Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04092009 ZPC Agenda Item 5 Sallye Clark From: Debbie Scarcella Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 10:15 AM To: Sallye Clark Subject: FW: frontyard landscaping From: Janet Cook [mailto:janetwalkercook@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:50 PM To: Debbie Scarcella Subject: frontyard landscaping Dear Debbie, I am very upset to learn that my front yard landscaping is in jeopardy. I have had the boxwoods in front of my house along the sidewalk for years, and do not understand why they are a problem now. As I drive through West U., I see numerous houses with similar types of landscaping such as mine. My yardmen walk through the boxwoods all the time, so it is not as if they are some impenetrable wall. There are also open spaces on both sides. I am baffled as to why my yard is being targeted. I am not able to attend this Thursday's meeting, as my dad is in a Temple hospital and I have to travel there to be with him. My husband, John, will try to attend the meeting. Janet Cook 3705 Robinhood St. 713.664.2543 1 Sallye Clark From: Debbie Scarcella Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 10:16 AM To: Sallye Clark Subject: FW: landscaping zoning From: Carolyn Le Sage [mailto:clesage@swbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 5:24 AM To: Debbie Scarcella Subject: landscaping zoning We live next door to Janet and John Cook. I am very upset to learn that West University is trying to tell the Cooks how to landscape their yard. Where will this stop?? One of the things we have always appreciated about WU was the DIVERSITY of people, homes and landscaping. I, for one, DO NOT want to live in a subdivision where all of the houses and yards look the same. I appreciate that there needs to be VERY general rules about upkeep and such, but there is nothing wrong with the landscaping in my neighbors yard, it may not be what I would have, but it is not my yard. I think the association needs to back off and quit trying to tell everyone what to do. We have general regulations and thats great, but we do not need to get specific within those regulations! 1 Sallye Clark From: Tony LaMatta [tonyl@rallyinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 4:33 PM To: Debbie Scarcella Cc: Sallye Clark Subject: Zoning Ordinance Regarding Fences Agenda April 09 2009 Meeting Importance: High Good Afternoon, My name is Tony La Matta and I live at 3423 Carnegie. I am writing to you today because I oppose the passing of this new fence ordinance. I can tell you that many of my neighbors and other residents that I have talked to oppose this as well. The way the article is written would force hundreds of residents of west university to take out plants, shrubs and hedges from their property. I don't understand why tax paying residents of west university are being restricted at such lengths. If we are to be objective, then drive to memorial and river oaks and see how beautiful those homes look with plants, hedges, trees, flowers, shrubs etc. Is it unsafe to walk and live in those neighborhoods? Actually every year people pay to go and visit homes with beautiful azaleas and other landscape arrangements in those neighborhoods. Are we not as well equipped to live safely and in harmony with our plants in West University as those neighborhoods? I want West University to remain and become more beautiful . This proposal would not let that happen and I believe would also diminish property values. I would like to know the reason for this proposal. I would like to know who proposed this and why. Where is the data that supports this proposal? Based on what information did the council introduce this new ordinance? Due to the Easter holiday I will not be able to attend Thursday's meeting on April 9 but want to express my opinion on this matter. There are many things to improve in West University and this