Laserfiche WebLink
Item No . <br /> PC : 11-5-87 <br /> TA-86-2 <br /> Page 2 <br /> since the utility meter is placed by the building, but fencing is <br /> often installed by the property owner . If it is not installed in <br /> the correct spot , the location of the utility box could unduly <br /> restrict the fencing options for the property owner . This is <br /> especially true in light of the fact that this ordinance would <br /> permit up to seven-foot-high open fences on all sides of the <br /> 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 />