pm_020710 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Gary Wood, 3060 W. Owasso Blvd., said the proposal for protective or safety fencing was a good idea. Small lots or narrow lots may have problems as well as boat houses. For existing buildings, a fence should be allowed ten feet in front of the house. There are some pre-existing fences. Member Bakeman asked how the fence could be protective (chain link) fence if only on one side. She expressed concern about fenced in shoreland lots as inconsistent with shoreland protection. Property owners could fence in the lot area opposite the lake shore. The height (42") and chain link are objectionable. Leave the 75' setback clear of fences. Privacy can be obtained with landscaping. Member Mulder noted, as an option, the City could require variances for protective fences. Chair Duncan felt that property owners should be able to restrict or fence the yards. Member Peper noted that 3.5 feet is conservative. There being no comment, Chair Duncan closed the hearing. Motion: Motion by Member Mulder, second by Member Traynor, to make a recommendation to the City Council that lakes and wetlands 3, 4, 5 should be subject to regulations allowing certain fence types (chain link), heights (42"), and locations (to within 10 feet of the OHWL) for parcels adjacent to shoreland and wetland areas. Ayes: 3 Nays: 3 Motion failed. Member Bakeman felt 20 feet was not enough setback, and any such fence should only be approved by variance or conditional use permit. Member Bakeman recommended natural shoreline. Member Mulder said fence variances may be arbitrary and/or capricious. Member Traynor agrees with Member Bakeman on the need for permits or variances. Could a fence be required to have landscaping on the side of the fence facing the body of water? Chair Duncan stated landscaping which is permitted could be used for privacy, which would destroy a vista. Member Mulder expressed concern with the issuance of variances - 15 years later the fence cannot be taken down. Thomas Paschke reminded the Planning Commission that the chain link fence was an option to an opaque fence; a safety vs. a privacy fence. Member Peper stated lake homes are becoming very expensive; fences on such lots will be appealing. Motion: Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Bakeman to forward this matter to the Council without recommendation. Member Ipsen recommended property owner flexibility. He said he was confused and wished to abstain. Mayor Kysylyczyn suggested that this is not a critical issue; the Commission could take this up at a later date with a recommendation. Member Mulder asked for a matrix of what is allowed by the amendment vs. what could be approved under current Code. Thomas Paschke asked for additional time; table it until next month for more information. Motion: Member Ipsen moved, seconded by Member Duncan, to reconsider the original motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 2