Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br /> Commissioner Olivers asked if the required setback for a 70%transparent, 6 foot high fence <br /> was two feet or 10 feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Ingalsbe responded 10 feet. <br /> 6:45:42 PM <br /> Commissioner Chase asked if the current code allowed construction of a fence on an interior lot <br /> line. Mr. Ingalsbe responded that a solid fence can be constructed on an interior lot line up to 6 <br /> feet in height. Commissioner Chase asked if the proposed regulations required a 2 foot setback <br /> along the interior lot line. Mr. Ingalsbe responded no and that the 2 foot setback was from the <br /> sidewalk. There is no setback from the side lot line. The current code limits fence heights to 42 <br /> inches between the house and the street, with 30% transparency, and allows a six foot <br /> maximum height with a 10 foot setback and 70% transparency. The proposed regulations <br /> clarify the current code limitations for a fence located in areas to the side of a dwelling that are <br /> not directly between the house and that street. <br /> 6:47:37 PM <br /> Commissioner Adams referred to the single family graphic and asked if the addition to the <br /> dwelling was constructed further back from the front setback area, would the side fence have to <br /> comply with the proposed regulations further back than depicted on the graphic. Mr. Ingalsbe <br /> responded that was how the regulation was proposed. <br /> 6:48:24 PM <br /> Commissioner Adams referred to the location of the front setback and asked if the setback <br /> requirement was similar to something found in another jurisdiction. Mr. Giffen responded no <br /> and referred to the graphic to explain that staff did not want to create a six foot barrier that <br /> blocked the view of the façade that faces the street but which is set back from the façade at the <br /> porch. Commissioner Adams commented that the graphics did help him understand the <br /> proposed language. Commissioner Hale commented that he did like where the front setback for <br /> a fence was located as depicted on the graphic. <br /> 6:53:30 PM <br /> Chair Sosin agreed with the location of the front setback area for visual aesthetics and safety; <br /> however, she asked if the language should include a measurement back from the corner of a <br /> dwelling that would provide further direction regardless of where a house addition was <br /> constructed. Mr. Giffen stated that staff could revise the language as drafted to reflect that <br /> change in the Exhibit and Planning Commission could approve the resolution with the <br /> understanding the Chair Sosin would provide final approval on the amended language in the <br /> Exhibit. <br /> 6:55:22 PM <br /> Commissioner Hale would like a more simplistic approach in the language. Chair Sosin agreed <br /> that simpler is better since every building would be an exception; however, the intent of the <br /> proposed language is to provide visibility of the front façade from the street. Commissioners <br /> Murphy and Hale were comfortable with the front setback area as depicted on the graphic. <br /> 7:00:13 PM <br /> Commissioner Adams offered the following language "the side corner on the front half of the <br /> house." <br /> 7:01:11 PM <br /> Commissioner Olivers offered the following language "The corner of the principal building which <br /> is closest to the side lot line but not more than 8 or 10 feet behind the front façade." <br /> 20 <br />