Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] No, it was a get away. Okay, at this time we'll call the regular monthly meeting of the Plumbing City Plan Commission to order and have roll call, please. Chip Hill here. John Kissinger

here. Don Langlo. Jennifer Robano here. Nikki Venal here. Dennis Hornet here. Dan Beagle here. Larry Lee. Patrick Sigraph here. Previous minute. Previous meeting minutes from April 7th. I move they be approved as Have a motion to approve. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Mr. Hill. Those in favor of approving the minutes, raise your right hand. Those opposed, same sign. Abstain. One abstension. Uh, all business. Nathan, we have no uh let's actually do the oath to witnesses and just just stay we're doing it. All right. So, we'll uh administer the oath to any witnesses. You want me to say it anyways? No, I don't think we have to go to that formality. I'm showing the empty seats here on the screen. So, all right. Any old business? No. New business? 25- C-Z A-1 Columbia City Plan Commission zoning tax amendment regarding standards for front yard fence fences. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. So, I have a handful of slides here and an activity for you guys to do which is there before you. Um, so let me go through a slide or two here first. Uh as you might as you do remember from last meeting uh as a discussion item and now

tonight as a public hearing item, uh the city council forwarded a uh request for a zoning text amendment dealing with uh the types of fences that are allowable in front yards. Uh that's a very short version of everything being discussed, but that basically is what the council requested was figure out uh how we can allow uh more types of fences, tall fences up to four feet fences in the front yards. Right now we allow uh any type of fence up to three feet, any type of fence that meets the material types. Anyway, uh so that's the directive. on the screen is the current code uh as is and uh I included some bold text and some underlying text for reference here. uh and in your packets you all have on the last page a copy of that uh existing code. Going to uh this this we showed last time too and this is uh how we define the front yards in cases where we don't have a platted building line on the left and also for corner lots. Uh and then on the right in cases of having a platted building line, uh subdivisions that are newer than about 1960 typically have platted building lines. Older ones typically don't. It's not a completely 100% situation, but that's a rule of thumb. Uh so that's mostly there for reference. So, this slide is what we currently allow for front yard fences and walls up to 3

ft in height. Uh, excuse me. Uh, with these two, three, excuse me, three modifications. The number four option is a question mark because it's actually a cattle fence. Uh, but it happens to have some nice trim added to it. So, is that ornamental? Is it not? That would probably be something to be figured out. Number five is just a standard more standard uh garden slash um it's not a paddle fence, but agricultural fence. And then number seven, interestingly, is chicken wire. It it is hard to see, but trust me, it is chicken wire. with 2x4s, uh, not even 4x4 posts, just 2x4s hammered into the ground with a 2x4 runner on top. So, five and seven are most definitely not ornamental for the existing code, would not even meet the qualifications for a free front yard or any other type of fence uh because they are not quote unquote ornamental. Number four is questionable. Uh and then as you recall, this is what the code allows up to four feet in front yards as we've defined them. Uh and the code currently only allows for open chain link fences. Uh which are typically some sort of vinyl coated on the left or galvanized metal on the right. Uh vinyl coated can come in black or green. Uh there are other colors, but black and green are the typical ones. I guess brown maybe too. And then galvanized is pretty typical. So before we go on to what I've proposed as options and get into that discussion, if you guys could take a minute or two uh and take those photos

that I gave you, just write notes to yourself. We're not We talked about collecting them and then tallying the votes. I I don't want to put you on the spot quite like that, but just to help organize your own thoughts, figure out which ones um you feel would be appropriate to be taller than three feet in front yards. We're not talking about sideyards, backyards, places that we allow six foot currently. It's just the front yards um more than three feet and four feet or less. So that span. So, if you don't mind, just if you need a pen, I've got some extra pens as well. Um, just mark it up however you way you want so we can further the discussion in a second. Some of these are My thoughts is the size of the fence isn't as important as how far the setback has to be. It needs to be back farther than that one up the street from where this one was. We we will get to that. Right now, we're talking in height. Okay. Like I said, we got to watch for the road right away cuz some of these fences are set right up by the sidewalk sidewalk and some of them wouldn't be allowed to be that close. Now, there's some I mean, in my area, my my rideway goes to the edge of the sidewalk. I get that. Think a generic situation or think of whatever situation you want to apply in terms of height and material. We will talk about location again. I will it's 7:08. I will give you until 710. Do you want me to mute you as well? So you can Okay. But in seriousness, this is it's relevant because it makes the discussions that have later a little easier

