Laserfiche WebLink
fI <br />ft« <br />I <br />! <br />Ordinance ajj^ndeent ~ Fence Height Page 2 of 3we tycicelly heee e 5 foot drainage and utility eaeasnt adjacent to a <br />lot line and each atructuree woeld seen to be a conflict over drainage <br />and utility eaa«Mnts. Mote that ee would etill allow drivewaya and <br />BidewalltB leBB than 5 feet froa the lot line. The eection of old 15 <br />(C) regarding « foot high fencea along the atreat let line of lahe <br />frontage lota on a aajor thoroughfare# ia placed in new Subdiviaion 15 <br />(6) for a rear yard, aince by definition thoae lakeahore lota have <br />mmflf a lakeahore yard and a rear yard. <br />4. Subdiviaion 15 CD) ia aplit up into new aubaectiona (F) and (X). <br />The language regarding the eaception for lakeahore lota in old <br />aubaection (D) waa# in ataff'a opinion, not interpretable, and haa <br />been changed to aay enactly what waa eeant by the Council when that <br />aection waa approved and aa it haa been interpreted by ataff aince ita <br />adoption. <br />5. Exiating Subdiviaion 15 (B) ia reviaed to becoM Subsection CO, <br />and now includes the language regarding 6 foot fences for lakeahore <br />lota on major ttwroughtares. <br />d. Subdiviaion 15 (F) becoass new Subdivision 15 (1). <br />7. The proposed language allowing rail-type fences in any lection <br />where a 3-1/2 foot fence is normally allowed, becomes Subdivision 15 <br />(J). Discussions at recent City Council meetings with various mei^rs <br />of the public have resulted in this Council directive to consider <br />allowing rail-type fences to ex<»ed 3-1/2 feet in height, moat <br />of then historically constructed and ncm being constructed excoM that <br />height. The intent of the proposed wording ia to <br />only when they meet certain opaqueness standards, the idea being that <br />a fence one can see through is much leas obtrusive than a coi^lately <br />opaque screening fence, and will be in character with the City a rural <br />philoac^hy. <br />The proposed ordinance language limits the heights of poets and rails, <br />aa well as providing for a minimum post spacing and a maximum fence <br />opacity of 33%. Diagrams in Exhibit 1 show a 3-rail and 4-rall <MDce <br />that would just meet the 33% opacities (or 33% light blockage). That <br />diagram also shows other types of l>oard fences and cyclone fence vhlch <br />are not considered aa "rail fences" and which would not be allowed <br />under this subsection. Obviously a stockade fence and horiaontal and <br />vertical board fences would not meet the opacity requirement. a <br />cyclone fence on the other hand, might meet the opacity standard but <br />would not meet the definition of a rail fence, and it <br />impression that cyclone fences in excess of 3-1/2 feet in height in <br />front yards is not what the City wants. <br />Definitions of opacity, post height, post, top rail height, and Tail <br />have l>een included to siinisiise ailsinterpretations of what ia meant by <br />those trrms. <br />r <br />f / <br />^ # <br />j.* ,I .-J <br />li-' <br />r <br />0- <br />I <br />H . <br />J