My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0013419
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
C
>
COUNTYWIDE
>
0
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
TA-86-2
>
SU0013419
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2020 8:55:30 AM
Creation date
6/12/2020 8:11:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0013419
PE
2600
FACILITY_NAME
TA-86-2
STREET_NUMBER
0
STREET_NAME
COUNTYWIDE
ENTERED_DATE
6/10/2020 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
0 COUNTYWIDE
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\gmartinez
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
95
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
PC : 11-5-87 <br /> TA-86-2 <br /> since the utility meter is placed by the building contractor, but <br /> fencing is often installed by the property owner . If the meter <br /> is not installed in the correct spot , the location of the utility <br /> box could unduly restrict the fencing options for the property <br /> owner . This is especially true in light of the fact that this <br /> ordinance would permit up to seven-foot-high open fences on all <br /> sides of the property. <br /> In addition to the three noted revisions , the Subcommittee also <br /> recommended inclusion of a special review procedure to evaluate <br /> the required depth to recess front yard gates. When required, <br /> this evaluation would be done as part of the Fence Plot Plan <br /> application. This provision is contained in the special fence <br /> requirement section. <br /> BACKGROUND: <br /> On July 31 , 1986 , the Planning Commission held a special meeting <br /> for public input on fence, building setback, and area regula- <br /> tions . At the meeting, several residents spoke to the current <br /> fence regulations, specifically the prohibition of fences over <br /> four feet in front yard setbacks. At the conclusion of this <br /> meeting, a special subcommittee of the Planning Commission was <br /> appointed to review current regulations and propose appropriate <br /> revisions . The Fence Subcommittee consists of Commissioners <br /> Jungeblut , Gabbard, and Carter. <br /> After several work sessions, the subcommittee came up with the <br /> enclosed recommended revisions. . These standards were developed <br /> not only by reviewing the approaches of other local jurisdic- <br /> tions, but also by using visual aids and models, as well as by <br /> actual on-site visits . Their one overriding consideration in the <br /> development of the proposed revisions was that of safety and <br /> liability (see County Counsel memo, Attachment II ) . Even though <br /> the property owners at the special meeting wanted a reduction in_ <br /> current regulations, they acknowledged that fence location and <br /> type should not impact health and safety considerations. <br /> In addition to the proposed revisions to current requirements, <br /> new definitions and special provisions have also been developed. <br /> Refer to Attachment I for this additional language. <br /> Based on the subcommittee ' s research and discussion, they agreed <br /> to recommend two substantial changes in current fence regula- <br /> tions. In the agricultural, RR, and RA zones, an open fence up <br /> to six feet would be permitted at the front property line . It <br /> should also be noted that the front yard setback has recently <br /> been reduced from 50 feet to 30 feet in the RR zone , which per- <br /> -6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.