per our conversation today. So, I do I want to bring up something white people are thinking. So number two, split rail fence. We had a situation at Chanty Market with a ledge on a sidewalk and the homeowner requested split rail. Well then that set the president. So Chanty and Spencer Street, the guy wants a split rail fence just right at the corner with that trigger offense request. So it's more number two right now. of the code would allow for uh because I would consider that ornamental and it's definitely open. So up to three feet tall that would be acceptable in the front yard. Okay. Over three feet would not be. Okay. Excuse me. It doesn't even have to be open, but it can be up to 3 feet tall. Can it be in the rightway or does it have to be all the way back on the setback? It would only Yeah, it's 710. So let's venture into the realm of location now because the main objective, the main directive is deal with materials and height.

Um what we discussed last time was the board of works has the authority over what goes in the right way. Uh and the process that we've developed over the last couple cases, the case at Jefferson Street and Line Street, uh the board of works had full discretion because that fence was entirely in the right of way or maybe there were 6 in outside of the rightway because the house was set up against pro uh against the right ofway line. Um but since then the other cases case that we've had went through border works and then uh the VA correct barance because it didn't meet the front yard height and so on. So that's the process goes through the board of works if it approaches. If it doesn't, it stays only with the BCA and the board of works leads basically to say yes, it is appropriate or to modify it before it goes to public hearing with the uh with the DCA. Or if they deny it outright, then the petitioner may just withdraw it and there's no need for a public hearing. So, we can't have like a set of guidelines, black and white, and there's no there's no getting into a muddied water of zoning code versus authority over the right way, which we can is is well beyond the directive given by the council and probably will require a lot of cooperation and legal interpretation um to be fully effective. Okay. So, if they if it's allowed in the rightway, then it has to go to the BCA. And then the BA BCA board can say yes or

no. Yes, they could still say yes or no. So, in theory, not likely because it doesn't make a lot of sense, but in theory, you could have a fence that's only in the right of way if the board of works says yes and the EA says no. But logically, that doesn't make a lot of sense. So, when you say it doesn't make sense, because you just have a floating piece of fence in the right of way. If if the border works says they can and BCA says they can't. Exactly. then it they can still do it or they can't do it. In theory, they could do a fence that's located here. So, let's say the initial request was to do something like this, a tall fence that encroaches into the rightway like this. Okay. Uh let me actually use a pen. So, something like this. And in theory, if the board of works only uh approves it down here, switch back to a laser pointer approves this portion and BCA says uh that's fine for the board of works, but you don't meet the criteria for variance up here. In theory, yeah, you could have this portion be built and not this portion. That doesn't make a lot of sense, but in theory, that could happen. And what you're getting at is setting up some sort of code framework to prevent that by forcing the board of works and BCA work together in a more formalized code work uh framework. If somebody was to build that fence, what would the fine be? Um, I believe the fine is in the city code up to $500 per day for a zoning

violation. And who police is that? As a zoning violation, we do as a uh violation of the agreements with board of works. I do not know honestly. Would that not fall under their new uh code enforcement officer? Yeah, the code enforcement officer. But we're talking what code would be enforced, not necessarily too. This might be a a loaded question even, but we're being asked to render our opinion on the height of a fence without having the ability to have the forethought of if something's going to be placed in the right way. Perfect example would be if we said, "Yeah, 4 foot could be allowed with however many numbers that are here." And then another entity would say, "Well, yeah, you can go ahead and put that in the right way." And that would have probably have altered our opinions completely. So that's why the board of works goes first. So if they say uh no it need it's got to be short then the board of then the VCA would follow suit but there are exceptions that they have made right no the the case with Jefferson Street is the only case where the board was board of works was the only entity in proving it and that was because that fence because the house was up to the rideway Um, the BZA was not involved with that one. So, you're saying the house was actually sitting up there on the up against the blue in that case? Yes. And they installed that fence incorrectly. And that's what my understanding with

