Formerly, when a spite fence builder was brought to court, the courts be- lieved they could not recognize such psychological "injury" in assessing damages or issuing an injunction. Other tests had to be developed. The general CODmon law rule is that a property owner must souse his pro}1~r- ty as not to: injure others.4 However, co~ts usually hesitate to restric~t the property owner in the use of his land and often give him.the benefit of doubt:, because property rights are a. major cornerstone of our.law.5So long as h~ refrains from "actively wrongful, negligent, 01:' unskillfulact'scaus- ing. u,nnecessary injury to ..adjoining premises," according to Corpus Juris Secut:J;dum,6 IIhe may make any reasonable and proper use of his property in accordance with his own tastes, and any injurious consequences to adja.ceIlt premises are without liability." Of special interest because of the relationship to spite fences is theprin- 3For.further legal discussion see Spite Fences and Other Spite Structures~, 133 Alllerican Law Reports (A.L.R.) 691 (1941). 466 Corpus Juris Secundum (C. J . S.) Nuisances sec. 8. 5 - ClydeO. Martz, Rights-Incident to Possession of Land (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1954), sec. 28.28, as reprinted from American Law of Proper- ty, Vol. VI-A, part 28. 62 C.J.S. APjoining Landowners sec. 1. August 1958 3 '''1 \''1 ciple that obstruction of light, air, and. view is not cause for action by. neighboring landowners.7 Since the doctrine of ancient lights generally does not apply in the ~lited States, a building or structure cannot be considered a nU$sance merely be- cause it interferes with passage of light and air to adj oining property, nor does the fact that a structure obstructs the view of neighboring property constitute a nuisance.8 Of course, in extreme cases the courts may protect the neighbor. Suits involving spite fences for years were not actionable as private nui- sance cases in many courts because of the long recognized right of a proper- tyowner to erect a fence to s~parate his land from adjoining plots (e.g., Rose v. Lindeman, 147 Mich. 372, 110 N.W. 939 LJ9017). Because of the un- willingness of courts. to handle spite fence cases as private nuisance actions, several states (including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington, New York, and Kentucky) have made spite fences a l~se for action by plaintiff through state statutes. Such lawa usually spell out grounds for identifying a spite fence and recognize the spite fence as a cause for action through a private nuisance suit. Spite fence statutes were based on principles that dev~loped slowly in the courts of a few states -- principles under which it was held that a f~~ce cannot be built for the sole reason of annoying or injuring a neighbor. Motive as the principal t~st of spite developed from the case of Gallagher v. Dodge, 48 Conn. 387 (1880).9 In that decision the court said that "a structure is erected. for spit.e wh~n from its character, or locatilm, or use, it would strike the ordinary beholder as manifestly erected with a leading purpose to annoy the adjoining owner or occupant in his use of his premises." (See also Burke v. Smith, 69 .Mich. 380, 37 N.W. 838, 8 A.L.R. 184 {J.88fJ. For lists of states allowing or disallowing consideration of motive, Sl!e 133 A.L.R. 691.) The statute approach was taken by some states because spite fence cases are in an area of law that courts have been slow to enter, and because when an action becomes a nuisance action largely because of the public's emotill)n, there are many conflicting principles. In most nuisance cases, the intent or motive of a person is not considered in determining whether there is a nuisance.lO But, a spite fence is p~i- marily defined by the presence of intent to annoy. This finding must be coupled with a finding that the fence is not serving some useful and reason- able purpose. If a defendant can show that he erected his fence for purposes other tltlan to annoy and that he draws some benefit from the fence, the court.. will 7 2 C.J.S. AdjOining Landowners secs. 47-52. 866 C.J.S. Nuisances sec. 25. 9Richard L. Leedy, "Spite Fence: A Newly Created Cause of Action," Wyca.1ng Law Journal 9(Fal1, 1954), pp. 74-77. 10 66 C.J.S. Nuisances sec. 10. '4 Information Report No. 113 ~ probably find that it is not a spite fence. In a caae reported in ZONING DIGEST, Vol. 4, page 69, Livingston v. Davia, 50 N.W.2d 592 (Iowa, 1951), the court held that a six-foot wood fence around a playground erected wUh- out the motive of spite or malice eould not be enjoined even though the ad- ,joining property owner was annoyed by it. It is generally held that spite fence laws do not apply to buildings eveln though they are built to annoy, nor do the laws apply to fences not "sub.- a tant ially adj oining II the property line. (However, a tatutes are not con- fined to fences actually on boundary lines unless the laws are limited b:y def ini tion . ) As a means of defining spite fencea, some state laws, such as the New York real property law, declare fences exceeding a certain height that are mali- ciously erected and maintained to spite or annoy the owners or occupants of adjoining land, a private nuisance, and the law provides a reDledy. The New York law places the height limit at ten feet if the barrier excludes the owner or occupant of the adj oining property from the enj oyment of light and air. Regulation of Spite Fences Through Zoning Zoning purposes, as expressed in the rationale for yard r~quirements, 11 are contrary to common law. Common law generally holds that a landowner may build in such a manner as to deprive adj.oining owners of the light, air, and view that they had. before the structure was built .12 Moreover, under COJlDllon law it has been he:ld that no legal injury is inflicted by obstruction. Zon- ing, on the other hand, hasa. one of its purposes the protection of access to light and air and since fences are obstructions to them, zoning is used to regulate fences. In addition, safety (especially vision clearance at corners) has been a strong reaaon far regulation of fences. Because access of view is largely an aesthetic matter when applied to fences, it has not been used as a justi- ficati$ for fence controls through .zoning. However, view is mostcerta,inly a maj or element in a spite fence argument, because there may be malice in cutting off a good view by putting up a fence. In a case reported in 10 ZD 89, State v. Zumpano, 146 N.E.2d 871 (Ohio App. 1956), the court held that the fence provision in a zoning ordinance (clear- ly aimed at forbidding spite fences, rather than prote:cting access to li.ght and air) was... invalid because no clearstandarcis of what constitutes a 8}l~ite fence were. established. The ordinance prohibited as anacces.ory .use "Un- necess~y :structures, including a fence, the apparent purpose lof which 1.s to annoy or damage. the owner of adj acentprQperty . . ." . The I court ,. in holding the ~ohibition invalid, asked who was to determine wtiat is ''unIlleC- . essary," or who would determine the "apparent purpose" and whlither it "cllam- 11 . . ?rojections into-Yards, PLANNING Al>VISORY SERVICE Information ~t No. 66 (Chicago: ~ican Society of Planning Officials, Septeaber 1954). 