Fencing regulations split city council
Language allowing chain link initially approved, final action slated for next month
MOSES LAKE — New homeowners won't be missing their chain links any time soon, but debate on whether to limit the fencing in future front yards as part of sweeping changes to the city's fencing regulations has the city council split.
City council members initially approved fencing regulations by a 4-3 vote Tuesday night, tightening regulations and providing more teeth to enforcement of dilapidated fences in the city limits. Whether or not to allow chain link fences in front yards proved to be the splitting factor for council members, with the majority voting to allow future development to install the cyclone fencing. The council will take final action on fencing regulations Aug. 8.
A city planning commission recommendation had included language prohibiting chain link fences in areas visible from city streets. The language allowed chain link fencing in back yards and side yards, except for back yards which abut city streets. Discussion of the chain link fencing dominated a two-hour city council and planning commission study session Tuesday afternoon.
The new fencing regulations only apply to new construction within the city limits, although those new regulations could allow city building officials to trigger the replacement of a fence if more than one quarter of the fence is in disrepair.
"The building official would have the discretion to determine if that fence could be repaired or replaced," city association planner Lori Barlow told city council and planning commission members at Tuesday's study session.
The fencing also calls out the requirement landscaping on the sidewalk-side of the fences be maintained by the property owners or homeowners association.
The changes to fencing primarily impact lots in which the back yard borders major arterial streets, and include specific conditions on fence materials, design, their location and landscaping.
On new subdivisions bordering those major streets, the city would require a homeowners association to maintain sidewalk-side landscaping. If the homeowners association disbanded, Barlow said the fence landscaping would be the responsibility of the individual property owners.
Barlow said the plan does give the city building official some teeth to give non-compliant homeowners a fine of up to $2,000 if their fences in disrepair are not fixed.
Councilman Richard Pearce initiated the chain link discussion, and felt the city should continue to allow homeowners to install it in their front yards.
"A chain link fence that's five years old looks a lot better than a fence that's wood that's five years old," Pearce said during the workshop.
Councilman Brent Reese agreed, said he thought chain link fencing in good shape looked good.
But Planning Commissioner Yvonne Parker said that while chain link fences are utilitarian, they do little in the way of aesthetics. Parker pointed the city is looking to beautify the community, and said she sees chain link fencing as temporary.
Mayor Ron Covey echoed comments about aesthetics in the later city council meeting, and mentioned the city's contract with developer Roger Brooks to improve the aesthetics of the community. In voting against the proposal allowing chain link fences in front yards, he pointed out that the type of fences would still be allowed in side and back yards.
"At this particular time I'm going to take the position of ordinance with the planning commission," Covey said.
Covey, Councilman Jon Lane and Councilman Jim Liebrecht voted against the plan. Councilmen Reese, Pearce, Bill Ecret and Dick Deane voted in favor of the change allowing chain link fencing.
Pearce said he thought they should allow the type of fencing now, but said these types of ordinances always require changes down the road as changes happen in the community.
"They never get completely mastered," Pearce said. "You work on them time after time."