the board of works was. And the board of works, I mean, Dan has already said it's a learning experience for them. It's learning experience for all of us. That's part of the reason why we're here is take that learning experience and and use it. Yeah, that that fence was not put in the way we approved. Not even close. Gotcha. And that was why that's another reason they had to take it down, right? Because it was I remember sitting there approving it and I'm like they're going out there and I'm like, "Well, that's not what we agreed to." And so that's why we had to have them take it down. That owner didn't take it down, did they? I thought they sold the house. I'm not sure who took it down, but before it was taken, it was the subsequent owner. But I know it wasn't quite like we we requested. Yeah. Um and keep in mind while there is one particular case that has prompted this discussion quickly, this is applicable to the entire city. Uh primarily residential. We're talking residential fences, but it is applied to the entire city. Both old subdivisions, new subdivisions. So that's one of the reasons when we looked at this and I was talking to Nathan about we want to keep it simple and basically the only thing we're adding and changing is making that a 4ft instead of a three-foot fence with potential of other types of fences that can we can see through and that's the only changes we're making basically at this point is changing that from a 3-ft to a 4ft. It doesn't have to be a chainlike fence. It could be something nicer. That was the big problem up there because you couldn't see through it. Up on like I said because it wasn't placed where it was supposed to be placed. You take you take if we say we could let them do 4 feet and then right they actually push they go out and the board of works

approves proves that and they can put a 4ft fence out into that comes in the comes into the inside the rightway unless they request special permission to shut it. Even even these split even these the first three if it's four feet high and you're out in there and you're coming that section in a car small car when you're looking at a fence even if it's broken up like that and you're looking at it the fence is running almost that's what I'm saying you can't you can't really judge that because some of those rightways go right up to the sidewalk where this one we're talking about that's an 82 and 1/2t wide rightway there so 41 and a quarter ft off the center of the road which pushes that clear up to most of those houses on street it goes right up to their door um the house we're talking about I get back but if you're you're safety issue for a safety issue if we don't let them do a 4ft fence that releases that you're not going to see through a three-foot one either on that side if you're in a car that's why well it it limits the it limits the amount of cars It wouldn't be able to see through it. But you're right, a low a very low profile. A pickup truck could see through it. Huh? A pickup truck could see see over it. Yeah, exactly. You raised four feet. You raised to 4 feet. Now you're starting to add more vehicles in that like a like a Toyota Prius would not be able to see over a 4ft. What I'm saying though is when we look at those situations, you don't let them put a 4ft fence in a line of sight. You know, they have to understand that it's going to happen the same thing that happened on my street. If it doesn't doesn't if they put it in the wrong spot, it's coming down. Okay. And we have we have Joey said Joey can put up a 4 foot fence, but Sammy down the road wants the same thing. You can't do what? I said Joey can put up a 4ft fence, but Sammy down the road can't do it, right?

Because we're saying that the intersections are That's why the mayor said we need to look at situations with that. Keep in mind you are in charge of the zoning code. Zoning code does not apply to the right of way. Board of works has the ultimate authority. The board of works hopefully respects what the zoning code says, but your authority extends to the right ofway line. And again, we without a huge huge code rewrite of multiple codes, that's where it ends for the for the time being. that's where it is. So our mission is to determine the height the fence and materials used for the fence, right? And if there's other things related to that then we can use this discussion but right now height materials then and and be honest with you the same thing happen. Well, in this case, they're dogs. And I think I might have mentioned it before. When you go to the top of my culde-sac and I'm walking my dog, there's two Germans and another big dog that come flying out at me and they have an underground fence. Okay. Terrific. But I just pray to God that batteries are working in that thing. I when I see those dogs out, I walk on the other side of the room because I don't trust that underground fence any more than I could throw it. And uh so that open market there's a big dog that does come on into the street after you when you go walking and you don't have to have a dog. They're just going to come. It's coming across the street. Yeah. To try to get you. Yeah. So I I kind of getting away from where first of all I want to say I'm not a big fan of fences and front yards anyway. But at the same time when somebody something to go into a place where we got a rule that says it can be a 4ft fence. It can be decorative. Um, you know, with some of the limitations that

Nathan has described here. We also got a letter, a very lengthy letter, um, from a resident that had some concerns about going to a foroot. I don't know if you had a chance to read it or not. She made a lot of comments, made some great sense in it. I mean, she really did. Um, and I respect that letter more than you know. But at the same time, you know, we're looking at all we're doing basically is changing the height of the fence to 4 foot and redecorative instead of a chain link. I'd respect it a lot more if she said who she was. I agree. I agree. She had some scribble signature down. I go and tell what it was. So, uh, Dan Dan has alluded to option number three a couple times here, but let me go through the three options that I to you guys. That's Mr. Langlo. Oh, we got Don though. He don't at all. That's okay. Um, so option one is uh revising the materials allowed for residential fences uh and creating a transparency requirement of 75% maximum or minimum transparency for being in the front yard if you're more than three feet. M4T or less. That's option one. Option two would be also amending the ornamental materials. It also doing so has uh a couple other things which I'll show you in a second. But otherwise, option two just says all fences if they uh meet the material requirements can be up to 4 feet in height and fences and