12 2 C. J . s. 44, Adj oiuing Landowners, sec. 50. August 1958 5 '~ ages owners of adjacent properties." The court said that there is no uni- form fence regulation in the section of the zoning.. resolution in quesUon and pointed out that uniformity is abandoned ". . . because enforcement is left to a next door neighbor, a more distant neighbor, or to a zoning offi- cial." A case involving a s.imilar lack of standards (although decided on procedur- al grounds) is reported in 10 ZD 151, Incorporated Village of Plandane Manor v. Greene, 171 N.Y.S.2d 356 (1958). Pearson V. Baldwin, 270 P.2d 866, 6 ZD 180 (Cal.App. 1954) also involves a spite fence action brought under zoning ordinance provisions. CONTROL OF FENCES THROUGH ZONING "Fence" Defined It does not seem necessary to define "fence" in DIOst zoning ordinances. "Fence" has a clear meaning for which a dictionary definition will usually suffice. Fence provisions also usually cover walls, retaining walls, hedges, shrubbery, trees, "other growth," plants, flowers, screens, and "s:f.1llU.ar ob- structions." The principal use of a definition probably arises when a city wants to spe- Cifically include or exclude fences from the category of structures regula- ted by the ordinance. The Milford, Connecticut ordinance (1952) says ".. . . the word 'bUilding' includes the word 'structure' but does not in- clude the word 'fence'." However, the Philadelphia ordinance (proposed 1957) defines a fence as "an unroofed barrier or unroofed enclosing structure, in- cluding retaining walls." ~ditors' underscorinQ Definition of a fence as a structure may be of :f.1Ilportance in determining location of fence Ilro- visions within the zoningbrdinance. When a fence is not considered a structure, it is usually regulated as an encroa~hment or projection into yard spaces. When it is considered a struc- ture, it is usually regulated as an accessory structure. When a fence is treated as an encroachment, the fence provisions oftetll ap- pear in the supplementary regulatioussection, which also covers such de- tails as vision clearance, exceptions to height regulations, and other types of projections and encroachments. Fences occupy space in yards that Cl~ther- wise is supposed to be unoccupied. A typical provision in which fences are considered encroachlllents is tb.at in the Denver ordinance (1957). Fences or walls not exceeding 42 inche. in height may be erect- ed on any part of the Zone Lot between the front line of the Zone Lot and the front setback line for structures, and on any other part of the Zone Lot may be erected to a height of not to exceed 72 inches. The height of such walls or fences shall. be deterained by. meaSUI:ement frCllll the ground level at the lowaat grade level within three feet of either side of such walls or fences. Fences or walls permitted hereunder shall not be in- 6 Information Report Nel,. 113 cluded in computing compliance with Outside Area of Window Ex- posure. If a fence is regulated as an accessory structure, fence rules generally , appear in the district regulations. The zoning ordinances of Erie, Pennsyl- vania (1950) and Faribault, Minnesota (1952), for example, treat fences, walls, and hedges as accessory uses in residential districts . To. be an ac- cessary use, a fence must be an entity as opposed to. a projectian that is part of another entity. It is interesting, therefore, to note that in ~~ v. Zumpano the court held that a fence is a structure within the terms of the township zoning enabling statute, and that the phrase I~ses of buildings and otherstructures" cantemplated the right to. control the erection of fenc- es through a zoning resalution. (See also City of.. Chicaga v. Pie let , 342 Ill.App. 201, 95 N.E.2d 528 (1950), a nuisance case, in which it was held that a fence was a structure.) Height Limitations Where it is desirable to provide far different heights for different kinds of yards (as in the Denver ordinance provisian quoted earlier), the def:l.ni- tian of yards should be kept in mind and the height permitted in each SE~t forth. For example , a madel zoning ordinance for Florida13 contains a fence section as a supplementary district regulation for residence distI~icts, which reads: Notwithstanding other provisions of this ordinance, fences, walls, and hedges may .he permitted in any required yard, or along the edge af any yard,prov-ided that no fence, wall or hedge along the sides or front edge of any front yard shall be overtwaand one-half feet in height. The writers comment that ''The maximum of two and one-half feet for front yard fences or hedges is preserved as a safety factor, particularly where small children are concerned. Some cities include maximUDl height provisions on s ide and rear yard fences. The matter is one of policy for the individual city. " Strict contrals over the height and o.pacity of fences and similar obs.truc- tions appear in some ordinances. El Dorado, Kansas (1951) limits heigh1: to five feet and limits salidity to: .50 per cent. Mount LebanC)I1 TOWIlShip, It'enn- sylvania (1955) has the strictest provisions of any ordinance reviewed JEOr this report. Fences are limited to four feet in height, permitted in s:lde or rear yards only, and the ratio of open to. closed spaces JIlUSt be not less than fcurto one. Tiffin, Ohio. (1950) does not permit a fencetoextenci in frant of the building line. North Hempstead, New Yo.rk (1945) alSo. 1imi1:s height to. f;auzrfeet, as <fues Erie, Pennsylvania. Wheeling, Illinois haJl an ordinance provision (1~49)that allows a fence ". . . in which the open:Lngs between the materials of which the fence is. constructed represent less than 13Fred H. Bair, Jr. and Ernest R. Bartley, The Text af a Model Zoning Ordi- ~ance, with Commentary, Studies in Public Administration No. 16 (Gainesville: Public Administration Clearing