is not one of them. I thank the many residents of West University who have opposed this proposal and have kept me updated on this matter and will help them in any way I can to end this nonsense. Thank you Tony La Matta 3423 Carnegie Houston, Tx 77005 713-875-7943 1 Sallye Clark From: larissa@eximiuscoffee.com Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 8:49 PM To: Debbie Scarcella Cc: Sallye Clark Subject: Zoning Ordinance Regarding Fences Agenda April 09 2009 Meeting Dear West University Committee, I am writing to you to express my concern and disapproval to the new city ordinance mentioned above. I moved to WU over 10 years ago because this city has a unique character and charm. What exactly are you trying to accomplish by passing this new ordinance? If it is for safety reasons (as I have read), please show me the evidence that proves that our beautiful landscapes, gardens, and trees have caused accidents!!! I can tell you that cars speeding through WU streets, TWO-WAY Stop Signs, and cars parked in the streets have caused more accidents than our landscapes!! Please let's preserve WU's beatiful gardens and landscape!! Regards, Larissa de Aldecoa myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://Iink.myhosting.com/myhosting 1 1 `~+w4 i ~1 ` `•C•~~ 1'V;~,' , ~ 1~+~ ,tif k ~~'SY •'.n' r~ ~~lh ~y ~ ` ~ f • 1 ~ 1 f ~ i Q1' +ta ~ ~ . 4 f tal ' r „ 11 ll,t, Iv, .fit rt 1!.~ 1 . 1 a''Y Ilk] • w Nor A. ~ as ytu \ ar''c y t.w-'"?~ i 4~:. RAgKF.TRAI,L COURT Y+~:._- o r , z ~r v r'c'At~~ ~ L Pr '1 ~rr n♦ 'can ti 44 ~~Zr Not .01 vita AV. 14 4Lj pArl ♦S:~ ~ ~ 7:: ,Jt ~j, Fxr r4 c:1r r r.•' P c.~f'• r F•~ s JF_s ~ ~ Jay' 1,0 17, tr v "h ow, rµ y d 9t 'b - _ r`~•.,i ~ ` Y _ ~ `.(~9•h. f y ` ` `r~ t. 7YY-,s ~ p~~.M~'i~Y~'~ y `~i41 P~•~'v., Vjf. -4~r t yi.. •+t+ ~ y~`'7~~YI"~ l ~1PR ~+yr - . `IYFi 4y X115 4tM n !f•"""RRY••- _ ~1 Jam," y {+fe'a9~ 7 +i 14 • ,tti, ♦t p • 1 ~ 3r:,~~ t +~t ',Y~r, fir.-'i , ~M ..4-~~ 1, f n !a~~ ~ / elf t nw yy i I' r 1 ~~'~•daNj„',il1t. may,.: y - 1, r - Ila, t"• ( V ~ • _ s a i F r,,relY . } _ y ~Dr P y.. a~ 0 ,yd Fl`Ky'`rA' `~n yy T1"r. ~ l~f CPIr 4~ F ~6 Y f k if • - ky ~-2 4 ` '~A 't.y rxx d e. ,fl D f•¢b, "trr .R _ r..~f1 \5:~~+ k~ ft' ' f ,rr.: ,y Wit, `i~{ r~' ~r r%~`~Yk••~~.it •i~ .ir mac" F I r" L"- • ~~y~ ^t~ i~ 4 1pr i a. - ?~l~J ! a~f}~y~,~.. 4 M1 - 9y - - tee.-Wrr..z.: ' SUV HIDDEN FROM VIEW BY HEDGES ti rr dam` a f.~ 'R'W,. •~,•d~rRa7„ r i - 7~'~ ~i "A"o r ~ ! f ~ I ~~i r: s. q - 4 y i~' . :x~ •t• "~71t`.lQ,r., j - _ , 1 4 - \ T P11. i SUV HIDDEN FROM VIEW BY HEDGES '•~~~Trt? G rl' ry AN z~211- IN "I J. y y[ r ) 40" 40 } 4~~t~f IY~T•l ~~s , Jr~:. r J0. a 1 n~ 7~.•,Ipr.'~" r 9 - s '•t+!!{~_. .y~'a, t+~y.'L~ j _ + ...s(, - 4, i A-I Aaz~l '..tra .ylr .ft,d(' •.e 7 .r Lr rAr-.. Ada ~ 'T'•,lI ~r ~ ~ ~'i\" } r r?ern i" <I Y• ~F ~ ~ y.. Y*t. • l 1'.'~Y•,~` - 1'e.i~. s J",?. q'rr' 7 z' . r - W`Yr ~ II. 1~ yf+ ri A r• j~, ~ (ASS ' +~¢`rq-... r? ~ is t -..~e,e`~~ !Y ..~r~. -t .ate .r.V ~ .M'r ,4;~ . _VS1~~. S"•- ~ ~1 ~ { j' X 1 lk1 ~ 1. . YAK. t 140 AIA' 46,1 lk 4 f V, yr{)~ ` 1~ y L I_ f ' J ~sJK'r " V + 'A 50 F a. ,.~F N - .P -Jq•~ ~'r'. _ ac* y„ ~.;.wl+Yan.'-.. - , { a aQ n 1F~ _ rr_ ` di ~MtTt,'Z~I~Ii' t y ec r aCy~~ 'S' 1 p! x ~ •l ~r F. e ~~i "4 jati ~ rL((',~x t}~ ~ ~.'<1, 1x } \ ~ I ~ ` y,~ `'~i, r ~ , L. y ~ 71 ,T 1 ~ti t. \ X.. ' - Mx r G_ r 7 ` ' ! YY '~J [M 4 v`,' I '-C ``,~Yt t L ! ,C T w' p , `~1'W a 4r ~ ~ ~ „Zi e J I~ i ~ ~ ~,n.. y~~ ~`yc } ~ ~ rd's ~ ,l~' ` ~ \ , r: s `P~ r tip µ A p a t jjjVVV11F , l 5 fy~'~,. ' ,•F L 'l~pyi -l.~ ALT yy _ F - n i ~ A- ' ,fit r SI ~ tK f v ~ ~J,# r 1 ~ * t t 171 *Al 4~k~ ~ airy k ~ I'~'_`'?•• ~~~~~I :.K i r . H ' 7,s+- •4+~: $ ~"r ~ ~ =t a f:y 1 r V ~ ' fk l~• Y f4}: lei y~ 4 it a, `P k**;P Ar 4 rr . r i~ 'M T ' Ir y jlr 1 q 1 W k, ~-:7 3►. J .r rya ~ Ai •y ~ ~ + t lq ,a~►4 s'~1 y ~ ~ q ~ . ~.r•~ ~ . , y pr. r>T, ft ~ ~ / tY• ~ , , r .~izs : ° fy`~a :ti ~ t ,i . _ fly, Ar tit r 77 oil 'lot • P ,."J .