Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Member Mulder asked how does City impose an "attractiveness" standard on others? Fencing is tied to the land <br />not the occupants of the house. <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke suggested epoxy coated fence and more decorative fencing or decorative wrought iron fencing. <br />Landscaping is a good alternative except it takes years to become full. Trees and shrubs take time. <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke explained the State Building Code for pool fences require a five foot non-climbable fence. <br />Approximately 5% of the properties adjacent to shore and wetland have pools near the shore or wetland. Member <br />Mulder asked if a pool fence style should be regulated. <br /> <br />General discussion ensued. <br /> <br />Member Traynor suggested requiring fencing be screened with landscaping. Lakeshore property owners bought <br />the property for the valuable view (and access). <br /> <br />Member Mulder and Member Peper could accept a fence 20' to 30' setback from the ordinary high water level <br />(O.H.W.L.). <br /> <br />Dennis Welsch suggested an educational program regarding the impact of fencing on properties (pro and con). <br /> <br />Motion: Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Traynor, to recommend a maximum 25% opacity, 42" <br />height, earth-tone colored and poly-clad fence no closer than 25 feet to the ordinary high water line, <br />applying to lakes and wetlands properties. Property owners may need to apply for variances for any other <br />alternative closer to the ordinary high water line. Pools must meet requirements of State Building Code for <br />height and must meet design and opacity standards indicated for any fence applying to lakes and wetlands <br />properties. <br /> <br />Ayes: Traynor, Bakeman, Mulder <br />Nays: Peper <br /> <br />Motion carried 3-1. <br /> <br />7. Other Business <br /> <br />Acting Chair Mulder distributed materials on Parliamentary Procedure. <br /> <br />8. Adjourn: 10:25 p.m. <br /> <br />Return to Planning Commission <br />