Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Building Code topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council upholds denial of corrugated metal fence variance at 902 Joplin Street

5676823 · August 20, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Following neighbor complaints about noise, safety and code compliance, council upheld the planning commission's denial of a variance to allow metal-panel fencing; the owner must remove the fence to comply with the Unified Development Ordinance.

The council voted to uphold the planning commission's denial of a variance to allow corrugated metal/panel fencing for a residential property at 902 Joplin Street, rejecting the property owner's appeal.

Planning staff explained the Unified Development Ordinance prohibits fences made from plywood, metal panels or corrugated steel sheets for residential properties. The planning commission recommended denial and neighbors who spoke during public comment expressed noise and safety concerns, citing wind-driven panel movement, potential hazards to people and animals, and unsecured sections that allow animals to reach beneath the panels.

One neighbor told council: “It is a huge safety concern for me. My house is right next to it … I have had to put up boards and cattle guards so my dogs do not get their paws up under the sharp metal,” and described an anchored power line adjacent to the fence she feared could electrify the sheets in a storm. Another neighbor said the fence was noisy when the wind blew and alleged the panels were installed without complying with city rules.

Staff said building inspectors inspected the fence and had issued a red tag because the material is not allowed under section 21-2-10(d) of the UDO; inspectors found the structure was standard construction but non compliant with the material restrictions. Councilmember discussion referenced aesthetics and precedent; one member said the language clearly prohibits this material and that approving the variance could create a slippery slope for future fence appeals.

A motion to uphold the planning commission's decision to deny the variance passed by voice vote. Council confirmed that enforcement — removal of noncompliant material — would be required if the owner did not obtain a future approval that complied with code.