~iT ~ x b kin-i:a.:. AF, •1 Y ' Y 1 'T R ti~ ~y 1~b. i _ , n . ~ ~ • rd ^,~•~~,yy~ y n.!ar,. -"'lldas'ac I.A ~ Hw ~'f. ~ W~ ~ It ~,}y •1' SK ,y~,y[' ~ a~ a w'L"d-., .!R lYt 'r.i`- +,\r°r{ 1 `r: r'~a ! yd"~ !_r-~f Z"' t' .-1~! 1 C ; r4 }.L, _.~'t"'''; ~ ~t ~ i'~f+r- ~~t.Y ''^.y~►a- T - ,~ryt-. n~" ! r Sfn y r;s r a lr ' 4yr r 'a-a 'v{ r 77 2 +Dit 1 v I or, la`ft~ e 1Yµ - .;~w~ 1F' ~'ti• r _ ~j: 4'1 ~~..Y.. S~W►,~,~ s • Below is a list of addresses that were sent via e-mail in preparation for the meeting on April 9, 2009 regarding fence-like hedges in front yards. Attached are photos of these addresses. Cases of the type of hedges already identified as the purpose for the ordinance include: • 6315 Brompton • 6331 Brompton • 4138 Rice • 4144 Rice • 6355 Rutgers (Hedge across the "rear' at Duke • 3731 Tangley Cases of properties with significant front yard vegetation that should be considered when rewording the regulations include: • 3901 Marquette • 3705 Robinhood • 3506 Sunset • 3215 Tangley • 3407 Tangley • 2903 University • 2927 University • 3001 University • 3805 University • 6306 Vanderbilt Applicants who appeared either at the public hearing or the ZPC meeting afterward with issues regarding the vegetation/plantings on their sites: • 4119 Byron • 2910 Sunset • 2927 University Sallye Clark From: Debbie Scarcella Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:18 PM To: Annie3710@aol.com Cc: Sallye Clark Subject: RE: "Fencing" topic for this week's zoning meeting Ms. Graham, There is no place on the website to directly post comments, rather the usual procedure is to e-mail the comments to staff and we will print the comments out and include them in the Zoning and Planning Commission meeting packets. Please be aware that the Zoning and Planning Commission is still considering amendments and nothing has been approved or has been forwarded to City Council in final format. The Zoning and Planning Commission encourages all residents to forward their comments and concerns to them. I will make sure your e-mail is included in the packets. Thank you. Debbie Scarcella City Planner -----Original Message----- From: Annie3710@aol.com [mailto:Annie3710@aol.com] Sent: Tue 4/7/2009 12:57 PM To: Debbie Scarcella Subject: "Fencing" topic for this week's zoning meeting Dear Debbie, I was under the impression that there was a place on the web-site to post comments and concerns prior to the meeting Thursday evening but I can't find one. I am quite concerned about the potential control that this committee istrying to take over hedges on front lawns in our city. My neighbor is being hassled to remove the boxwood hedge that surrounds her front yard and while it is well maintained it poses no impairment. However, the house on Sunset at Westchester or Rutgers (northwest corner of that intersection) looks like a complete uncared for jungle..... what gives? Is the city targeting certain homeowners? Will the city make those of us who have "art cows" in our yards remove them? Is Big Brother feeling a need to control more aspects of our peaceful lives? I can't attend the meeting but hope that others have expressed the same concerns and that the council will take our concerns into account when deciding upon this portion of the agenda. Thank you, Annie Graham 3710 Robinhood 713-668-202 **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575xl221421323xl2Ol4l7385/aol?redir=http°%2F%2Fwww freec reditreport com%2Fpm%2Fdefault aspxl3Fscl3D668072126hmp~TD %3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooterNO62) 1 FENCE-LIKE HEDGES IN FRONT YARD SPACES ZPC Meeting April 9, 2009 Hedge Rows Across Front Property Lines • Examples Identified as Reasons for Possible Regulations r F: r, w II ell Key r` ~ 'a a 6 0 6315 Brom pton a lei, AIA, W~ z4rt w gx. ~ v 3v • c k -T, ll A 41, • 6331 Brompton :DIV.. a ~ s r r a i Z6 t s • 0 R 3 x = $ A x oil ART' 47 w ~ 1 lisx'b`&Ac ' J~ ~v W~~ z 41* [j Jag sys- x 5 E 2N ova d,< Fr a, ' 3 F ~ ~ 5 3N wool ~p ~ r d rx :jE~ aai? a„ } * Al s s PP ~r ~F14y'e4L~ f ~ ~ v'A ~ i CT, v F'~kpf rt ~S , hg,.,° s„ -aims LM OT v Ln Ln M m ~p A01suel ZELE 'or Y_ ~ =x KOM t~ x 44 X ti n o"A k Examples of Reasons to Re-think Some of the Proposed Amendments 18 a = y „y ;pry Srg:^ p: EeN n O,n y p4 4 t . ` cr M R ATS ;f p q~. 