Service of the University of Florida, 1958), pp. 35-36. August 1958 7 ~" "~ seventy per cent of the total surface ltfj] be erected to a height not exceed- ing four feet along the boundaries of the lot" and ". . . wire fences and other fences in which the openings between the materials of which the fence is constructed represent more than seventy per cent of the total are a.il be erected to a height of six' feet. " . A specific reference point for measuring height such as that in the Denver ordinance is a necessary detail.14 Because height limits are sometimes es- tablished in state spite fence statutes, it is deSirable to check the stat- utes before setting heights in the zoning ordinance, so that the local. maxi- mum is not higher than the state's. Along streets -- A provision governing height of fences in side yards 'men they border on a public way is sometimes added: ". . . and those in . . . any required side yard or extension thereof, shall not ex.ceed three auld one- half (3\) feet in height when side yard or its extension borders upon ,! street" (Midland, Michigan -- 1956). A variation of this appears in the San Diego County ordinance (1954): "Between an abutting front or side street and the minimum distance, the nearest main building is required to be set back from such street forty-two inches (42")." In front yards -- The heights permitted in front yards are usually lower be- cause of the safety aspect, as well as in the interest of preserving an un- obstructed view of open, green lawn.. There is little difference between restriction of vision by a wall or by a high, thick hedge. Both are hazards to cars coming into and out of driveways because they block the view of the driver. However, the pr.ecise effect of either can only be determined in a particular case because there is a wide variation from city to city and within a city of the relationships be~ (1) street width, (2) radius of driveway returns , and (3) curb line, planting strip, sidewalk, and pro:perty line location and distances. For example, there is a tendency today t,o plant trees between the sidewalk and the building line, which gives drivers a better view of pedestrians and cars. There is a provision in the Santa Barbara, California ordinance (1957), which says in the interests of safety, presumably, fl. . . no fence, screen, wall, or hedge located within ten (10) feet of a driveway shall exceed a height of three and one-half (3\) feet." Over hedges and other obstructions -- In addition to fences, some ordinances attempt to control walls, screens, hedges, and shrubberies because these obstructions pose many of the same problema that fences do. For example, the San Diego County ordinance provides: '~ees, shrubs, flowers, and plan1;:s shall be permitted in any yard, except that no hedge shall be grown or maintained at a height greater than that permitted by this ordinance for a solid fence." The Oyster Bay, New York ordinance (1953) notes in the fence provisions that ''The provisions hereof shall also apply to hedges or other densely growing shrubbery." l4The dissenting opinion in In re Appeal 'of Parker (214 N C 51 197 S E 706 .., . . (1938)) is partially based on a lack of clarity in establishing a point for height measurement. 8 Information Report N(). 113 The implication in distinguishing between hedges and other trees, plants, or shrubs is that a hedge obscures much more light, air, and view because it is denser and more opaque. However, the ordinance for the town of NOl:th Hempstead, New York specifically exempts '~edge, privet, trees, or other shrubbery" from height limitations. And Mount Lebanon Township, Pennsylvan- ia perlIlits ". . . trees, shrubs, and other planting . . . in required Y8l~ds provided they do not unduly block a clear view or vision for vehicular traf- fic." Differentiation is sometimes made between obstructive and ornamental plant- ings. The city of Chico, California in a 1958 amendment to the zoning or- dinance says that '~is provision is limited in its application to fences, shrubs, hedges, screen plantings and similar obstructions which are primar- ily intended or designed for fencing purposesj and this provision shall not be construed to prevent or prohibit shr.ubs, trees, or other ornamental plantings which are primarily intended or designed for landscaping purposes." Administration of. such a provision might be difficult, however. Exceptions For openneBB -- Fences can sometimes be built above the height limit if 1l:hey are ornamental; such provisions usually require that the fence be largely open above the height limit. For instance, the Sarasota, Florida ordinance (1954) pro.vides that "an ornamental fence may be higher than six feetwh4an all of the structure above .the six-foot height shall have a ratio of solid portion to. open portion not in excess of one to fo.ur." Similar provisiolt1S ar.e found in the Chicago (1957), Erie, Pennsylvania, and Faribault, Minnie.. sota zoning ordinances. Tiffin, Ohio allows "an ornamental fence to a reasonable height in excess of five feet." And the Chicago ordinance pro- vides that. 'visibility at rightangles to any surface of such fence not be reduced by more than 20 per cent" for open type fences exceeding five felet in height. Inside building linet -- A distinction should be made between walls and fences within the building or yard setback lines and those built ,on property lines or within yards. So long as the required front, side, and rear yards are provided, many o.rdinances permit a wall or fence almost without restric- tion, save that the height no.t exceed the limit for the main building. The San Diego.County ordinance explicitly states that ''within any area where a main building is permitted.