HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.1 Petray Fence Variance 4�v -40
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 22, 1989
REPORT PREPARED BY: Rod Barger, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to
deny a Variance request to allow a 8' high fence
(now existing) where a maximum height of 6 feet
is permitted at 11450 Winding Trail Lane
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Resolution upholding Planning
Commission's action denying PA 89-001 Petray
Fence Height Variance
Attachment 1: Applicant's appeal letter to the
City Council.
Attachment 2: Planning Commission Resolution
No. 89-018 denying the Variance request.
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Minutes from
the meeting of April 17, 1989.
Attachment 4: Site Plan
Attachment 5: Elevations
Attachment 6: Photographs
Attachment 7: Assessor' s Parcel Map
Attachment 8: Staff Study
Attachment 9: April 17, 1989 Planning
Commission Staff Report excluding exhibits and
attachments.
Attachment 10: Applicant' s appeal letter to the
Planning Commission.
Attachment 11: Zoning Administrator Resolution
No. 5-89 denying the Variance request.
Attachment 12: Zoning Administrator Minutes
from the meeting of March 14, 1989.
Attachment 13: March 14, 1989 Zoning
Administrator Staff Report excluding exhibits
and attachments.
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff
� �. presentation.
2) Take testimony from Applicant/Appellant and
Public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant/Appellant and
Public.
--- --------------- ------ -------------------------- ------------------------- --
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
ITEM NO. a _ PA 89-001
-1-
`'1
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5) Adopt resolution upholding the Planning
Commission's decision to deny PA 89-001, Petray
Fence Height Variance at 11450 Winding Trail
Lane, or give Staff and Applicant/Appellant
direction and continue the matter.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION:
I. BACKGROUND
This Variance application is a result of the Building Inspector
identifying this zoning violation in the field. He alerted the Zoning
Investigator of the violation and she consequently contacted the Applicant,
indicating that he would either have to lower the height of the fence to 6
feet (or less) or apply for a Variance. The Applicant decided to apply for
the Variance.
On March 14, 1989, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to
consider a Variance request to allow an existing 8 foot fence where a maximum
of 6 feet is permitted. The Applicant did not attend the meeting, but his
wife was there to represent him. However, after a similar Variance request
was denied at this meeting, Ms. Petray walked out of the meeting prior to the
start of the public hearing on her item. As she was walking out, she
indicated that there was no use in attending the public hearing since she felt
that their Variance request would be denied. The Zoning Administrator
suggested that she participate in the hearing, but she declined. The Zoning
Administrator went on with the public hearing, received testimony from Staff
and adopted Resolution No. 05-89 denying PA 89-001, Joseph Petray Variance
request.
On March 22, 1989, Mr. Petray appealed the Zoning Administrator's
decision to the Planning Commission.
On April 17, 1989, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider the appeal. After receiving testimony from Staff, the Applicant/
Appellant and the public, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 89-
018 denying PA 89-001, Petray Variance request.
On April 27, 1989, Mr. Petray appealed the Planning Commission's action
to the City Council.
II. ANALYSIS:
The subject site is a part of Kaufman & Broad' s recently completed
California Vista Townhouse development located just off of Silvergate Drive
and Rolling Hills Drive. The Site in question fronts on Winding Trail Lane,
which is one of the streets running through the development. The rear and
side portions of the Applicant's property front on Rolling Hills Drive.
The Applicant has constructed a 2 foot addition to their 6 foot tall
redwood fence, resulting in a total fence height of 8 feet. The fence
extension is constructed of redwood lattice material.
The Applicant has indicated that the additional fence height is needed
to provide privacy to his house and enclosed rear yard area from vehicles and
pedestrians walking along Rolling Hills Drive. Rolling Hills Drive is located
north of the subject site, and is elevated above the grade of the subject
site.
In order for the Applicant to retain the existing 8 foot high fence, a
Variance must be granted.
Prior to granting the Variance, three mandatory findings of fact must be
made. These findings state: 1) that there are special circumstances relatinc
to physical characteristics (such as lot size, shape, and topography) which
would deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by others in the
-2-
r
identical zoning district; 2) that the granting of the Variance does not
constitute a grant of special privileges; and 3) that the Variance will not be
detrimental to the neighborhood.
