WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=tmmQPlLcODk

Part: 1

1
00:01:54.000 --> 00:02:10.399
meeting will of the June 1st, 20 2026 Six, planning commission meeting will come to order. Roll call. >> Johnson >> here. >> No, >> here. >> Gliss >> here. >> Nats >> here.

2
00:02:10.399 --> 00:02:25.840
>> Uh, agenda is before us. Any additions to the agenda? >> Uh, motion to approve agenda. >> Noach moves. Second. >> Second. >> Not second. All in favor? I >> oppose. Nay. So move. I won't forget

3
00:02:25.840 --> 00:02:41.599
now. The approval of the minutes. Uh motion to approve the amendments. >> Second. >> Um Novach Douglas. Any other discussion? All in favor? I

4
00:02:41.599 --> 00:02:58.720
>> post nay. So moved. >> No public input. Public hearing. Um on the variance for a six-foot fence along a public rightway. We will open the public hearing. I still have 6:30. At 6:30. Is there anybody who would like

5
00:02:58.720 --> 00:03:14.640
to speak at the public hearing about the fence? Anybody who would like to comment on the fence? Third and last call for input on the variance for a six-foot fence.

6
00:03:14.640 --> 00:03:33.760
Hearing none, we will close the public hearing. I still have at 6:30. We'll call that 6:31. Commission discussion on the variance of the six foot fence or Izzy, would you like to talk about it? >> Yeah, I'll just do a quick introduction.

7
00:03:33.760 --> 00:03:49.040
So, it's pretty simple. Um, so we just got an application in um to put a fence up. So, there's just a little nuance of the code where if you have a sideyard that abuts a public rideway, which includes an alley, um your max height is

8
00:03:49.040 --> 00:04:06.720
four feet. Um, just the nuance of this one is that the the neighbor for this house has a rear yard up against the alley. So technically they could be at six feet for their fence, but because of the situation of their lot, it's the sideyard, which forces them to four. Um,

9
00:04:06.720 --> 00:04:24.000
so the variance is to allow them to do six feet all the way around their yard. So I just like to mention the sixoot fence is behind their garage, so it's not within the traffic visibility triangle. that's not going to impede anybody's view. Um, and also from the

10
00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:38.160
pictures and that you saw in your packet, this alley really isn't utilized at all. I think one neighbor uses it to to park their vehicle um every so often, but otherwise it's it's really not utilized as an alley at all. So, it

11
00:04:38.160 --> 00:04:56.160
really won't um impact anybody um along the alley there or cause any um visibility issues. Um, so their want is just a full privacy fence around their yard. Um, so that's what the variance is for. I will just add one note on this

12
00:04:56.160 --> 00:05:12.960
application if it's approved. Uh, how we want to move forward with the fence as it sits right now. So any questions? Um, I'm happy to give any answers. So I'm just looking at these two pictures and I was I've read it. So are

13
00:05:12.960 --> 00:05:30.960
there is their house where the road and Oh, it's over here. >> Okay. >> That's the garage. So, this is their house. >> No, that's the garage that's not attached to the house, which is screwed over. Okay. >> In in the photos that you see, it's the garage. Um and and the fence begins at

14
00:05:30.960 --> 00:05:47.199
the rear of their garage. >> Oh, I see. So, this isn't a neighbor's fence. This is their fence. >> It's their fence. Yes. >> Oh, I get it. I get it. Interesting. So now the other question was the neighbor who has their fence up,

15
00:05:47.199 --> 00:06:03.560
did they have their >> that's over here. >> Did they have their set the right way where the outside was the smooth side? >> I believe so. That's an existing fence that's been there for quite a long long while.

16
00:06:04.800 --> 00:06:21.360
I guess I could be negative on the whole thing because I've got a wood fence up and I was told adamantly that you would not put those posts facing any direction but your inside of your property line and I don't know if that's a criteria for the city. Does that matter? It does matter.

17
00:06:21.360 --> 00:06:36.960
>> It's it's part of the code when when you fill out your sign application. It's there's a whole page as part of the application for the requirements you have to follow. Um, I think it just gets missed by by some applicants. >> It's common in other cities, too. I've

18
00:06:36.960 --> 00:06:52.240
dealt with this everywhere I've been where people install the fence incorrectly. And I've had a number of times where we've told them, "No, you're going to install it the other way around." >> I say, and that's what I'm looking at is that

19
00:06:52.240 --> 00:07:09.360
if it So, if they do put it if we have them change it so that it goes the other way, they'll still be happy because they still have their sixoot fence. So that's the way I'm looking at it as that they decided to go with before we went and made a decision on this. So I think I

20
00:07:09.360 --> 00:07:27.840
would allow the six foot fence. This is me. But I think that they should turn it around so that the smooth side is to the exterior to meet city code. Anyone against that? >> Let me construction it quite. I mean,

21
00:07:27.840 --> 00:07:44.319
are these set such a way so you could come and knock it off and then flip it around and put it back on with minimal effort, do you think, >> or is that going to be I I actually drove by the the place and and looked at it and the first thing I