@'e height limit for fences shall be t@ same as for the main building." The question that arises at this point is whether a fence within the build- ing line may be damaging to owners of abutting property. Where required side and rear yards are narrow, a fence as high as the main building is obviously an unwelcome ,obstruction; and there could bea strong suspicion of spite in a fence that was nearly as high as the main building. The only defense that a cOlDlllUnity has against such an abuse is to limit heights within building lines. as well as within yards. A reasonable height limit can be decided upon by considering the height of walls and fences erected for legitimate purpos.es, such as Qne used to enclose a formal garden. August 1958 9 '~ . Light computations -- Fences inside yards on narrow lots can came close to shutting out light and air from windows opening on them. The six-foot high fences allowed under some ordinances in side yards virtually necessitate a side yard wider than usual. The Denver ordinance takes special n~te of the possibility of blocking light by walls and fences. It exempts walls and fences from the category of ob- structions in calculating units of light access, or, as put in the ordjlnance, "outside area of window exposure." This exemption can be justified on the grounds that most fences and walls are limited to a height that will nc)t greatly obstruct light. Consent Provisions No doubt with the thought in mind that a principal cause of fence trouble is the resentment that neighbors feel when a fence is built -- rather than the loss of light and air -- some ordinances require that the written (:on- sent of owners of abutting property be secured before a fence is built.. The El Dorado, Kansas ordinance provides, for example, that ''no fence en' wall more than fifty (50) per cent solid or more than five (5) feet in height shall be erected along any front o-r side street line nor within the limits of any side yard or rear yard abutting another lot without the ~~it- ten consent of such abutting lot owner." The Sarasota, Florida ordinance has a similar provision. The El Paso, Texas ordinance (1955) says that: owners of abutting property may jointly build a fencE!' closer to their f:ront lot lines and higher than permitted under the ordinance if they put the!ir agreement in writing and file it with the department of public inspecti.on before they start construction. Since consent provisions are not considered good practice, this procedure is not recommended. Special Problems The Beverly Hills, California (1947) ordinance contemplates abuses that might arise in fence and wall construction. The first paragraph, quoted below, controls the bulk of a wall or fence (when coupled with height con- trol), insures a minimum passageway between a fence that parallels a.build- ing on a lot, and provides for enclosed spaces, such as a patio, by allow- ing a wall or fence to be attached to a building. The second paragraph pro- hibits the use.of a wall as a structure or building not otherwise permitted in yards. Walls, gates, and/or fences, if built, erected or constructed within three feet (3') of any common pro-perty line of lot shall not have a thickness in excess of three feet (3') meas- ured at right angle to said lot line. No portion of any wall shall be constructed nearer than two feet (2').to any portion of ~y building on the same lot except a porte cochere portion, provided that at its end a wall may be in co-ntactwith a build- ing, and may be returned at its end and contact a building. 10 Information Report No. 113 No interior space in any portion of any wall built, erected or constructed within three feet (3') of any cOllllllOn property line of lot shall be used for storage, housing, or other purpoges unless such portion of such wall is at a greater distance from the street or streets upon which a setback is established or maintained than the setback diseance. Fences around public property -- Under some ordinances, fences and walls around public property, particularly schools and playgrounds, are exempt from fence provisions or are specially treated. The Santa Barbara ordinance says "an open mesh type fence to enclose an elementary or high school site may be located and maintained in any required yard." Mount Lebanon Town- ship, Pennsylvania allows "for schools, playgrounds, and parks in any Dis- trict, an open fence with a ratio of the open portion to the solid portion of not less than six to one (6:1), not more than ten (10) feet in height, in a side and rearya:rd." An example of another exemption appears in the Midland, Michigan ordinance: "This regulation shall not apply to chain link fences erected on public recreational areas, school grounds and' in in- dustrial districts." Retaining walls -- Retaining walls are also considered in some ordinances. Two proyisions that illustrate opposing approaches are given below: Retaining walls shall not extend above . the surface of the ground which they support. --North Hempstead, New York Retaining walls shall be considered as fences and control- led under thisparagraphtq the extent.that such walls pro- trudeabove the actual ground level at the highest point of e such walb. -- Philadelphia (propos.ed) It seems reasonable to anow retaining walls to extend above the finished grade to sub_stitute,for fencing needed to prevent people from falling off t he embankment ..The . diss.en t in.. the Parker case, cited ear 1 ier, takes nof4! of the need for a clearly worded provision on retaining walls as a.base for measuring maximum.. height. Variation by zone-- Although there is probably more to be said for .not varying fen.ce height . limits. by . re~idf!tlce districts than for varying them, it maybe desir.abletoplac~ a. more restrictive height limit on fences in certain districts or where yards are especially narrow or lots are. small. The court inState. v.Zumpano stated that a variation in regulations from. district to di$trictmaYbeJustified. Ac1ministrativevarian~es. --It . seems undesirable to grant to boards. of. c:lp- peal, building inspectors, or municipal legislators the power to make eJt- ceptions to fence heights .at will,as some ordinances provide. In the . in- terests of uniformity, variation in maximum fence heights should no.tbe al- lowed freely within a, Zoning district. . However, exceptional cases maY be handled undet the general power given to boards of appeal to grantvari~ln- ces. Safety Instead of general municipal control over hazardous fences, provisions pro- hibiting dangerous fence materials sometimes appear in zoning ordinances. August 1958 11 -----~ However, the zoning ordinance is usually not the proper place for such de- tailed regulations. A typical provision appears in the El Paso, Texas zoning ordinance, which says 'no electrified fence or wall or any fence-or wall containing broken glass, barbed wire, or other substances reasonably calculated to do bodily harm shall be permitted." And under the Santa Barbara ord,inance: ". . . no barbed wire shall be used or maintained in or about the construction of a fence, screen, wall or hedge along the front, side or rear lines of any lot, or within three (3) feet of said lines, and no sharp wire or points shall project at the top of any fence or wall less than six (6) feet in height." Vision Clearance A provision regulating vision clearance at street intersections is