A review of the request reveals there are no special circumstances
relating to the physical features of the site which would warrant granting the
Variance. Although the topography of Rolling Hills Drive in relation to the
subject site, allows partial views into portions of the Applicant's rear yard,
there are similar circumstances in the City where the same situation occurs.
These include:
1) a majority of the units in the California Vista project fronting on
Rolling Hills Drive and Silvergate Drive;
2) at properties on the east side of San Ramon Road (south of Vomac
Road) ; and
3) at units in the Amador Lakes apartment/condominium complex along
Stagecoach Road.
In each of these cases, streets are elevated above the sites allowing
views to the residences.
The granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special
privilege. Since there are similar situations in the City where the road is
elevated above sites and rear yards are enclosed by 6 foot fences, the
granting of this Variance would be a special privilege.
The granting of this Variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood
in that it would set a precedence of allowing fence heights in excess of 6
feet.
In that there are no special circumstances related to this property
which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the City, Staff recommends denial of the Applicant's request to vary from the
maximum permitted fence height.
Although Staff recommended denial of this request, Staff presented to
the Applicant a num$er of practical solutions which could assist in attaining
his desire to maintain privacy in his rear yard, while at the same time
gaining full compliance with City zoning standards. These included:
a) planting tall growing trees or shrubs strategically placed around
the outside perimeter of the fence (as shown in Attachment 8) which could
eventually provide a dense and attractive screening device; and
b) use tall redwood lattice plant supports placed in the ground
directly adjacent to the interior perimeter of the fence to hold vines, roses
or similar spreading type plants, which would eventually provide an effective
screening device (see page 2 of Attachment 8) .
The Applicant felt neither of these alternatives would be as effective
as the existing illegal fence addition.
III RECOMMENDATION
Because of the above facts, Staff recommends that the City Council
uphold the Planning Commission' s action denying the Variance request. Should
the City Council decide to approve the Variance, the Council should give
direction to Staff and Applicant/Appellant and continue the item to a future
meeting.
-3-
RESOLUTION NO. 89 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS ACTION DENYING PA 89-001 PETRAY VARIANCE
REQUEST TO ALLOW AN 8 FOOT HIGH FENCE (NOW EXISTING) WHERE A MAXIMUM OF 6 FEET
IS PERMITTED AT 11450 WINDING TRAIL LANE
WHEREAS, Joseph Petray filed an application for a Fence Height Variance
from Section 8-60.55(d) of the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow an existing 8
foot high fence where a maximum height of 6 feet is permitted; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been
found to be Categorically Exempt; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on said
application on March 14, 1989; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects
as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending denial; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 1989, after hearing and considering all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth, the Zoning
Administrator denied PA 89-001 Petray Fence Height Variance request at 11450
Winding Trail Lane; and
WHEREAS, on March 22, 1989, Joseph T. Petray appealed the Zoning
Administrator's March 14, 1989 action; and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1989, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
to consider said appeal; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects
as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports,
recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1989, after hearing and considering all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth, the Planning
Commission denied PA 89-001 Petray Fence Height Variance request; and
WHEREAS, on April 25, 1989, Joseph T. Petray appealed the Planning
Commission's April 17, 1989 action; and
WHEREAS, on May 22, 1989, the City Council held a public hearing to
consider said appeal; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council heard and considered all said reports,
recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby
find that:
a) There are no special circumstances including size, shape,
,topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which would
deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity
under the identical zoning classification, in that there are similar
topographical conditions for sites along Rolling Hills Drive, Silvergate Drive
and San Ramon Road where the street is elevated above the sites and the rear
yards are enclosed by 6 foot high fences.
b) The granting of the Variance application will constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the vicinity and zone, in that no special circumstances exist which warrant
granting the Variance. Other properties in the City and same zoning district
must comply with the fence height limitation imposed by the Zoning Ordinance,
unless special circumstances exist.
