Laserfiche WebLink
Tom Rieiiesel reviewed the application, which pertained io a request.fh� an 8-foot fence around large <br />garden areas. He -pointed out several issues as:follows: <br />The standard fence ordinance in C•em. Lake limits fence.height to 6 feet, rather than 8; <br />The homeowner wishes to _plant produce gardens up to -the fence line, rather than the:257foot <br />set back required by. the agricultural. ordinance and for fenced in.garden .areas. <br />8 foot fences are allowed by Conditional Use Permits for :truck farming purposes, as long as. <br />all other conditions of the ordinance are. met. <br />Wippich introduced a motion to open the public hearing on the matter Of a CVP for an 849orfence on the. <br />applicant's property for purposes.of.protecting crops from deer and other. animals. Pratt seconded the <br />motion. All in favor; motion approved. The Commission discussed the proposed .ptdjeet at length, <br />including a short presentation from. homeowner Mej+sembottrg. <br />Several neighbors spoke up in support of Meysembourg's. organic farm:.conce . they included Bob and <br />Cindy. Scruggs. They statid.t>,at the.appli .ant had discussed his plans with them in detail and they were <br />comfortable. with. the 8 feet fence. The applicant.stated that the fence was largely see -through. Pratt <br />pointedout that:the:ordinance had language pertaining to a requirement for fencing that was 8.0%.open. <br />Lihdner.asked the applicantto clarify exactly where the fencing would-be placed. Meysembourg provided <br />a document showing the fencing plan and answered several questions. <br />Schaehtasked the Commission to define the term "truck.fanning," According to: Webster's Dictionary, <br />the term was determined to mean -an .operation that grew vegetables for sale. <br />W ippich motioned. to close the.:public hearing. Farrell seconded the -motion. All in favor, motion <br />approved. -.Pratt introduced a motion that the Planting Cornihission recommend to the Gem Lake City <br />Council approyal of an application fora CUP for air 8 frming purposes <br />onthe <br />property owned by.Dan Meysembourg, as long as the fencing.was. 8OVo-open and that all other conditions <br />of the ordinance were met. Wippich wonded.the.motiot}. All in favor, motion. approved. <br />■ Varialnee at 4144 Scheuneman Road to allow reduced setback for garden fencing <br />reouureinents <br />Cummings introduced the subject by stressing that no variance application had been received for the <br />setbackkissuet as of..yet. Therefore, today's discussion would*be-aimed atg&thering feedback -and ideas. <br />Farrell introduced a rnotionto open the public hearing. Patrick seconded the. motion. All in favor, motion <br />carried. <br />There was a lengthy discussion on the matter of setbacks for garden ;fences. The current code requires for <br />a 25 foot set back from property lines for an 8 foot garden fence. Due to the small -size -of the property <br />Meysembourg.felt this would place a significant hardship on his organic garden cohcept'by dtastically <br />reducing the area of.potential cultivation. <br />Pratt said he was not in favor of doing a city-wide change in the entire ordinancerid cilMinate-the setback <br />requirement, suggesting instead that. a more strategic look at various zone districts t il& be.a better <br />approach. Another idea was to treat this as a potential varianc¢*based:on the uniqueness of the property. <br />Wippich suggested taking a look at permitted uses in each zohe so tiny lots would not be used for.truck <br />fanning in. the future. <br />... ....... _ <br />City of Gem Lake City Council Meeting Minutes Jum: L 20ZI P a c' <br />