more common in zoning ordinances than in general fence regulations. The chief differences among vision clearance provisions are height limits, setback distances, and the method of determining setback distances. Setback dis- tances are most commonly measured from the intersection of property or right-of-way lines at corners. The usual practice is to forbid obstructions over a certain height in a triangle established by measuring a certain dis- tance back from the property line intusection and then connecting the t'wo points established by measurement. The hypotenuse of the triangle becomes the setback line. A typical provision follows: On a corner lot in a residence or neighborhood business zone no fence, wall, shrubbery, sign, marquee, or othu obstruction to vision between a height of three and one-half feet and ten feet above the .centerline grades of the i~~ersecting streets shall be erected,placed, planted, allowed to grow, or main-' tained within the triangular yard space formed by the inter- secting street lines and a line joining points on such street lines thirty feet from the point of intersection of the street lines. Where applicable -- Vision clearance regulations MOstly affect residential zones but sometimes include neighborhood business districts where front yard setbacks have been established. Because land.. is usually expensiv.e in ma'in business districts and because those areas are often built up when a zoning ordinance is first adopted, it is not custOlll8rY to require front yards i:n such districts. On the other hand, it is CODlll101l practice to requir.e front yards in neighborhood buSiness districts so that contiguous business and residential zones appear similar and surrounding residential properties are not depreciated by the nearby businesses. An addition to the applicability of the basic regulation was noted in the Colorado Springs, Colorado ordinance (1954) in which vision clearance set- b~cks must be made at the intersection of streets and railroads. Height measurement -- Within the vision clearance triangle, heights are usually liaited to between two and one-half and three and one-half feet. The most restrictive limit found in the ordinances examined was two feet 12 Information Report No. 113 in the Milford, Connecticut ordinance. A maximum of four feet was permUted by Sarasota, Florida. Under some ordinances, overhanging objects withilrl the triangle, such as marquees or tree limbs, are allowed only if they are .above a certain height, usually from eight to ten feet above the basepoint. Col- orado Springs, Colorado prohibits ove:rhangs except above 12 feet. The IIIIOSt cammon base point for measuring heights is the level of the street pavement at the point where the st:reet center lines intersect. In the model zoning ordinance for Florida: mentioned earlier, comments are made on the height to be permitted within the triangle: The 2\ foot requirement'is practical, and, from the safety standpoint, the maximum that should be allowed. Drivers of small European sports cars coming up to an intersection where the hedge is more than 2\ feet above the center grade line ,of the street simply cannot see over it. Most children can be seen over a 2\ foot hedge or solid fence. If the limit is raised to 3 or 4 feet, the requirement might just as well be omitted. Allowing obstructions above 10 feet is necessary because of ~ree limbs; such an obst.ruction in no way affects safety factor.. Triangle measurement -- Distances to be measured along the street line vary from five feet in North Hempstead, New York to 75 feet in Santa Barbara} California. However, a :report titled Municipal Regulation .of Traffic View Obstructions15 suggests a different method of establishing a vision clear- ance triangle. . . . it is recommended that zoning ordinances require setbacks in residential districts as required by a city's zoning ordi- nance maps and that a sight triangular area at all corners be estab1iahed by measurements along intersecting street lines, and within the sight triangular area and within the setback area along the street, the ordinance should declare it to be unlawful to install, to set out, or maintain, or to allow the installation, setting out, or maintenance of any structures, signs, hedges, shrubbery,natural growth, or other obstruction to view, higher than three feet s Dc inches above the 1eveiof the center of the adjacent intersection. This should not apply retroactively to permanent structures; public utility poles; ..' trees trimmed (to the trunk) to a line at least eightfeetal)ove the level of the intersection; saplings, or plant speoies of ' open growth habits and not planted in the form of a hedge, which are so planted and trimmed as to leave at all seasons a clear <and unobstructed cross-view; supporting .m.embersof app\lr- tenances to existing structures; official warning signs orsig- nab; . to places where the contour of the ground is sueh that there canbeno;C:ros.s-visibi1ityat the intersectign;or to signsmol11lted 10 feet or more above the ground and whose sup- ports do not constitut:e an obstruction. 15Municipa1Regu1ation of Traffic View Obstructions, Report No. .112, Bureau of GovernDlental Research and Services (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1953), pp.36-37. August 1958 13 The triangular area should be determined by measuring 80 feet along the center line of intersecting streets from the point of intersection of the same, thus providing for a sight tri- angle across the corner lots. Regardless of the width of the intersecting rights-of-way or the amount of required zoning setback, this stopping distance of 80 feet for 20 M.P.H. speed or 90 feet for 25 M.P.H. speed always is obtained with a tri- angular area free from sight obstructions under the combina- tion of zoning setback and corner sight triangle as recommended above. The use of street center lines instead of right-of-way lines to determine the vision triangle appears to be a superior method, in that traffic en,gi- neering measurements of effective stopping sight distances for speeds common in residential areas can be used to determine length of the sides of the triangle. One modification that might be necessary is to lengthen the sides of the tri- angle as the width of the streets increases in order to account for dri.vers in right-hand lanes. The speed figures recommended above are postulated on the presumption that the max~um street width in residential areas will. be 60 feet. Another point about which there might be disagreement is the exemption of corners