C) The granting of the Variance would be detrimental to the
neighborhood in that it would set a precedence of allowing fence heights in
excess of 6 feet where it is unnecessary.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council does hereby uphold the
Planning Commission's action denying PA 89-001 Petray Variance application and
further directs the Applicant to bring the fence into conformance with the
City's Zoning Ordinance (regulating fences) by lowering the height of the fence
to 6 feet or less no later than June 22, 1989.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of May, 1989.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-2-
�Ef,of V/1, i�nCF s; ,��/�:r oar //
/\20/0 /Z CIT e-
d
r
%�J G 1cJ71;
..• .' .. ,�. •,ice.
I
�I
i
q•v r `f��2'��1W i . � '
' A RESOLUTION'OF`THE PLANNZ_NG CO�SHISSIOrJi ;; ,
4 OF THE CITY OF :DUBLIp
. } ra,.' ,'s,� � ✓+.,r��� 'C .� tip=�,� Sc� I
r•
Q S
• .. s.'s x 5. .�A.ir t•.hrt`� s6�,�. ��fl�bx¢ +�-'f
"UPHOLDING±THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION DENYING;PA $9� 0O1.:PETRA�Y,FENCE
VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN 8 FOOT HIGH"FENCE '(NOWERISTING) WHEREA
HEIGHT OF 6 FEET IS PERMITTED AT 11450 WINDING TRAIV,LANEerxr+;, sy
WHEREAS, Mr, Joseph T. Petray, .Jr.' filed an application .for a .Variance_.;.,
from Section 8-60,55 (d) of the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow'an"8 foot high
fence on the rear and sideyard property lines at 11450 Winding Trail Lane; and
WHEREAS, the application has been,reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found -to be
categorically exempt; and
VHEREAS, - the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on said
application on March 14, 1989; and
I
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects
as -required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending denial of the Variance
application; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 1989, after hearing and considering all said .
resports, recommendations and testimony as herinabove set forth, the Zoning .
Administrator denied PA 89-001 Petray Fence Height Variance request at 11450
Winding Trail Lane; and
i
I
WHEREAS, on March 22, 1989, Joseph T. Petray appealed the Zoning
Administrator's March 14, 1989 action; and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1989, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
to consider said appeal; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given as required by
law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports,
recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that:
a) There are no special circumstances including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which would
deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity
under the identical zoning classification, in that there are similar
topographical conditions for sites along Rolling Hills Drive, Silvergate Drive
and San Ramon Road where the street is elevated above the sites and the rear
yards are enclosed by 6 foot high fences,
b) The granting of the Variance application will zonstitute a grant or
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the vicinity and zone, in that no special circumstanceC , _
ex;. ^r. whitjwa__.::
granting.the Varianc::. Other properties in the pity o,+a same zoning district
must comply with the fence height limitation imposed by the Zoning Ordinance,
unless special circumstances exist,
C) The granting of this Variance would be detrime-ntal to the
neighborhood in that it would set a precedence of allowing fence heights in
excess of 6 feet where it is unnecessary.
I
I
o
p w 4..�'f rh y �r't ar k' y'✓`t` y v .y y ��` .a �Ajs'i54.r
•yc ,
+s� }j remit `G� " -,af.Fr -:�:� ;:i :.:. :.:{` ` .iu�'�, ,-lro �e' ,���7' - of F ✓)r ,.:i
E .,IT:FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does�hereb"'�u holdup r
the'Zoning "Administrator's action denying PA'89-OO1Petray;.Varianceepplication` � s
��.;.
and directs the Applicant to bring the fence'into conformance with the'City,'.s.
r. Zoning Ordinance (regulating fences) by lowering the height of the 'fence to 6
' feet or less no later than May 17, 1989.
.,,
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 1989:
:r- AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Okun and.Zika`. _
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Planning Direct r
i
i
i
�svM
-2-
Mr. Ashcroft indicated that the fence looks -good and was necessary.
Cm. Burnham indicated that approval of'�a fence extension would cause a domino
effect and others would follow suit".
Cm. Barnes closed the public tiearing.
