2013_1021_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment D 255 MOTION 256 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Murphy to recommend to the City Council 25-1 APPROVAL of a proposed ZONING TEXT CHANGE as follows: 258 RESIDENTIAL 1011.08 FENCES IN ALL DISTRICTS — B Residential Fences — "The following standards 259 shall apply to all fences constructed in any residential zoning district--- er- dir -enfh, adiannnf fG any 260 residential " ,dli dGt " 261 Ayes: 6 262 Nays: 0 263 Motion carried. 264 In providing his rationale for seeking three (3) separate motions, Vice Chair Boguszewski expressed his concern 265 that this was not being pursued as a Variance process versus this recommendation and potential impact to other 266 properties in the area. Therefore, Vice Chair Boguszewski advised that he would be voting in opposition to this, as 267 he didn't agree with changing the code in this way, while recognizing that the majority vote will prevail. Vice Chair 268 Boguszewski noted that this was basically a symbolic gesture on his part, and if the majority vote so indicates, he 269 may vote to approve the request of the applicants. 270 Member Daire spoke in support of the proposed text revision not to exceed 6' in height, opining that her 271 personally thought height should be determined by staff based on the situation that this particular section of code 272 is being applied to. Member Daire advised that he would be more comfortable if staff was involved in determining 2713 fence height or screening; and expressed his support of this motion if that is the intent. 274 Mr. Paschke responded to Member Daire, that whether in practice or in force, that determined the height of a 27 fence, with staff reviewing each application and advising the applicant what is best for their particular situation 27 (i.e., administrative review process), similar to landscaping issues. Mr. Paschke advised that having a "not to 2 7 T exceed 6' in height" provision didn't preclude staff working with the applicant and determining what is appropriate 278 for fence height and its required placement, but this text revision simply dovetailed into other sections of the code 279 addressing screening and buffering. Mr. Paschke assured all that staff would continue to work the public, the 280 Commission, and applicants to determine what would work best and which type of fence or screening would best 281 fit a specific application. 282 Based on that continued staff involvement in determining height, Member Daire questioned if that should be made 283 a part of the motion. 284 Mr. Paschke opined that it wasn't necessary, as most staff review and implementations were enforced by staff 285 and it would remain up to staff to advise applicants on how best to achieve code compliance based on their 286 particular situation, without explicitly stating it. 287 Member Stellmach spoke in general support of the request, including the upcoming section on written support. 288 However, Member Stellmach expressed ongoing concerns with the recourse for future owners; even though he 289 was somewhat comforted by the fact that future owners could learn about this situation in their review of real 290 estate records. Overall, Member Stellmach advised that he would support the request. 291 Member Cunningham offered her support as well; and expressed her appreciation of the clarification that staff 292 would continue to work with applicants; and opined that she did not need that language as part of the motion to 293 lend her support of it. 294 Based on staff's report and tonight's discussion and explanations, Member Keynan spoke in support of the 29% motion. 296 Member Murphy, admitting to some reservation about eh 100' being too narrow and somewhat arbitrary, offered a 297 suggested language change of 200' as an option if a Variance process was not the only option open to an 298 applicant. 299 Mr. Paschke responded that determining whether or not to expand the distance area may be considered, any 300 number may be perceived as arbitrary with existing performance standards and nuisance codes. Mr. Paschke 301 further stated that the Variance process option came into play only if an applicant couldn't get appropriate sign -off 302 from those within the distance requirement; opining that he was unaware of how much or who else may be 303 impacted from that standpoint. Mr. Paschke clarified that he was not aware of whether or not the initial 100' 304 distance was really tied to noise or barking; noting that there were many noises in a neighborhood, and 305 questioned whether or not a distance requirement had anything to do with a particular use or not beyond Page 6 of 7