walls. Option three is what Dan referred to as a very minimalistic approach. Just simply adding in quote unquote open decorative alongside open chain link in our existing code. So there would be no other changes. Uh only open chain link and open decorative would be allowed taller than 3 feet. All other types of fences and walls would be a maximum of three feet. So let me go through what this looks like. This is the code for option one. Uh so as I said transparency is talked about here. And then building materials uh for option one and two are the same. Uh would be made of uh residential fences would be chain link, rot iron, wood or vinyl picket or stockade type brick or other quote unquote ornamental materials which is what we use currently. agricultural and non-residentidential uses may use non-orgnamental fencing materials. So that would be your uh barbed wire, your your cattle fence and so on. Uh and then the rest of that code despite it being um in blue uh is the same as what it is now. Um so this is option one. Uh going to what is would be allowed in option one more than three feet up to four feet tall. This is what you would see if if we used option one. Um one three uh 15 and 16. So 15 and 16 the chain length ones are currently allowed. You're adding in option one which would be either vinyl or wood picket. And then option three, which is that rot or rot iron uh fence. Uh option six, the split rail, that's a

stack split rail, while ornamental does not meet the transparency requirement. Number four, while being transparent, may or may not meet the ornamental requirement. And number two is in the same boat. Uh actually number two may or may not meet the uh specific material requirement because because it is not a picket or stockade type fence. It is a rail fence and that is not specifically called out despite it being open and ornamental. But one would need it because I think one you couldn't see through it. One uh let's pre actually that's a good point. Let's pretend that those pickets are spaced just slightly farther apart. Not much farther, but you're right. It would be See how well you can see through the see through running it down the top. So five and seven would be agricultural only and then the others don't meet the capacity requirements, the transparency requirements. Option two uh is the same material requirements but allowing any type of fence or wall up to 4T. And this is what you get when you do that. So, two still is a question mark. Four is still a question mark. Six is still question mark. Um, but your walls and more solid fences, your shadow box on number 10, uh, your rail fence on 11 and then your walls in 12, 13, 14, all would be allowed up to four feet. Option three, again just opening in adding in the open decorative fence clause, which is subjective, but ornamental is subjective. Uh, and we have that in code currently. So this is what you would wind up having uh if we just say open decorative. Uh,

essentially you remove the question mark from two and six. Those are both open and decorative. uh and you retain 1516 three in one uh but you would not have the three and a half foot tall walls for example uh there. So, how does number six, how do you how do you figure that to be transparent? Uh, there's space between each one of those rails. If you're more ground level, you can't see, but if you're straight if you're straight on, it is open the the the it you're you're hitting on things that are needing to be discussed, but that's why it would be allowed would because it is open. It's just not me maybe not as open as what we want to see. That's why option one includes a specific amount. So So there's a way to to like your ro iron fence that was up there at Jackson or Jefferson in line. There's a way to fix all that. You just make it a four-way stop where there's a fence like that. Then people flying down the street. Okay. So, coming back to what you marked up on your little activity sheet. Do we have option four? Yeah. Do we have four? Or we change it to a three-foot sense period. Option four is mix and match. And no, the council was very clear that they want to see 4 foot front yard fences. More types of 4ft front yard fences. Oh, then why are we here? The homeowners homeowners still have them. They only want a three-foot fence. They can only they can put up three fence, right? Yeah. And that's that is a very

good point. We're not dictating that you put up a 4ft fence, but if you want a 4ft fence, it can only be of X-t type or with certain limitations. So the three and the four would have the same materials that we approved. Correct. Yes. Yes. The difference being that um they would have to be open in some fashion except for number two just allows all before tall. Yeah. So Nathan, you're telling us that keeping the front yard fences at a three foot height is not an option. It isn't that way now because we already allow chain link at 4T. But you're correct. The the council was very explicit that they want to allow more types of chain link fence ornamental. And I mean we have two council members here. So correct me if I'm wrong. No, that's what Yeah. So, so the option I I know we talked about just making everything three feet at the last time or just not doing anything. Those are no longer viable options. I think that's why we lined or option three. Yeah. Just a simple simple uh change of footage basically and and changing the types that could go in there. Um open decorative. Um, that's kind of why we kind of went that route instead of other stuff was a little Was it just to have more individuals opinions because it sounds like was it to have more opinions based on this or because it sounds like council should have just went ahead and made their decision. I I'm sorry I got different ones tonight. Oh yeah. No, it is was it to have more individuals have an eye on this to make a thought or a a