Cm. Okun asked if the homeowner's association did--f;ot allow shrubbery.
Mr. Barger indica` d that according to Mr. Kshcroft, this was the case.
Cm. Okun ind' ated that the homeo:rner-''s association should be contacted and
told about he City's rules and regulations.
i
On mo on from Cm. Zika, secprn ded by Cm. Mack, with a vote of 5-0, the'
P1 ning C e
Commission adoptd
,� RESOLUTION N0. 89-017 /
UPHOLDING THE ZON} G ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION DENYING PA;88-133 ASHCROFT FENCE
VARIANCE REQUFST TO ALLOW A 7 FOOT 7 INCH HIGH F C£�(NOW EXISTING) WHERE A
MAXI. EIGHT OF 6 FEET IS PERMITTED AT U-452 WINDING TRAIL LANE
Mr. Tong 'ndicated that this action, would berfinal unless appealed within 10
days. /
Q . Burnham suggested that the omeowner's association show d be contacted.
SUBJECT: PA 89-001 Petrav - ADDeal of the Zoning
Administrator's action denying a Variance
request to allot; an S' high fence (now
existing) where a maximum height of 6' is
Dermitted at 11!-50 Winding Trail Lane
Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Mr. Barger indicated that this application was similar to the previous
application. The Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on March 14, 1959
to consider the Variance! request. The Applicant's wife attended the meeting;
however Pis. Petrav walked out of the meeting prior to the start of the public
hearing on her item. Ms. Petray had indicated that there was no use attending
th hearing since the previous Variance was denied, their Variance would be
denied also. The Zoning Administrator denied the application.
Mr. Barger indicated that Mr. Petray appealed the Zoning Administrator's
decision on March 22, 19S9.
Mr. Barger indicated that the Variance application. :cis in result of t'.
^.e
Building Inspector identifying a toning violation while in the field. The
Zoning Investigator was alerted and the Applicant was told he would need to
either lower the height of the fence to 6 feet or apply for a Variance.
The Applicant applied for the Variance.
Regular Pleating i
r`
Mr. Barger indicated that the Applicant had constructed an additional 2' fence
• height consisting of redwood lattice material. The Applicant had indicated
that the additional height is needed for privacy from vehicles and pedestrians
walking along Rolling Hills Drive.
Mr. Barger indicated that prior to granting the Variance, three mandatory
findings must be met. They are: 1) special circurs tances relating to the
physical characteristics (such as lot size, shape, and topography) which would
deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by others in the identical
zoning district; 2) that the granting of the Variance does not grant special
privileges and 3) that the Variance will not be detrimental to the
neighborhood.
Mr. Barger indicated that a review of the request revealed no special
circumstances' relating to the physical features of the site. There are other
housing units that have similar situations. In each of these situations, the
streets are elevated above the sites allowing views to the residences. In
these cases, the rear yard areas are enclosed by 6' high fences. The granting
of this Variance would constitute a special privilege. The granting of the
Variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood because it would set a
• precedence in allowing fence heights in excess of 6 feet where they are not
necessary.
Mr. Barger indicated that due to these findings, Staff recommends denial of
the Applicant's request. Although Staff recommends denial, Staff presented
alternative solutions to the Applicant. These include 1) planting tall
growing trees or shrubs around the outside perimeter of the fence; or 2) using
tall, fan-shaped redwood lattice work plant supports placed in the ground
adjacent to the interior perimeter of the fence which could hold spreading
►� type plants.
Mr. Petray, 11450 Winding Trail Lane, indicated that the fence was good
looking and was needed for privacy. He indicated there were other fence
extensions in Dublin that were over 6 feet. The homeowner's association would
not allow Staff's alternative solutions.
Mrs. Petray indicated that the fence on San Raron Road was higher than 6 feet.
She was concerned about her children and possible robberies taking place. She
indicated that the police did not like additional shrubbery becuase of
security reasons.
Mr. Ashcroft indicated that to deny his application and allow other fence
extensions in Dublin would not fair.
Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing.
Cm. Burnham asked Staff what was going to happen w^:en Dublin starts building
in the hill areas. Mould the fence heights be adjusted?
