My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-14-2015 Planning Comm. Agenda
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
05-14-2015 Planning Comm. Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/2/2015 1:35:02 PM
Creation date
7/2/2015 1:34:20 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
3. Property owners can request building materials that do not achieve the intent <br />of a privacy fence (such as chain link fence). <br />4. The special purpose fencing is allowed in all zoning districts across the City. <br />Building a fence along railroad property also creates a few other logistical problems for <br />property owners such as: <br />1. An existing fence may already be in place by the railroad. <br />2. If a property owner wishes to construct a fence along the property line, they <br />would need permission from adjacent property owners (in this case, the <br />railroad) before construction can begin. Or the fence would need to be <br />setback two feet. <br />DISCUSSION: <br />There are several potential concerns raised by this type of request. One question would <br />be the range of zoning districts that should be considered for additional height along <br />property that abuts railroad property. The ordinance could only apply to R-1 districts, or <br />it could be allowed in all residential districts. It is unlikely an ordinance like this would <br />be necessary in commercial or industrial settings. <br />The second question is what type of building materials should be deemed acceptable <br />when building a sound barrier. The materials should ideally be maintenance free; <br />aesthetically pleasing; and provide the proper sound and visual protection. Visual <br />impact is an issue due to the likelihood that neighboring property owners will have a <br />view of the wall — a structure that would not normally be allowed in a residential district. <br />Consideration of materials and visibility could help address this concern. <br />The final consideration is height requirement. While a maximum height of twelve feet <br />has been suggested by a resident, it can become an issue if an adjacent property owner <br />wants to construct a fence of a different height. <br />Most of these issues can be addressed by making the fence allowable by conditional <br />use permit under the special purpose fence section. The CUP process would permit the <br />City to consider each case individually, and provide neighbors the opportunity to <br />comment, as well as a forum for possible neighborhood coordination. <br />A draft ordinance is attached to this report that outlines specific allowances for this time <br />of fence, with an emphasis on the fact that the purpose for a fence of such a size is <br />specifically intended to abate the impacts of railroad activity. The CUP process would <br />give the City flexibility to address special or unique conditions. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.