suggestion? Because for me, what I'm hearing what what I'm hearing is council should have just went ahead and made their own decision sending it. Council can't do that. No. Gotcha. Anything dealing with the zoning code goes through plan commission even if explicit directives. That's all right. But no, they've already said it's already said they want 4 foot fits. Three foot's not an option. So they have made a decision, right? So okay, I'm just what you're what you're hearing is if we should add additional to it, right? It would it be appropriate to say 4 foot walls actually would be okay, too. I mean, that was something they're definitely ornamental and in certain instances would look very appropriate, but maybe we don't want to go there. Would have chose that. So just to clarify again, Jennifer and Dan also says we want to go up to four and they can still have a three if they want one. Correct. Correct. But I think ultimately the point was that people would have more options than what they have currently. Um when they came to talk at council, what they were allowed to do seemed pretty limited. Pretty limited when it comes to what you can see through. perhaps, but like but what she wanted to do was actually more attractive than what she could do. But was it still the safety issue? Yeah. And I I think the other thing that needs to be pointed out here is anything that goes to border works, they tend to be very cognizant of what is safe and what is not. We have, you know, the police and the fire there at that meeting and they are very careful about what is allowed in that respect. I like I went out I actually went out to the place and measured where she was possibly going to put it in the right away and made to make sure that, you know, it's not going

to be a line of sight problem. It's not going to be, you know, so it's like situational things happen. And so that's why I'm like, well, I was going to tell her flat out, hey, you can't put it there because that's going to screw with the line of traffic. That's not going to happen. But I did go out and measure where she was thinking of putting it. And so that's kind of what I do. Um when I see situations, I go out and look at the situation and make sure everything should be okay. Not like what happened on Line Street. Okay. Trust me, that was a big blow up. And that's why it's like that's why we learned something from that situation. It's like, hey, if we're going to approve something, I want to go out and make sure everything's cool before we do it. And so like in this situation, that's why I don't know. I think that's my responsibility of being on board of works is to make ensure the safety of our our people out there. Mr. President, Larry had a question. I'm sorry, Larry. No, it's um so I I I guess I'm backtracking here. the earlier part of this whole conversation as far as the front lot goes, why are we even considering or allowing the fence in the rideway? Why why just like in that situation at line and what was that Jefferson? Yeah, that that that front on Line Street, excuse me, that that facial part, it it just wouldn't I mean, why was it even acceptable? I mean, why didn't they say, "Okay, you can come out from the corner of that house over the Jefferson and and go down to your driveway and back or whatever." I mean whether they were wanting it to keep the kids coraled or

the dog coralled is irrelevant to me. I mean I but I I my question is allowing them even be putting it in the front right away to begin with. I I guess you know one of the things I look at is all the rules and regulations we have are disallowing people to do what they want on their own property. In my opinion, I think we got too many rules that just doesn't allow people to do what they want on their property if we have but we do have rules of what they're allowed to do on their property. And that's why some people want a front yard fence. Personally, I don't want that. But, you know, if that's something they want to do and we follow the guidelines that we have established, then so be it, you know. And I think if I remember right where you grew up in a double on on Holden Road, you guys had a front yard fence three foot. Um that was actually a a walkway to the high school. My my parents donated the ground. Oh, gotcha. Gotcha. Because they were cut through the yard anyways. I remember that. Yeah. I just thought there was one that ran the length of the property down through there on the front. I mean, that's unfortunate that some of these in the in the base neighborhood or whatever you want to call this, the central business of the original town, that the houses are built right to the right ofway line, right? But I think in other instances where you're going to have rightway 35 foot setback or 20 foot setback or 25 foot setback, they could build at that right of way line and complete their fence skyline. If you're down here in the uh original part of the town, it's not going to work. And I think that's just going to have to be an accepted circumstance there. That's why