Mr. Tong indicated that the fencing regulations could be altered two ways: 1)
within a Planned Development district which would only affect that project or
2) have the fence ordinance studied, which wool: ..=-feet the City as a :hole.
Cm. Mack requested Staff to ask the homeowner's association if they could
provide fencing at street level.
Regular Meeting PCM-S-53 April 17, 1959
y ..
' Cm. Burnham asked the age of the homes.
Mr. Barger indicated that the development was approximately 1-2 years old.
Cm. Burnham asked Staff if there was any recourse against Kaufman & Broad on
lack of privacy.
Mr. Tong indicated that the City had no recourse regarding lack of privacy.
On motion from Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Okun, with a vote of 5-0, the
Planning Commission adopted
RESOLUTION NO. 89-018
UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION DENYING PA 89-001 PETRAY FENCE
VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN 8 FOOT HIGH FENCE (50W EXISTING) WHERE A MAXIML'`i
HEIGHT OF 6 FEET IS PERMITTED AT 11450 WINDING TRAIL LANE
Mr. Tong indicate -that this action was final unless appealed within 10 days.
SUBJECT: PA 88-139 Cro.-n Chevrolet Conditional. se
Permit and Site Development Review/ for
exterisar car storage and em love, customer
parking on aporoximately 1.97 cres of
vacant land located on Golden Gate Drive.
,,-- south of 7544 Dublin Boul,e`vard
Mr Tong indicated that Mr/Pat Costello delivered a letter to Staff
requesting continuance of-,this application until afrzac iiay 17, 1989. The
/second Planning Comrriss'ion meeting in May would be ,?lay 15, 1989. Staff /
/ recommended contirui.' the item until the June 5%1989 meeting. /
The Planning Commission continued the item until June 5, 1959.
i
NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSI\ES,S /
None
OTHER BUSINESS %
i
Mr. Tong advised that ,the homeo,,-ner' s association should be educated in the
City' s policies and crocedures.
Cm. Barnes asked if" the association's.%rules were contrary to the City's.
Mr. Tong indicated t::at the associ3tlon could ado-.t yore restrictive rules,
but they could not s arse d e C i z-, laces.
Regular Meeting PC`S-S-54 April 17, 1989
..�jry-•ya _.!. .,', rY'"1 r• . »r+i7YS.•uo!ri=rwl'/�!�'!•'.'r ,} ...� �rr r M. . 1 �./�n _ '._ _ _
x. .:• r• y r<`.':S`/f'•.4':r,,/r -. r. . .!%,rl Il/I'/ rir 1 N•% ?.�='. l� wi�`1�..��'
!,;�, •,) r !r r,i /r . rlr /l,Y!r...rr!'••Y / /ii./ i Ji, f✓� �'%i../•�1f✓•./ ry/ ./f..r`•./,»..r.✓.'. 1
• G' r ' •6 Y'/ ' 1 1�'l I ••I/ / �.J r�" rr/!yi(, r rf• '1 i. r I '
• , r ii/, 3/�ifi�' /"1 .l/"�,; .gip ,.,.1.,.,. � f'r!� r 40,
:y.: ,,n •
.+• i rrKf�r.l r r � / ,i r .. •. :1./: i./�!j . I • �•/.�,L//I'/ ++f 1
rr..A1
.r r 4I 1.-.3 /�7 ,�/� Ch.`• / /,.
�. R„' �:fM-,T.��!!'M MM/�%r rl�Y �j" •♦ ,, .�jW i%lv:l�✓r�' !,••, l .r 7 i• �rI✓•,.7!.�5. �Y L.!+;..�.�..i%r♦�'V JJ /'i'/r '
/ �•!' %Y rl !r�..W iIj/ ; r•• ,:r..'.:% r..•: !'! f.% / r n, ,.' ..fir ts,r �/.i'is ))
.r/ ,• ' .rq•• r. . / ''fNJ/' .�.J •,. /�•l.. %.i`'! /✓'' �T1q fTi rl"».I /�•�•�•. �"'r�ryl'1.I' rte,
r't s"1r ,�yy r fill,. ,��. �• 1/r{'/i >•,y/{i '/ � �,r„'�r / ♦ r •1�/I
%/� •,�,• '1 �''�'l'� (', �f:L'%J;•-•� '��"l..• `C1.:�'/: I .1=•':i�!� .r r�� ✓,cs7:14i�•:fy�rrll�•I•r'• .��t•i",r: /{.' 'f .� ..
