Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Fencing Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Placerville commission discusses requiring design review for fences visible from street; staff to return with options
Summary
After public comment and questions about code clarity, commissioners signaled they want fences visible from the street in historic residential districts to undergo design review. Staff will bring back draft guidance and consider application simplification and fee issues.
The Planning Commission on Oct. 7 discussed appropriate fence materials and the application process for fences in Placerville’s historic residential districts, with commissioners indicating a preference to require historic-site design review for fences visible from the street.
A resident who identified himself as Doug Grama described seeking permission to replace a failing wooden boundary fence and said the application and guidance felt excessive. “I got the form for the permit, and it was about 15 pages long,” Grama said, adding he could not find a clear code citation that requires site plan review for a simple boundary fence.
Carol Kendrick, director of development services, said some fences under 6 feet do not require a permit in certain contexts, but that fences in the city’s historic residential districts often raise aesthetic issues that historically have been considered by the commission because they affect the public-facing appearance of properties. “If it's visible from the street, that always has been part of our review,” Kendrick said.
Commissioners and members of the public wrestled with two related issues: whether a fence should be treated as a structure requiring full site-plan review and whether the historic-guidelines application could be streamlined for simple fence requests. One speaker suggested the commission refer a clarification to city council to reduce confusion and consider a lower fee tier for fence applications.
Several commissioners favored a context-specific approach: require design review for new fences that run parallel to or are otherwise visible from the street, but allow more flexibility for nonvisible boundary fences. Commissioner commentary emphasized examining each proposal in its site context — including whether a building is contributing or noncontributing to the historic district — and considering alternate materials that meet both historic-character and safety/fire concerns.
Public commenter Doug Grama requested a written city code citation if the city intended to require historic review; other speakers urged the commission to consider the administrative burden and the cost of a $600 application fee. Commissioners asked staff to consider revisions to the historic guidelines and the site-review application so that the process is clearer and less burdensome for straightforward fence repairs or replacements.
Kendrick said staff will return with options, including draft guidance that identifies when a fence requires historic-site design review and potential ways to simplify the application packet. Commissioners also signaled interest in creating illustrative examples of acceptable materials and in allowing flexibility depending on a property’s historic contribution and the fence’s visibility.
No formal ordinance or fee change was adopted; staff will return to the commission with proposed language and options for next steps.