they go to the border works. and ask, you know, to see what what and sometimes the answer is going to be no. I mean, to me, it's pretty different than what it is. If there's a section of uh, you know, you're trying to do, you know, another can of beans we could open up would be, you know, the whole issue of sidewalks and things like that. But there's parks within the central part of town, you know, you don't there there's considerations that were made. Thomas Marshall signed something and never happened, let's say, or something like that, you know. Well, I think that you made a great point because all these areas are different. Some are historic, some are not. Some are brand new. And that's why you say it's very difficult to make a rule for one one rule fits all because we have so many different situations in our city. And so that's a valid point, but I'm like what if? What? You got a lot of whatifs there. And I'm just saying that, you know, if we could look at border works looked at every situation and he says yes or no. I don't think you can have a black and white s black and white rule here when we have all these options. So, if we come up with a an agreeance on what they can what they can put out there and they come to you and you basically give them the guidelines to what they could put out there, correct? Then there's no reason for it to come to BCA board. Well, I think for now why why because you still the BCA still has the authority over the zoning component of it. Board of Works authority ends at the right of way. Yours picks up at the right of way. But then but then you got this conflict with the owner, them the owner. If we if

we don't like what they're going to do, well, so if they're working, I'm guessing what I'm saying. If they're working straight with the owner and they've agreed to let them do what type of fence and how high they want to put it, then then for us to even look at it to change that, but all that would do is cause a huge conflict between them and the So what I would suggest of these three options as written, ignore the mix and match thing for the moment. Uh I would say that option two uh just allow all types of ornamental the types of fences up to four feet that resolves it. So if the board of works says a 4 foot fence is great there's no need for the board the BZA to be involved because it already meets the code up to four feet anyway. So I would say that that would be an easy way to resolve what you're getting at. The other easy way would be for the board of works, and Dan already answered this, but I'll rephrase it. The other easy way would be the board of works just to say, "No, we're not going to allow fences in the right of way." Period. And then you wouldn't have that dispute between the boards. Um, so either and Dan already said, "No, we want to work with people." So that that's kind of option. Okay. So, let's put that one back up there. Option two. Yeah. It's of what fences used fence what materials would fall under that. So this is option two as written. Um it basically would be the rewrite of the fence materials to allow for chain link rot iron wood or vinyl pick or stockade type brick other. Oh sorry you want pictures. Yeah this one.

So basically five and seven would only be allowed in agricultural areas. They're not ornamental. Four is questionably ornamental. Uh six and two are potentially not picket or um stockade type, but they I would say they are metal. So they can build 12 and 13. That's what I was going to say. out in uh at 4t high up to the right-of-way line but not over the right ofway line without border works but I'm saying they could go to border works and asked to have those gener but they wouldn't have to come they wouldn't have to come to DCA border so Don Don's got a question down there u the distance from the streets that have curbs Is there a distance that that fence has to be away from the curbs? I'm reason I'm saying this. If we have one of those bad winters and the plows come up and they throw it out, where's it going to be? It's going to hit the fences. It's going to fall there. Going to freeze there. And it might be a month before we get to use the walls. Long enough. That's not everyone because those fences would stop. Most of them pretty much would be a stopper for them when they the fence would have to be behind the sidewalk. Correct. Yeah. Chip, you want to answer that a bit more fully? Thank you. Um, I mean, we've got you've got the tree lawn.

I don't know. I'm trying to think through it, Don. So, in my I mean, I'm I'm picking up what he's saying. I don't know. I don't know what the best answer is, though. In in my recollection, for what it's worth, we have very few instances where the ride ofway line is at the curb line. We have it for perhaps alleys and a handful of streets. We see it more in the county where county roads didn't follow plattered rights of way, but we very rarely see it in the city where we have rights of way that have been platted. And like Line Street here, it's an 80 foot ride ofway. The property line starts 40 ft from the center line. your sidewalk is going to be closer than this fence would be except for where the board of works allows that encroachment. So, I think that's that's more of a board of works question, but it's fair to explore that concept as well. is a uh person that owns that property and we get a bad snow and they their sidewalks covered. Isn't there they're they're required to clean required to clean it and then here comes one of those plows in there the fence. I don't know. They like the place of the person that lives there. Nathan, can you give us a property here in town? Can you pull up a plated property and give us kind of show us where the how's the building setback is and then where the water works. How's that one?