where topography l~its cross-visibility. Some ordinances req\1ire that there be no ''blind'' corners even if high banks must be cut down to open up a vision triangle. SOME ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS Privacy - the Patio and Outdoor Room Attention is being given to means of increasing the number of dwelling units an acre by using row house types. And an essential element of plans for row house developments is privacy in the face of high densities. Fences and walls are means of achieving privacy in outdoor spaces around such dwellings. Provisions for unusual wall and fence heights may be warranted under the circumstances. The precedent for houses with walled-in courts and patios comes from the Spanish influence, as seen in New Orleans, Savannah, and towns in southwestern United States. The Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia made a study of row house developments that shows the value of fences and walls as devices for privacy .16 The report says: The adoption of the "outdoor room" concept imposes certain design requirements, whether between house and street or in inverted houses &ith the living rOCRll in the reY]. This out- door area is valuable and should be private. Extensions of l~astwick New House Study (Philadelphia: Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia, 21st Street and Parkway, 1957), p. 39. 14 Information Report No.. 113 party walls or the provisiQn of wood walls. trellises or fenc- es are indispensable to the best exploitation of these spaces. Ordinances might provide for such exper:1Jaents by varying regulations by zone or through the exceptions that are allowed for large-scale housing develop- ments. Light If obstruction ,of light by walls and fences seriQUBly lowers residential standards, it may be necessary to not only restrict fences and walls tell pro- tect the neighbors, but also to protect . the property of the man who bui.lds the fence qr wall. For instance, if the housing code requires a certai.n amount of light and air by window, light and air -- and view -- should be protected by the imposition of angle of light obstruction, units of light access. or other formulae. (See Information Report No. Ill, Floor Area Ratio, pages 24 and 25, for brief explanations of these teras.) At mos~t, of course, these -specialized controls .result only in forcing the builders of fences and walls to set them back frC8 windows short distances. Air Flow Air flow over anda;round fences and planting screens, as well as arouncl buildings, is now being investigated ,17 Soon it should be "ssible to know with fair precision how to get the most out of favorable cooling breezes in summer and how to protect against chill winds in winter. Some studies on fence design point to surprising conclusions about the effects of vari4)us types of fences on wind currents. Far ex8lllple, the solid fence penaitll the quickest return to normal wind velocities on the lee -- or protected u side (recovery with 35 feet). Therefore, a solid barrier design might be the most favorable if cClllplete privacy and SUllllller breezes are both des:lred. Many other fences: would be excellent as wixulbreaks; wind velocities fa:ll to recover in distances up to 100 feet in the lee of smae fences. Noise Control Fences, walla, and hedges used as s:cr-een ar shields againat neighbOrhood noises can do auch to cut. down air-borne noises and make residential prop- 17For additional readings on the subject, .ee the following: Robert F. White. trContemparary Landscape Screens Show Various Effects :in Wind Tunnel Breezes, tr Texas Engineering Experiment Station News, March 1958, pp. 8-13. Robert F. White, "Landscape Devel9JDfmt and Natural Ventilation," Lan~ Architecture, January-'1955, pp. 72-80. "Air Flow Around Buildings." Architectural Forum:. September 1957, pp. 166- 168. "Wind Testa: Which Fence Is Best? tr How' to Build Fences and Gates (Menlo Park, California: Lane Pltblishing Co., 1951) pp. 75-76. August 1958 15 ------~ erties more livable. For instance, the Pasadena, California zoning ordinance (1954) takes notice of the value of buffers for "property exposed toexcep- tional hazards of traffic, trespass, dust or noise," and allows higher fenc- es to meet such conditions under a variance procedure. THE COURTS ON FENCE REGULATIONS The attitude of the courts toward fence regulation through zoning is not well established except on vision clearance provisions, which have frequent- ly been upheld -- on safety grounds. But in two reported cases (not vision clearance regulations) the courts held zoning fence regulations invalid on grounds that they imposed strict height l~its. In the case of Wondrak v. Kelly, 129 Ohio St. 268, 195 N.E. 65 (1935), the court ruled invalid a limit of three and one-half feet on divisiQn line fences (presUlll8.bly side and rear yard property line fences). The court said that such a low height had no reasanable relation to. the public safety, al- though evidence given by police and fire chiefs was considered. In the case of Lamkin v. City of Bellaire, 308 S.W.2d 70, 10 ZD 88 (Tu:. Civ.App. 1958) the court held invalid a .zoning ordinance provision that: did not permit fences, walls, or similar enclosures in the front yard. The city had brought suit to have four-foot side yard fences and a two and one-half-foot front yard fence removed. The court of appeals held that: for a zaning ordinance to. prohibit fences in the front yard was 80 unreasOl1Lable concerning the two and one-half-foot fence in question as to be unenfox'ce- able. In a case not involving zoning, Wi1li.am.8 v. City af Hudson, 219 Wis. 119, 262 N.W. 607 (1935), the Wisc()nBin Supreme Court held a fence ordinance in- valid. stating that COlDDlOt1 law has always protected the landowner in the right to. fence his property; this was a property right that could not be interferred with unreasonably. The court said "to deprive-one of this right to use his yard and home in a way which does not interfere with the usual and lawful coaaerce and life of a coaaunity would be exercising a high power that is not to be used except when the public welfare requires it. " The restrictions were not considered by the court a$ being an exer- cise of the police power. '1 Although the language of the court at that time was broad, changing judi- cial attitudes may have modified the need for restraint in fenee regulations that this case emphasizes. The Parker case cited earlier is largely a vision clearance ease. Although often used in support- of the idea that the courts may considered a five- or six-foot fence limit in front and rear yarda reasonable, the ~incipal issue was a IS-foot wall at the intersection of a street and alley .18 Poasible 18However, in the dissenting opinion it was painted out that the ordinance provision at issue was not aimed at vision clearance, although the aajll)t'ity opinion was largely based on safety hazaTds at the corner. 