|
|
|
 |
STAFF REPORT
TO: LAKEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
THRU: Roger Wadnal, Manager of Development Review & Code Enforcement
FROM: Susan Piercy, Project Manager
DATE: June 16, 2004
P.C. Date: April 7, 2004
SUBJECT: OA-03-003: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments adding, clarifying and amending various sections of Article 2: Definitions and Interpretations, Article 5: District Regulations and repealing and reenacting Article 8: Fences, Walls and Obstructions to View.
BACKGROUND
The Lakewood Zoning Code Enforcement Division has had a number of code enforcement issues come up over the past few years with relation to fence placement, fence condition and fence materials that subsequently warranted a review of the current regulations to determine whether or not the fence code adequately served its purpose. In reviewing Article 8 it became apparent that the existing language needed clarification for both the permitting and enforcement function The fence requirements as well as their limitations were not clear to the public and to contractors and the ordinance was very vague with respect to violation and enforcement. The City's legal counsel advised staff that there was little that they could do to defend an obvious violation because the parameters were not clear. Staff began working on a revised ordinance and as the work progressed it became clear that all of Article 8 needed revision along with the provision of additional definitions in Article 2. As a result, the following proposed ordinance amendment is before you this evening for your review and recommendation.
The issue was discussed at a Planning Commission study session on February 4, 2004 and on March 3, 2004. There were several changes made to the Exception Section (Section 17-8-4) of the revised Article 8 to incorporate several references to Performance Based Standards as well as an addition of a definition of the same to Article 2. Staff was directed to move forward with the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment. Those changes have been made and the revised Ordinance is before you this evening.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Attached is the proposed Ordinance for Planning Commission review. Copies
of the sections of Article 5 and Article 2 that are proposed to be amended are
attached and will serve as a "compare copy". Those items to be inserted
are HIGLIGHTED and those items to be removed or amended are in STRIKETHROUGH.
As all of Article 8 is to be repealed and reenacted the "compare copy"
is a current copy of Article 8
Rather than repeat in detail each of the proposed changes, the following section
highlights some of the changes that you should look for when reviewing each
Article.
ARTICLE 2: DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION
There is one amendment and several additions that have been made to Article 2. The changes are summarized by section below. Please note that the definition numbering reflects the final version after renumbering has occurred.
Article 17-2-2 Definitions
Section 17-2-2 (22) was modified to include the definition of Arbor to clarify the Ordinance.
Section 17-2-2 (125) was modified to expand the definition of Fence to include types of fences and walls and the intended purpose of a fence.
Section 17-2-2(126) was modified to include a definition of Fence, Lattice to clarify the Ordinance.
Section 17-2-2(127) was modified to include a definition of Fence, Nonconforming to clarify the Ordinance.
Section 17-2-2(128) was modified to include a definition of Fence, Ornamental to clarify the Ordinance.
Section 17-2-2(129) was modified to include a definition of Fence, Open to clarify the Ordinance.
Section 17-2-2(130) was modified to include a definition of Fence, Solid to clarify the Ordinance.
Section 17-2-2 (268) was modified to include the definition of Performance Based Standards to clarify the Ordinance.
Section 17-2-2(269) was modified to include the definition of Pergola to clarify the Ordinance.
Section 17-2-2(413) was amended to include the definition of Trellis to clarify the Ordinance.
ARTICLE 5: DISTRICT REGULATIONS
There are several deletions and additions that have been made to this Article. The changes are summarized by section below:
The chart in Section 17-5-7 (5)(R1A) thru Section 17-5-14(5) (6-R) was modified to require that a fence be setback a minimum of two feet (2') from back of walk rather than three feet (3') from back of walk. This allows the Zoning Ordinance to correspond with the Engineering Standards as noted in the City of Lakewood Engineering Regulations, Construction Specifications and Design Standards manual.
Sections 17-5-15(5) (OF); 17-5-16(5) (1-C); 17-5-17(5) (2-C); 17-5-18(5) (3-C); 17-5-19(5) (4-C); 17-5-20(5) (5-C); 17-5-21(5) (IN) were modified to specifically reference Article 8 for regulations concerning commercial and industrial fencing, rather than go into specific detail for each district.
ARTICLE 8: FENCES, WALLS AND OBSTRUCTIONS TO VIEW
As mentioned above, Article 8 is proposed to be completely repealed and reenacted to try and incorporate all of the necessary changes. A summary of the more significant changes is as follows.
· Clarification language has been added to identify approved fence materials. There have been a number of issues over the years involving the use of recycled materials and junk for fencing. The Code Enforcement Section has had difficulty in responding to citizen complaints and enforcing the Code because the existing language is inadequate. Section 17-8-10(2) has been added to make more clear what types of materials are permitted and those materials that are specifically prohibited. For example, under the proposed code, automobile and truck parts are specifically prohibited fence materials.
· Specific language has been added for fence maintenance. There have been a number of recent code enforcement issues related to fences that are in disrepair or that have become a hazard or nuisance. Section 17-8-5 has been added to clearly identify what is considered to be "in disrepair" and gives the Code Enforcement officers enforcement "teeth" in getting these issues resolved. For example, a sagging fence that is considered to be in disrepair has been defined as a fence that sags or leans to one side or the other by 20º or more. This allows the zoning officers the opportunity to work with the property owner in understandable measurement terms to fix the problem.
· Clarification language and an illustration have been added with regard to fence and retaining wall combinations. The existing language is not clear particularly as it applies to the definition of a retaining wall. This has resulted in code violations. A definition of retaining wall has been included to avoid future confusion. An illustration has been added to further assist fence contractors and citizens to understand how the fence/retaining wall combination is measured.
· Specific performance standards and guidelines have been included for both residential and commercial fences. These include such things as requiring that gates that are adjacent to a sidewalk or public way must open inward to the private property and commercial gates must respect a 20' stacking distance so that cars waiting to enter a gate do not block traffic.
PERFORMANCE-BASED STANDARDS (PBS)
· An exception process directly related to Performance-Based Standards has been added under Section 17-8-4 to provide the Director of Community Development and Planning the ability to make administrative decisions regarding the height, location and materials of fences rather than require property owners to go through the variance process and the Board of Adjustment. Staff recognizes that the Ordinance cannot address all types of fencing and their location and that special circumstances my arise that warrant an exception. This process is more streamlined and can allow for additional flexibility and creativity for property owners. All appeals to the Director's decision will be made to the Lakewood Board of Adjustment.
· Section 17-8-11 has been added to outline how violations of the Fence Ordinance may be enforced. This will assist Code Enforcement.
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
These proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance are recommended by staff and they are the changes seen by Planning Commission at the February 4, 2004 study session. The proposed amendments are to clarify issues that may have been subject to a question in interpretation or that may have been in conflict with different sections of the Ordinance.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The City of Lakewood Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that:
1. There is a need to modify the Zoning Ordinance in order to correct minor
conflicts between different sections and/or to clarify standards in order to
minimize the risk of different interpretations of the Ordinance; and
2. The City attorney has reviewed the amendments and found that they are in
compliance with legally defensible applications of the permitted uses of the
Zoning Ordinance;
AND
That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council APPROVE the Ordinance Amendment Case No. OA-03-003 subject to:
1. Any corrections or additions that are recommended by Planning Commission at the March 17, 2004 hearing, as well as the legal issues from the City Attorney's office which shall be incorporated into the final version of the amendments prior to staff scheduling this case on a City Council agenda.
encl: Proposed Ordinance
compare copy of Article 2, Article 5 and Article 8
 |
||
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice |
||
