Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Exception Hidden Creek topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hidden Creek seeks fence exception from masonry wall rule; staff notes support and opposition
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission heard a staff briefing on a fence exception request for the Hidden Creek subdivision (phase 1) to permit a board‑on‑board wooden fence with masonry columns along Perry and Avenue H East instead of the masonry screening wall required by the Unified Development Code. Staff said the applicant provided a maintenance
Planning staff briefed the commission on April 28 about a fence‑exception request from the Hidden Creek subdivision’s first phase to allow a board‑on‑board wooden fence with masonry columns along collectors/arterials instead of the Unified Development Code’s required masonry screening wall.
The request is notable because staff reported the developer and homeowners’ association indicated that replacing the required masonry wall would carry a high cost (staff said the applicant estimated about $6,000 per home as an additional assessment), and the submission included a maintenance plan and both letters of support and opposition from residents.
Staff member Savannah explained that the UDC requires masonry screening walls along collectors or arterials but that the UDC allows the city council to grant an exception on recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission if applicants provide a maintenance plan. Savannah said the applicant’s proposed maintenance plan calls for biannual inspections, cleaning, periodic sealing or staining as needed, and replacement when repair is no longer possible. Savannah said staff received 15 letters of support (representing 14 unique addresses) and four letters of opposition (representing four unique addresses). She also said the opposition letters generally cited expectations that the originally intended masonry wall would reduce noise, enhance safety, and provide aesthetic value.
One person in the room said, “I’m here to support,” but no name was recorded in the staff briefing transcript; Savannah said the decision to pursue the exception would be the HOA’s responsibility and that, if the commission recommends approval, the city council would make the final decision.
Commissioners asked whether the applicant had documented the $6,000 figure and whether less expensive alternatives — including panelized or precast masonry products (one brand mentioned was Fiscrete) — were considered. Savannah said the applicant could address cost details at the public hearing. Commissioners also asked whether a maintenance schedule could be binding; Savannah said the commission could recommend conditions to council but staff could not guarantee how binding a maintenance commitment would be through the HOA and council process.
Staff said this briefing was to give the commission background and to note correspondence; no action was taken. The matter will be scheduled for the public hearing at the regular meeting and may be forwarded to city council for a final decision on the UDC exception.