r'ri.:r' 'l; 1' •{/ /, 1 ,r
'f Fr• lr:. /1: •' ii l:r !.4s%1 •Y!. /'1'+ i-' r
.•jl���.n�'•, J•Ir �� #' /' /' •r7 �Mr�7;/l/1%!•, ►:=f. /••.r:'J.�./'� � r�rr/�j•.*,i.. Xr ;/i•'.�1; J r.✓7 /fir,, •/.7
141../, •y�/.. �r� r/' ��/`.' �t �y '/ �•:JS//�!•!` /r'i �l.ir:' •l., CL":•� /l,p•�•�^ rl .✓.!»fir'"/�'�. y'�.
/:1 r r'li..! � ✓!r�rZ'�� j�• Y%lam 11r f" i•% r
�ra"////.i,•i.N•%i;./J r, r d!Ij,��r va,��rbi✓ !'� tT ♦i!r/' Li ”✓, .�''7� r / 'Jf4�{[J* r,fJJ J•7/•Y '4�r4j';��
zA�J�3�7r• �1r.:;(�f,!.�''��A�;%j'Y r' � �..-'/�/��i.�r/li.�I{•�d♦J��yf��i..'f' �• .�� �.•�w' vl,� ',,,/ 1" •�
q�'/•J!ri��L•,•(�i%:!r Y Ci���S�ry...1:1�'h�' 1;��^��ji''��.•'/'•r."..'/�s•r�;1'�w�t'r./,c�.,•/1,,.,//r.���, •t��r4`�'r, �f.."���/
/ .aJl'1 Y, , / e•'/rY� ' i.:�•:'�r,f ..L-.-.•••r....... � u r s:�•. .«• ,,� �A
/ •.I 'y',^�:.5. S�.rTY-/,7...n•T• /- , /,q 1•.%7,:.�:%f) N y.' «! (% /• � ! 1/
,. �� ,t.<� � •�,- ter» �'� ,r^ .'•. ,.11•/, _..'1..�.,,''•-r.; �•,.�ta ,.,;;r'•: :1
q -•�%. i� •r(�/ •, i j j�•.�• '�.t/rr '-7 r.Y� ?�y w' �i 'l."l.(;�",:.- r-.M.. ,✓/.yhr,r..z..
�/.,. � /•j•:� i.j~;� '� 7r Sri:-rlly ���r�r�l 4�j�/ii � 1 -./�:i:,•::.. �� ...-=L.:' '' ,/ r". „�Y'i
'S I""'lr•�'7r�. �t•C •('•f ,yrr,�: ... (r 1/" f�.',r" •.C,G/ I'.- r•.n..'-lil �,r.^r/. •r'i l.• 'A'�� /ir r•
�/ rr 'A, 9Ij ,!:./r.A•./. . I •�•;�/ •,r• , 'S / 7/�' r. / r. rl�r.�d�/,.
�f/:/�t'✓'./�• .�'•7.•y: ;l'• �; ,J. '�' rC�.s/r.:l nrryii.i',;. 'l'..: ! %!/
t;'-' /;,.,1'.r• r��' '' .•� '�''''' .,r Grp %^'r.;6'.11:1,-..-: i. ,,,•.��„' 000,r< li ; ••(T!-.•,
Mot
Try' �f r, ;. ;, r y. ,Y;.r,n f i� �r ,•�' �•.� t/ ..J;G.•.,:Y� ,:..fit. y%:�..
f,/.,%%',(•r�f,rj: ,• ,r�' %r'•".•Ir.,t ,w .•:, •�..� .. ^. .1,i/.r: Y �� .r.��, .?
