From time to time, City staff receives public feedback requesting clarification of a zoning standard or that an amendment be made to the code to address a particular issue. Taking these comments into consideration, staff then researches other city codes for comparison with our city’s UDO. In certain cases, such as with this proposed amendment, other cities standards differ from the UDO, with our code being the more restrictive. Based upon this research, it was decided that the accessory building and fencing setback standards should be modified.
The accessory building amendment primarily relates to corner residential lots, requiring accessory buildings (garages, carports, sheds) to only meet required setback along the side street, providing more flexibility in accessory building placement without sacrificing uniformity.
Three revisions to the residential fencing standards are also proposed. First is an advisory provision was added stating that no private fence shall be installed on public property, including in a street right-of-way.
The second revises the residential fence standards for corner lots allowing fences to be along the side street property line beside and behind the house. In the illustrations below, the left drawing shows the current standard for fencing on a corner lot with no fence taller than three feet allowed in the front or street side yard. On the right, the proposed amendment would allow the entire rear and street side yard to be enclosed with a six foot fence (eight foot with a fence permit). This was the standard in the previous, pre-July 1, 2009 zoning code.
If there’s ever a code provision that can benefit from illustrations, it’s to show where, and to what height, fencing can be installed. Four illustrations were created showing the various fence configurations for residential properties. They will be included in the UDO itself and with public information handouts.
Draft Planning Commission Meeting minutes:
"Case #20-175-02 – Code Amendment #43
Staff Presentation
Stuart Borders presented the case. Mr. Borders stated the accessory building amendment primarily relates to corner residential lots, requiring accessory buildings (garages, carports, sheds) to only meet required setback along the side street, providing more flexibility in accessory building placement without sacrificing uniformity. Mr. Borders outlined three proposed revisions to the residential fencing standards. First is an advisory provision was added stating that no private fence shall be installed on public property, including in a street right-of-way. The second revises the residential fence standards for corner lots allowing fences to be along the side street property line beside and behind the house. The third revision would add drawings to the UDO, showing the setback lines.
In response to Vice Chairman McClain’s question, Mr. Borders stated a swimming pool would not be allowed in front of the residence.
In response to Commissioner Preston’s question, Mr. Borders stated a building permit is required if the fence is over 6 feet to ensure its installed safely.
Public Comments
No public comments.
Motion
Commissioner Weir made a motion to approve Case #20-175-02 – Code Amendment #43. Commissioner Preston seconded the motion. The motion passed with six affirmative votes."