16 Information Report No. 113 fire hazards frCllll difficulties of access to the prOPerty were also dis- cussed. 19 A SEPARATE FENCE. ORDINANCE? Perhaps the most important point to' be made concerning both vision clem:'- ance and general fence regulations is that such prOVisions probably do Dlot belong in the zoning ordinance. Several municipalities regulate fences, particularly the vision clearance and dangerous materials aspects:J thrOtllgh separate ordinanees. Chicago contro.ls barbed wire fences and fences as right-of-way abstructi.ons under a special ordinance. The city of San Diego's "fence ordinance" makes reference where necessary to the zoning ordinance (relating permitted. heights to residential and certain commercial zones, for instance). Enactment of fence c::ontrals in a separate ordinance would help to reduce the length BL11d the profue-ion of detail in "c::atchall" zoning <<dinances. CONCLUSIONS Fences, walls ,and plantinga in residential areas can prove to be troubl.e- some, though minor problema. But for purpos:es of privacy, shade, wind- breaking. and noise control, fences, walls, and hedges are justified. COIIl- muniti.es contemplating prohibition or restriction of fences in an effort: to keep yards open should also recognize their positive values. Although fences, walla, and plantings have been extensively regulated tbrough zoning ordinances', it seems more desirabl.e to' control them through a separ- ate f4!nce ordinance. However, su-ch regutaticms should be coordinated with the zoning ordinance. Such problems as. dangerous materials and vision (:lear- ance are especially suited to treatment in a special ordinance . Fences probably have been regulated by zoning because they are an asPect: of neighborhood enviromuent. However, zoning ordinances have been used _ in a. mistaken effort to. control spite fences in some instances. The courts ba.ve not been sympathetic:: to zoning provisions u./ which the language revea1ecl that, the am was- spite fence contro.l. The only direct control a Blmicipal- ity can have over spite fences is height. In addition to height, zoning r.egulationa can controlopenneu, locati011, and materials. Howevex" "opeIl1\ess" provisions are not believed to be wine 190ne reason given for the requirement of side yards has provide fire lanes between buildings, which a.1low access equipment. Fences are certainly a block to easy access. Green, Jr., Zoning in North Carolina (Chapel Hill, N.C.: North Carolina, Institute of Government, 1952), p. 202. been that they for fire fight:f.ng See Philip P. University of August 1958 17 ..~~ I because enforcement is diffi-eult. A few ordinances contain consent pro-' visions and allow SOIIIIe height exceptions. Neither practice is reC<lllllll8Tlcled. Vision clearance provisions should be more closely related to traffic e11gi- neering calculations of effective stopping sight distances, if city ()ffi- cials believe that vision clearance i. a necessary supplement to traffic control devices. The use of fences, walla, and plantings far both functional and decorative landscaping is being studied. The effect of such landscape elements on light and air can now be fairly well predicted and controlled. The use of fences, wall.-, and plantings to provide privacy fen- patios and "outdoor rooms" suggea:ts that conventional ordinance provisions may have to be rle- considered. 18 Information Report No. 113 . - In an effc.rt tC) .::\ddl~E?g-,;S thE' qUE?stion cd "t.::, h.::'\ve Ol~ not to h.::\Vf~" sty'eet fenCE)S, Im.::\de ~:\ l~.::\t;her" infcl\~m.::\l, vel-"bal poll of ~some of the E)mployees I h.:.wl:'? cont"~H:t w.i th prE't;ty regularly. The following ideas/thoughts/con~erns were the result of my poll: What is the purpose? A uniform city? EIOI~in!;;l! l"16notonou!:,;. No v:b-:;,ibi.lity into .::\t"E)a!::; which C.::\I'1 be qui.t€.? bf:'?autiful (the dl~ivE:) along Houth~..jo.:)d betwE)f~n Southwes;t; PaY'kw.::\y ~;\nd F.M 2El18) ("'low would th€~ PE?bbl€-:~ CI"E~f~k sl..ll:ldivi.si()n, 01" .:.'\ny !''subdivision of that type be har~led. That is, what would you do in an,~.::\j:S wh€~re bf:.-~.::\utiful gc.lf COUI~Se?S were? thE? viE'~w, .::\nd ~..jhat if those course cross ~treets? If fences have to stay out of easements, and certain f:'?a~:;emf:;)ntj:s h.::\ve to be.\' l,::.cated within .::\ b.:.~ckyaY'd, owney' o'f that yard would have limited use of h~s property. If fences must be built with the subdivision, and prior to i~ss;UanCE) of building pE?I~mits, .::\cces;~s to lot~s f(;:'l~ hom€~ c()nj::; t l~ U c tic.n ~~'oul d be ~:;IY'€")a t I y impE)df?d. If utility e?asements al"e "fencf;)d out" Ol~ if fenc("?~s ~:\n~ allowed in utility easements, gates of a width of at least 10 feet wide should be required. Reminder: maintenance of gates is very difficult and the larger the gate, the more difficult to keep in good working condition. F.il"e hYf.:ll~f.:\ntE; could not tIE? lOCf.:\tE?d along th'::'~:;E? stref~t~~ ide:.mtifiE?cl to hav€,~ l~equi.n,~dfence!',,; b€~ca,-lsE) acces;s to the homf:)S:; along t hos€~ s t r€~€")ts; wou 1 d nc:d; be .::\Vai lab 1 €~ to 1i I~E? 'f i.!;;!hters;. Enforcement of maintenance of areas outside fences or of easements which have been fenced off wo~ld require more manhours than seem to be available with current manpower. If fences are permitted as structures, additional reviewing and inspection time wi.ll be required prior to what? Certificate of Occupancy or Filing of Plat? "'. If a fence is placed in a location which causes a boundary dis:;putE) bet~Jf.~e:m lando~..jI'1f;)I~~S, ~Jould thE? City be?comf:) .::\ P.::\l'-ty .to the dispute because plans would have to be reviewed and location of fences would have to be part of the approval process. Additional li.ability to the City??? Would only new fences be required to be permitted? What would cause enforcement personnel to require repair of a fence. Standards would have to be set for all the di 'fferent tYPf~S c,f fencf,:'!S. The purposed ordinances appears to cross the boundaries of th~ Zonihg Ordinance, the Subdivision Regulations, and several parts of the Building Code. If that be the case, who would be the official enforcement person or authority on th€~ "h()w's; to build"? Wou I d t h€~ 0 I d t I" iE~d and t r Ut~ II h U 1"1" i C.i':\ne f€HI ce" not be alloWE!d. .i':\nywhe.I"e? IAJh.:,\t <i:lbout bu!:~.i.nE!SS; "holdin!;! .:,\rE?a~~" .;;\5 was. allowed at NCNB for repossessed cars, and in various type~~ cd: bu!::;in€~s:.;s;E-~s wtH:~'l~e S;E?cul"ity fol" on€~ thinf:~ r::1j~ .:':\nothf~l" ~".i':\~~ dE!!:si red, C'I~ eVEH'1 wt'i€~m I.,l~~f.