4L Ilz Vi H Ntv NEF k f or U 3705 Robin hood 3 4 e w fi~ a ~ O oe ~ M At 4 z~ s L ` a* 4 141 lv~ 31 d c" _W b V All 'Cr f a,. ~ e t r~ Pk, k IT, x.~"p, s ' ski' 3^ t 'z "WAAM m~ k WI a Alo 4_.~ - - y n n. u ~ f 3 f 3407 Tangley ~ } M ~z ti. F~ ay~yu~ PP ~ - An' aNC A 3 fi '4 l it F 2 £t~~''` RRIP r`. Y ~ 3 ~ Y l ~Y 6 9 l ~9 mks C ~T a 21, N k z S r CN~ 20 ® ~ Msg. w~, W, a ~A4 a WWI ho t' G t' s e AV- Pm SU _ may, k•~ „ a s saw a r a f~ p t~ y. r a v~ JA • 3001 University . v= ~d w 00 C a" E SH b ~ 3i .stk mi , ~4, . a t 4 A, sk °-X a - 'a T . ~ C y y 8 J,y f ` ax~r"`s ~ 'Y~ Y fi Ac s s ~ v s x. t , Aw" Jim x Ft~ E NWIS 'x'' z, olwl a~~ ' s x . %-oa..rx a " TA 21 Addresses of Residents Speaking During the Public Hearing k L E jz, a . i ~ j r 'taw',-' ~ ~`E:•. ~w a5' U< R ~p sw gt R ~d 1 ,ate A+ a b A 70 INK jr- 2927 University [MA[F U DD Proposal relating to fences, visibility and emergency access Revised 3-31-09 (after joint public hearing) Amend Sections 18-208 and 18-210 of the Code of Ordinances, as follows: Sec. 18-208. Fenc-e-Emergency portals; visibility areal: (a) Generally- location. The primary purpose of this subsection is to provide access to all sides of each building so that firefighters and emergency personnel can enter the building, place ladders fight tires etc If such access is blocked by fences walls or other obstructions, there must at least two emergency portals each with a minimum width of 30 inches, and they must be located to allow access to the sides and rear of the building, as follows: (1) Usually there must be one portal on each side of the building facing the front street line but on corner sites one may face the side street line. (2) If there is a fully or partially-enclosed utility easement that intersects a street area adjacent to the site there must be an emergency portal to allow emergency access to the easement area from the street area. (b) Alloitv(l ides of portals An emergency portal may be either: (i) a gate or door with a key box complying with the International Fire Code (see §506.1), or (ii) a breathable fence segment or gate A segment or gate is "breathable" if it is primarily made of wood or wood substitute (not thicker than one inch in either case or wrought iron. (c) Certain existing obstructions Until May 1 2014, it is an affirmative defense to prosecution for lack of emergency portals that: (i) existing fences walls or other obstructions blocked the required access on May 1 2009, and (ii) they were not replaced or structural altered thereafter. (d Visibility areas Fences walls and other things are forbidden in certain visibility areas. See Chapter 82 of this Code. Where a fenee is eenstrue4ed, impr-eved of: stFuetumlly altered along an easement a, a gate with a mi ing of 30 inches must be built for ingress and egress into the easement The gate is faf e-tt area. ors. Sec. 18-210. Masonry construction. Masonry fences must be made of brick, vitrified clay tile, concrete tile, or monolithic reinforced concrete, and must be built according to the following specifications: (1) At least eight inches thick for double-wall construction, which shall be either brick, vitrified clay tile, or concrete tile; at least six inches thick for single-wall construction, which shall be only of brick or monolithic reinforced concrete construction. (2) Pilasters shall be placed on not more than 12-foot centers, or adequate steel reinforcing shall be placed in the whole fence. (3) Expansion joints shall be placed on not more than 24-foot centers. (4) The