Pick one of those. Pick one and blow it up. Jefferson. Jefferson and well, Jefferson and Lonnie. So, let's look at not the Let's look at this one. um the southwest corner of Jeff and mine. So you can see okay so that's their building line. That's a setback. So the blue area is the right of way. There is no building line platted because of the age. The setback is essentially zero. You can see that as an averaging the the houses there are there are virtually maybe a one or two foot setback. Um so in this case a front yard fence would be there is no front yard. The front yard is the right of way right. And what is that distance? You know should be 42 and or 48 41 and a half. Yeah. 82 and a half on street. Go out to South Valley River Drive. Let's put it. Let's switch the situation. Yeah, we got that one. Pull that one up. That's another one. I have a request because I get a lot of people's who maintains the front yard. It's not mine. We get that sidewalks, the whole nine yards. Well, technically it is in the ordinance that you do. Yeah. Well, your property line in your building lights different,

but you do have use of it. So, it is your I will eventually pull up beacon. It's very very very slow tonight. trying to get these goofy things working, right? They're loners, so that's why it's slow. Okay. So, for some reason, you said Valley River Drive, where I'm just sinking in Brooks's new property just to to switch up from a diff if if a different case came to us. Okay. Uh do we have any of these houses? Yes, this house is built [Music] um well, you can imagine where the setback line is there. Um it lines up with the edge of the house basically. So all of this area in front of the house to that blue line is front yard and everything on this side uh because it's platted building line is also treated as front yard. Unfortunately I don't have the building lines and easements on that on bacon yet. Uh, you might, but it's not um I got them drawn, but I don't I don't have myself logged in right now, so that'll come on now. Sorry, I'm kind of bouncing around here. Um, let me pull Beacon back up. Most of the building lines go right up to the house though on those. So, so the so if they wanted to put anything in the front yard or the sideyard, they'd have to go to the board

works. Basically, anything over No, no, it's it's there. It's just any anything over 3 feet up uh over three feet that is not a chain link fence or over four feet of any type that is located in this area. goes to the BZA. Anything located, let me change colors. Anything located out here of any type whatsoever is in the right of way and goes to the board works. Okay. So, anything out here um so this particular instance you they can do. The reason that we see the encroachment requests through the board of works in the historic parts of town is the additional ride ofway that's in our very very wide historic areas. This is only a 60oot ride ofway or even 50 foot ride ofway in the new section as you can see up here uh and lines up much closer with that sidewalk. So people consider the sidewalk to be the edge of their front yard. So So the the likelihood of this ever even getting to the border works for any type of question on fence would be out of the question would be very very because I don't know what you would they they would have to go in that like three foot two foot area or foot and a half whatever between that and the sidewalk. Yeah. Basically this okay this area right here right which usually isn't that big a deal at an intersection again so

that line of sight would play a big big deal right there that wouldn't why but going back to the property side of things getting away from the right ofway side. This is still a good example. So, what would be appropriate being a modern subdivision for front yard fences that would be in this area and this area? Is it that only three feet of any type of fencer wall with four feet chain length getting a foot bonus or all types up to four feet? transparent only and so on. Well, anything inside that have to come would have to be come in front of the uh BZA anyhow. No, right now in the red area, inside the red area, inside the red area, we allow three-foot fences of any type currently, right? Or 4ft chain link, right? So, if you're over if you have a picket fence that is 3 and 1/2 ft tall, that would require a BZA visit. If you have a five foot or six foot chain length fence or a sixoot privacy fence, that is the most common fence variance that we see. Uh that's where the board gets involved. But what we're talking about tonight is things that the board doesn't see, right? Because they meet code. Um I don't know. Yeah, I'll I'll mention it. Um

there was a a statement and we went back and looked through our uh DZA cases where we had fences. Uh and as I just mentioned, virtually all of them have been privacy fences in that secondary front yard. Uh we couldn't recall couldn't find any examples at least as we went back about 10 15 years uh of situations of a taller chain link fence for a 3 and 1/2t picket fence doesn't mean they may not have had variances but we didn't find them in a in a quick search at least so this is not a hugely common issue but it is still I Dan, you said we're trying to give people options. And Jen, you said we're trying to give people options. Yep. Let's be proactive. I'm saying, and this is nothing against John. Let's put it to vote version two. See what comes out of it. Changing it to 4 feet. So, you want to make a motion? But I got a question before we do a motion. So, if this homeowner wanted to put up a six-foot privacy fence along that blue line, they would go to the BZA. Correct. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. If they extended past the blue line. Okay. Let me uh let me get a different color here. I think we'll show up. So, um, let's say they wanted to do a privacy privacy fence that looked like this, which is a pretty common scenario. So, six foot privacy fence. The portion that is in this area