~d at::; .:,\ mE')an!:~ to kE?E!P the pub 1 i c out of a parking area which did not come up to standards for use by thepubl~c? (Some plumbin!;! company some years ago ~".i':\~~ allowed 1;0 f:.~yavel pat-t o'f thf.':~ pal"k.inf~j lot and ff.'?ncE! ~"ith the chain-link fence.) , ,-:. " 'lAf'CITYOF COLLEGE STATION \8 W .... OFFICE ,OF THE CITY MANAGER . .. . .. Post om"" Box. 9960 1101 Tex.as Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3510 MEMORANDUM TO: Ron Ragland, City Manager FROM: Torn Brymer, ~=n?~tys~~;g:droup-zt DATE: October 30, 1991 SUBJECT: Status Report- Council 'Issue #2 Sidewalks/Bikeways Council Issue #8 Drainage - Drainage Policy I wanted to give you a .brief status report on the Council issues for 1990-B1 referenced above.. In terms of, Council Issue #8,it has ,been combined with Council. Issue #2 Sidewalks/Bikeways ,due to those issues pertaining to many of the same things. ,The policy analysis portion of these two council issues is in the process of being finished up so it can be taken to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and input before it ,is brought to Gouncil. As the attached schedule ,from Elrey Ash indicates, beginning November 7th we will be taking items pertaining to proposed changes in the subdivision ordinance on sidewalks to ,the Planning and Zoning,., Commission followed by otherproposE~d recommendations to ,our other development related. policies such as the Stormwa.ter ManagernentOrdinance and the Subdivision Ordinance. In addition, we will be bringing proposed ordinance amendments, pertaining to placement of fences as well as placement of screening fences along thoroughfares. As far as the operational side of Council Issue #8 (Drainage Policy) is concerned, we are focusing on that as well. The focus on this area of Council Issue #8 centers on drainage/common area maintenance and "its relationship to code enforcement as well as the relationship of drainage/common area maintenance to,a drainage CIP. We are meeting at the staff I,evel to address these this week and I will give you astatus report onthemsoon. In dealing with these areas we are focusing on the existing areas of College Station that are already built and have drainage/common area and infrastructure in.. place and how we deal with that both in terms of our maintenance operations, citizen responsibilities, and citizen education/enforcement - Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this status report. attachment cc: J. LaBeau E. Ash J. Callaway C. Locke M. Smith D. Pullen V. Morgan D. Keating RECE.NEO ~ltN 0 \ 1991 ~.*(CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~..~. . DEVELOPMENt SERVICES DEPARTMENT Po~t Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station. Texas 77842-0960 (409) 764-3570 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Elrey B. Ash, Director of Development Services ~ DATE: October 17, 1991 RE: Action plan for ordinance amendments (Council Issue No.8) Over the next few weeks there area number of weighty issues that face us that will require ordinance amendments. I have attempted to outline a time frame that the staff will try to adhere to so that we can accomplish these tasks by the end of January. Foll<>wiIlg, are the dates for action: November 7th p&z'meetlng November 21st P&Zmeeting December 5th P&Z meeting December 12th Council mtg. December 19th P&Z, meeting January 9th Council mtg. January 16th P&Z meeting ReView and comment on amendments to the subdivision regs. on sidewalks. Draft of the drainage ord. given to P&Z. Send recommendations to council on amendments to code of ordinances with regard to access and subdiv. ord. with respect to sidewalks. Discuss drainage ordinance Send recommendations to council on drainage ord. Amend subd. regs.- sidewalks Amend code - driveway access Discuss ord,. amend. for fences and common areas. Amend drainage ordinance Send recommendations to council on ord.amends. for fences and common areas. Amend ords. on fences and common areas. "'Building a Better City in Partnership with YouH January 23rd Coune i 1 mtg. ... , Council Issue #8 - Drainage Policy Goal: Use all available'resources to minimize flood damage as well as educate citizens concerning private vs. public responsibilities. 3. Clearly identify City's role Maximize opportunities for prevention (maintenance & design) Identify who's generating demand for service so appropriate entity bears costs, and Educate citizens Objective 1. 2. 4. Two Aspects of Issue to Deal With: New development and existing development. New development deal with through policy changes. Existing areas and CCIssue #8, how do we deal with them? Drainage ways, ROW, Common Areas Sub-Goal: To address,effectively CC Issue #8 as it pertains to already developed areas by effectively coordinating drainage and mowing maintenance (base level) with code enforcement. Objectives: A. Identify all drainage ways, ROW, common areas that for whatever reason, cannot be maintained by property owner for base level maintenance by City; code enforcement and Public Services agree city will maintain these. *define base level maintenance B. Identify those ROWs, drainage ways, Common areas that property owners can be reasonably expected to maintain. 1. City still to provide base level drainage maintenance if needed. 2. Code enforcement to require property owner maintain all other times. a. prioritize enforcement areas (bad, good, worst, etc.) b. educate/inform property owners in these areas of their responsibilities under City ordinance prior to proceeding with enforcement. C. Review drainage ways, common areas, etc. that were identified as non-maintainable by property owner for prioritized CIP. D. Explore preliminary feaSibility of alternate maintenance funding approaches including drainage utility Criteria for when city provides ,base level maintenance? - way it's platted -high visibility - topography - exempt from code enforcement ie: agric. land B. Criteria for when property owner maintains? Inventory ofall current drainage and ROW mowing Joe December 2. 1991 Develop Criteria for City maintenance/Private maintenance and develop a clear definition of base level maintenance.