fence shall have a foundation which shall rest on drilled footings sunk to approved bearing soil. Such footings shall be not less than 12 inches in diameter, and each footing shall have not less than four one-half-inch ties on three-foot centers. Foundation beams shall be not less than 12 inches wide and not less than 18 inches deep with not less than four five-eighths- inch reinforcing rods and three-eighths-inch ties, on not less than 30-inch centers. (5) ;ate~tl,a minirnt~e it rf ;E if h n t be rile #v,~~ _F pul}liseasment Emergency-portals may be required, see above. Amend Section 82-7 of the Code of Ordinances as follows: Sec. 82-7 Visibility-ifn4 files areas; trees, hetlges, etc. (a) Obstructions prohibited Obstructions are prohibited in visibility areas as indicated in the followim~ table: Ar a ~ 01, o sac-boils i ohibited Point for vertical measurement D; t l~~`a ti 1-J , -,"n ,relit Ground level at the *ri_ a ~ ii-d s ant or other thing, above base of the :ree feet. obstruction h_ront_yard visibility Atiy fence_R hedge that is: Nearest point oii_a (i p parallel (or roughly public sidewalk for l 1-allel) to the front street top of curb, if there ine (ii) taller on the average, is no adjacent than 4.5 feet and (iii) longer sidewalk). Note: ~11an ten feet (within a front- Measure at two-foot sac! v :sil i itv area- intervals to calculate an_averne, Street vi l s,s c hes ar f'oliae Nearest edge of tri< n 1 Icnv eight feet and any part roadway_pavement ( t. anv other plant above three or gutter feet. b) Colichic t wilait In It shall be unlawful for any person tom plant, grow, construct, install or maintain any obstruction prohibited b- this section, or (ii) allow any such obstruction on property the person owns or controls. plant has (of probably will have) a height greater than three feet above the street gutter- flow line. it shall be unlawful for A o plant, grow 017maintain a tree whieh has branehes or foliage within of -above a visibility tri-angle at a height lower-than 15 fim above the street gw4ef flow line. H -.I- pressumed that a person who owns or- controls real property -within the City maintains afl ants on that pr erty may enter a visibi i ~y triangle and remove growths prohib.'L~dl by hk eetion, and there shall be no liability to others fef taking--of no talci ,y eh cti (c) Certain trees It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for a tree in a driveway visibility area that the tree was planted before July 1 1992 and has no limbs or foliage below six feet. (d) Certainfence-like hedges Until May 1 2011 it is an affirmative defense to prosecution related to a fence-like hedge that: (i) the hedge was in existence and not in compliance with this section on the date this section became effective and (ii) it did not become more non-compliant after that effective date. In Section 82-1 of the Code of Ordinances, delete the existing definition of "visibility triangle" and insert the following new definitions (to be inserted in alphabetical order with the others): Driveway visibility triangle means the area within a triangle beginning at the intersection of the edge of a driveway and the inside edge of a sidewalk (i.e., the edge farthest from the roadway). From the intersection point, the first side of the triangle extends five feet inward (away from the roadway) along the edge of the driveway, the second side of the triangle extends five feet along the edge of the sidewalk away from the driveway, and the third side is a straight line connecting the extended ends of the first two sides. If there is no sidewalk, the building official shall designate the probable location of a future sidewalk, which shall then be used as if it were an existing sidewalk. A typical driveway will have two such triangles, one on each side. The visibility triangle may include both public and private property. The building official may prepare example diagrams showing driveway visibility triangles. Fence-like hedge means a linear arrangement of trees, shrubs or other plants with trunks, branches or foliage overlapping or touching within eight feet of the ground-to such an extent that they form a visual harrier or block free passage by~edestrians.