A significant portion of the meeting revolved around the proposed fence installation at 488 4th Street, a property located by a canal. The property owners presented a plans to construct a six-foot fence along the property line to address a historical error dating back to the 1950s. This design includes a ten-foot gate to allow city access to an easement running through the backyard, which is important for future city maintenance or utility work.

In addition to the six-foot fence, the owners plan to build a pool, necessitating the fence installation at this time. The proposed design includes a six-foot wall off the corner of the house, tapering down to a four-foot fence along the canal to comply with city code, which requires a maximum height of four feet within fifteen feet of the waterway. The installation will be set approximately eighteen feet from the canal, adhering to regulations and including a five-foot section of fence adjacent to the gate.

Concerns were raised regarding the visibility triangle code, which requires unobstructed views at intersections. The property owners have ensured that their fence design complies with this requirement. A key discussion point was whether a variance for the six-foot section of the fence was necessary since it exceeds standard regulations. The staff confirmed no objections from neighbors within a 300-foot radius.

Questions arose about potential precedents this decision could set for the neighborhood. The staff clarified that each case is evaluated individually, and no precedent would be established through this approval. The dialog also touched on the placement of the fence and the challenges posed by existing utility lines running through the backyard, which limit the usable space for construction.

The property owners highlighted their careful consideration of access for city utilities and the limitations imposed on their property by existing infrastructure. They emphasized that their only feasible option for a pool is constrained to a small area adjacent to their garage due to these restrictions. They reiterated the importance of the fence not only for privacy and security but also for future planning regarding the pool installation.

Further into the meeting, the discussion delved into the practical and usability aspects of the proposed fence design. The applicant emphasized the need for the fence to be practical for both their own benefit and potential access needs for neighbors. They proposed a design incorporating a solid base of four feet, with a height reduction to five feet at the gate area to ensure access without disrupting the established front yard. The existing wooden picket fence, present since the 1950s, was noted to be on the property line, confirmed by prior approvals for a variance that adjusted the property line to the fence’s location.

Questions regarding the placement of the fence, particularly in relation to a survey, were addressed. A clarification was provided that the fence was indeed on the property line due to a past variance approval. Further discussion involved the specific dimensions of the fence and whether the approval would be based solely on the drawing provided. The possibility of establishing a timeline for construction was also brought up, with a standard approval timeframe mentioned as generally 12 to 24 months. There was a consensus on the need for clearer language in future packets to streamline the approval process.

The potential transfer of the variance in case of future property sale was addressed, with the current owners noting they were unlikely to sell soon due to the substantial investment they were making in the property. The timeline for the variance approval process was mentioned again, with a member recalling that previous approvals typically allowed a two-year timeframe for construction. The group discussed a motion to approve the variance request, with some expressing support based on the lack of opposition and the intended improvements to the property.

A member remarked on the significance of the applicants’ efforts to improve the property, stating that they had invested considerable resources into repairs, including the seawall. The motion to approve the variance as presented was put forward and seconded, leading to a vote.