22
00:07:44.319 --> 00:08:00.560
said was, "Oh, wow. They put the fence up backwards." >> Um, and I'm not as concerned about alleys looking ugly. And if you go on the east side of the fence, there's just a teeny weeny little walkway between the

23
00:08:00.560 --> 00:08:15.440
neighbor's fence and this fence. So that's not it would if the neighbor took down their fence. But there's another neighbor on the other side. I definitely think it would have to be taken down. But if we're going to have them take down part of it, I guess there would

24
00:08:15.440 --> 00:08:32.240
part of me that says turn all of facing around. >> Yeah. >> I just don't know how cost prohibitive that is. But also, when you do something wrong, you should fix it. >> Yeah, I kind of agree. Um, can't really plead ignorance. Um, and I'm looking at

25
00:08:32.240 --> 00:08:48.720
the plot right now on on my phone, but you know, I I have no problem with the fence being there whatsoever, especially with the the, you know, the traffic triangle that Izzy mentioned. There's just not a ton of traffic using it. Um, so I have no issue with that variance, but um, it's abuing two residential

26
00:08:48.720 --> 00:09:04.800
properties. It looks like it should be done the right way. you know, that alley side. Don't really care too much about that. But yeah, if you're going to do it, do it right is where I I'd stand. So, >> and I guess there's something that says if we're going to make them do it on the

27
00:09:04.800 --> 00:09:21.440
adjoining residential side, is it going to be then go ahead and redo the whole thing? >> Yeah, >> I think so. >> Do you have any problem with the six foot? >> No. Nope. I think that's perfectly fine. I don't think there's a ton of traffic using it. I don't think that be much of

28
00:09:21.440 --> 00:09:37.360
a traffic issue because of it. You know, it's there to protect a user, but it's not a through alley or anything like that. People aren't zipping through there. So, >> Isaac, >> I I guess yeah, from from the standpoint

29
00:09:37.360 --> 00:09:52.959
of having those posts face inwards or I guess, you know, having that flush look. Is that more of an aesthetic thing or is that an issue where the city if we're plowing out there, we don't want to run into one of the post or is that >> No, it's it's primarily aesthetic, but generally those fences go and they face

30
00:09:52.959 --> 00:10:08.720
out towards your neighbor. So the you know to be a good as practice to be a good neighbor, the fence good-look part of the fence should be >> y >> towards your neighbor. It's >> No, I Yeah, I I agree. I' I've been out that to that area and I I know they just put it up because I think they just

31
00:10:08.720 --> 00:10:24.640
purchased that property. Um, and yeah, I got no issue with the six foot fence because they're right. I mean, that alley is not utilized. But to Izzy's point, I mean, if that's in the code, which they must have seen the code to some point, otherwise we wouldn't be

32
00:10:24.640 --> 00:10:43.760
here tonight, yet they installed it incorrectly. I I got no opposition to say, yeah, go ahead with the six foot, but install it correctly. Is it possible for us to approve or recommend approval of variance and require that they flip the facing?

33
00:10:43.760 --> 00:11:02.240
>> I think we could bring that recommendation to city council for the approval of that as a condition of approval. >> And are we looking to have them flip the entirety from what I'm hearing rather than just the facing alley aspect?

34
00:11:02.240 --> 00:11:19.519
Um, I mean, per the code, it'd be the whole >> Yeah. >> Oh, are we saying I think did you mention that the people on the other side of the walkway have theirs facing the same way where they have the poles facing? >> No. >> Oh, they don't. They have to. Yep. Then I just feel that it's a it's a it's a

35
00:11:19.519 --> 00:11:36.560
very old fence. It looks like it could blow down in a windstorm, but you know, it it was it was put up with a facing out >> the way it should be. Okay. Um, and at this point being, you know, it's fence to fence, there's really no, but at the same time, if that other

36
00:11:36.560 --> 00:11:53.519
fence ever came down, then that neighbor would be looking at both. But I assume if we're going to have them do the two long sides, you might as well have them do the whole thing. >> Yep. >> Recommended. >> I guess I would make a motion to approve the variance with the rider that they

37
00:11:53.519 --> 00:12:13.040
need to install the fence correctly, facing the correct way. So that would be the uh resolution 2026-08 with the condition of redoing the face. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. So Kobach moves. Is there a second?

38
00:12:13.040 --> 00:12:27.200
>> I second it. >> Douglas second. Further discussion to approve the recommend approval of variance with the condition that the facing be installed properly. >> Hearing none. All in favor say I. I

39
00:12:27.200 --> 00:12:47.200
>> I oppose. Nay. So moved. Next meeting is July 13th. Correct. For the planning commission. Any other business? Not. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> No. Move. Second. >> Second.

40
00:12:47.200 --> 00:12:57.480
>> I second. All in favor? I >> I post nay. So moved. >> Okay. Tada.