- The arrangement can be a single or multiple line, straight or curved. Front yard visibility area includes the front yard of each site, except for the part within ten feet of the inside edge of the front yard (the inside edge is sometimes referred to as the "building line"). Normally, the front-yard visibility area is a rectangle. Example: If a front yard is twenty feet deep, the front yard visibility area is ten feet deep. The building official may prepare example diagrams showing front yard visibility areas. Street visibility triangle means the area at a street corner lying within a triangular area beginning at the intersection point of the curbs of the two streets forming the corner (which will normally be a tangent point on a curved curbline). Sides of the triangle extend 20 feet along each curb line (away from the intersection point, following any curves in the curb). The third side is a straight line connecting the extended ends of such 20-foot curb-line sides. If there is no curb on such a street, the central flow line of the gutter or ditch is used instead. The triangle may include both public and private property. The building official may prepare example diagrams showing street visibility triangles. Visibility area includes a street visibility triangle, a driveway visibility triangle and front- yard visibility area. Visibility triangle includes a street visibility triangle and a driveway visibility triangle. Amend Article 2 of the Zoning Ordinance by deleting the definition of "driveway visibility triangle" and amending the definition of "visibility triangle," as follows: 1-,W v44 -Ws4bih[ tree, .h t4ie-area- 4*n--a-trian4~ de at the pr-eeise t eit. Af thi-edge of a driveway and the inside edge of a sidewalk (i.e., the-edge fai4hest fr-afn the roadway). Fr-eyn the inter-seetion point, the fifst side of the b feet inward (away ffem the feadway) along the edge of the dfiveway, !he seeend side of th t side is a straight line eonneeting the ex4ended ends of-, st two sides. if theFe is no sidewalk - t then be used as if it wefe an existing sidewalk. A typieal dfiveway will have two sueh triangles, h side. Sueh triangles may inelude areas within, and not within-,a building site. An example diagram showing dfivewayvisibility triangles is attached to this or-dinanee and made part hereof. Visibility triangle. This term includes both "driveway visibility triangle" as defined in this Ordinance and "street visibility triangle" as defined in Chapter 82 of the Code of Ordinances. Amend both pages of Table 7-5a of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Visibility The fl~~lowing af - ''bidden aFts of a building triangles Forbidden -,it within visibility -tom ..«uetuf , plants ---See structures, c th things taller- than 2.0 ft OF shei4 than 8.0 ftdefinitio,n,plants and 1= i Artic~ other things 3 ' ' , 1 °O?, d-&e Chester 82-of the Code of Ordinances. Amend Note 8 of Table 7-6 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Note S. Fences. Fences may project into front and side yards to the extent expressly required or authorized by City ordinance (e.g., provisions in Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances requiring front fences for temporary construction purposes and to screen nonresidential uses; provisions in PDD schedules for front fences). Also in the Code of Ordinances, there are: i reduirements for em-agent portals in fences Chapter 18) and pestrictLns on fences, "fence-like hedges" and other things in visibility areas W hater 82). -In a QMDS low fences (3.5 feet or lower) may be located anywhere, if made of ornamental metal or white pickets.