would be subject to a variance request. And that is that is the type of variance that we see when we see that. And there are other problems with that. not lining up with the neighbor next door, for example. But we're that's that's a different ball of wax behind him. I'm not sure what you do with wax, but anyway, topic for another night. Okay. So, I'll make a motion that we vote on uh what option number two. I'll second. Okay. I have a motion, a second to approve option number two. So for clarification, are you suggesting that that be the recommendation that the commission sends forward and then you vote whether that's favorable and so on. Any further discussion? telling you guys. Those in favor of uh option number two, raise your right hand. Those opposed have two opposed. Okay. So, for the record, uh we have opposed John and Nikki. Were there anyone was there anyone else opposed? Were you for or against? against. Dons's against D's against. So three against and 64. No abstensions. Correct. No extensions. Okay. So the way I took that was that the recommendation should be for option two. And just for a matter of formality, can

we make sure that that's a favorable, unfavorable, or no? No recommendation. So could you humor. Yeah, humor me and just have another motion of saying whether it's favorable. I'll make a motion favorable or unfavorable. Good. You want it favorable? You want it favorable? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Yes. Did you say And then do you want to see all hands in the air? I'm going to do a roll call. Whoever wants to vote. Okay. That might be the easiest way to do a roll call. Roll call. Yeah. So please repeat the motion. Uh the motion that I have noted is that based upon the previous vote option two is the recommendation and Chip made a motion that that recommendation be favorable with Dennis seconding that. So at this point it would be to you send to the count to the common council a favorable recommendation of code revision option two. So one question does this go with it? What you've identified is the ornamental materials. Uh we can and yeah that's part of the overall staff commentary. So yeah we can make sure that goes too just like we do with resonings and maps and stuff. Okay. Yep. All right. Any questions about the motion to recommend a favorable uh for option number two? Yep. Hearing none. Those in favor raise your right hand. He's doing a roll. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Amanda, would you do a roll call? Thank you, Dennis. Screwed that up. Mr.

Lang, do you agree that the motion should be favorable? No, he's shaking his head. Mr. Whis. Yes, Missal. No, Mr. Kissinger. No, Mr. Cigarette. Yes, Mr. Wiggle. Yes. Hold on. I hate to be a bear of bad news. We need to have a public hearing right now. So before we finish this vote, you want me to run out here and sit. Sorry, legal counsel. Let's let's deal with the public hearing and then we'll restart the motion and the the final recommendation. Is that okay? Fine. Okay. So, at this time I will open a public meeting in regards to this fence code revision. And for the record, there's no one in the audience and no one on the electronic audience. Okay. So now I can close the Now I close the public hearing on 25- Z O-1 fence code revision. Now you can resume the roll call vote. Start new. Start new. We can just start new. Why don't we start new? So, ship,

do you want to remake that motion? I'll make the motion for favorable option to send to the council. Second. Okay. Motion is second to send favorable recommendation on option number two to city council. And we will now have a roll call vote. Mr. Lang. No. Okay. Mr. W. No. Miss Venibal. No. Mr. Kissinger. No. Mr. Ziger. Yes. Mr. Wald. Yes. Mr. Hill. Yes. Mr. Mono. Yes. Mr. Warick. Yes. Okay. Thank you for bearing with that. I didn't want to get caught with not having a formal public hearing. So, With a 5 to4 favorable vote, we'll pass and certify favorable recommendation of what I've drafted as option two to the common council. And uh I plan to get that to uh clerk treasurer in the next couple days. So it should be on council's next agenda next week. Great. Hey, other business. Vice President position, Mr. Reese. Yes. Um I will be having some uh medical activity taking place sometime probably in the next 3 to four months and I felt that it was in the best interest of the Columbia City Plan Commission that for day-to-day operations signing of documents and plats that I step aside at this time as the vice president and uh for allow for you know

people to have accessibility that would be available here. Um and with that I would like to make the nomination Nikki venerable to replace my term for vice president. Okay. Are you willing? Yes. Okay. Any other nominations? I guess we need a second for Nikki. Second. Yeah. I move the nominations be closed. Second for that. Second. Close. Anybody want? There you go. All right. Those in favor, raise your right hand. Those uh opposed, same sign. Motion carried. That's called the railroad. Welcome to the team. That's how we do it. Exactly. Nathan, any uh reports from staff? Uh nothing major. Uh permits are starting to pick up slowly. Uh they are not complete. They've never were completely dead, but they weren't as busy as they've been the last couple years. Uh but they are starting to pick back up. So, we are starting to uh see uh activity again. Um there was something else I was going to mention and it escapes me. So, if I think of it, I'll email you guys. Motion second. motion. [Music] I think I still need to get

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]