Laserfiche WebLink
MIN[7TES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />SEPTENIBER 28, 1994 <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by LaValle. <br />Ayes (5) Scalze, LaValle, Morelan, Pedersen, Hanson. <br />Nays (O). Resolution declared adopted. <br />SPECIAL The City Planner presented an ordinance amendment <br />PURPOSE relating to temporary special purpose fences providing <br />FENCES protection from natural elements. The Planner noted <br />that this ordinance amendment will exempt temporary <br />special purpose fences of less than 42 inches in height <br />in rear yards from permit requirements. <br />The Council discussed the 42 inch height limitation <br />noting that standard fencing materials are either 36 or <br />48 inches in height. It was the consensus of the <br />Council to use a 48 inch height limitation. <br />Morelan asked the definition of side yard, noting that <br />the ordinance says that this type of fencing could be <br />located only in a rear yard. <br />The Planner replied that the fence could not be located <br />in the required front yard or side yard. The required <br />side yard is 10 feet in from the property line to the <br />rear of the structure. Front yard is considered at the <br />narrowest frontage of a lot. The Planner stated that <br />the ordinance says that this type of special purpose <br />fencing could not be located in the required rear or <br />side yard setbacks. The Planner felt there would be no <br />problem interpreting this ordinance for enforcement <br />purposes since the Code Enforcement Officer is used to <br />dealing with required front, rear, and side yards. <br />Mr. Morelan introduced the following resolution and <br />moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 94-9-337 - CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING <br />FOR WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1994, AT 7:30 P.M. TO <br />CONSIDER AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO <br />TEMPORARY SPECIAL PURPOSE FENCES PROVIDING PROTECTION <br />FROM NATURAL ELEMENTS~ WITH TIiE STIPULATION THAT <br />FENCING MATERIALS BE LIMITED TO 48 INCHES IN HEIGHT <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Scalze. <br />Ayes (5) Morelan, Scalze, Hanson, Pedersen, LaValle. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />13 <br />