• I �
JDJUALIU LIAONING-
Ow
IIST
��r��C���'�� ., i it j L_._.. �1 � ' "•i
>..`• ;�'•�e� � ICI \ i� ( U
Mkt".LAL x',r.=-a%•:1:_C=.._,...—:��_.-
•
i� •��t a•r
7/ is
t
��:may ' r"Y.l; •• f �=- r.+.�G.�i'' S:.Tz-��
- sr— r ��. �,4 `_� '�`-7�->_R"'�3`,� " -��ti ,ems F /C•�.1t.»: -�j`�`�;'_ s �!'
t:.\'L-.�•'r,--,'�_ '.=•.SC''.�"Ln-s,...-, _ .^hr-• :_r-` �s ..�~. `-,1�, �3Y�'y",` '�' Z '1�`1.-�•�.. ���•• .mss.:cc=i- S + "�
:�z i':;Y�y.�_�'^-'"l`'.�'.-��~T �-y' ��-�J�• -� `"�.a�-c'��. ' .� sll..:�'=��=-.t-Jr,,,��-�.•:•���.i.
it� r. �,�•��,�'� =f�.�S`�;• r- �} -mac t t� �� }
• _y+;4,,7�'�'t'�„ ''��riP-.-^3--a^a..Z`"32-�f�`i��_.{.�_1,•:�'�=j,�. `3.���"� '�...._�.� =?- ti'�"r�=f�f='('•-�x� �) �"Y'r::� i}�{,."r-{r3
::.,a,;�aa•:�{ .��..•-• :a=�:L.f' �._ry_�-L�� Y_-�.. y.''�. "---c..�. '' ate,. ......�. '. .-..:.!_`>� 'i
is�� `^ � ;a..'T'�^` • "'r �t
`���-� -il�C ti��� "C'{�.2a•? - ��, ed - �'ts• ��?'t'^ '�� �t: �_;s. . �i �y��„`-y h`:.j1
",f'�.�. k'F` r �lQ; �?�.. -�� �� L,. _ j E x s,(3+•Q'S t-rte..
' `O1. ati:n. .��jam- _ _ ��r�� '•� "'�.*. t`> > >Y.,- � -���ti
-�•.:..iy-�r,.-:'�a,„���:-�•. �.3;ia��� !`.�� ea' � a�°°.��..��l •''�`..rS•����.^dL� i �u rian�-=•i�yy
!•R�+.�.:tti.:��� r'i'�y�.tr:y,:.K'=• _•'y`b.Etw�--•��:_�•._.� �.,�a, -3a-��, .., .... _c�: ����
Zry�+�+���v"�•t� �'..'�_'?,�,�-'.�--�•-_-��,M��^ti�'cc+:r-���±•�?t `a � � .�v.. ��` _-ti,°w3..-�=°i
fin. �y� . 1->�•��1���a(1cy_ � ��`.�i I I • �.�
__ ,v~ ^'V \•1��..•�.•.=�"•��.+�'`;�.--'�7`,'t'..:yam'___ - �=^4�`:�• �:�: A I_ • �'CZ'e-•',"".V - y-•�•"'"�'-��' _
-L
AT.T, aRMP
?�.
'��:��� ...:i�f-%�1..�`�1r�-'w.'� r"-:T-'.`"ice -�� � •�?,�'-�1°•` j�^x`11:�- �-�-•:'.... `a�-'c- s`' L _'• '._�_�.
,�-"�_"_L'��-�i'.�'--�:�hs._.t`�o.-n.C.s�K��r�"-•��1``.t�-�..,,a ���+�F.a'�`•s�'.-`��'�;�,''''"'c�':�`':.i`:'�,1.;_..�=�•.. = .it�1.-•�=•` 'i--.
' -� ^ �; t-�'r ^1�:r-�"M�{��`�".�..,\t �-T� �`;,�"��'"^••;".ay��i��..1.�, ..Y' - mot`�.�` ��'>_
•x��y++�:` �.,..��. ,:�`_�" �.»� ":� �•-....:��:_'C.�^��l^..�J .-y, k•�,\".ar„�CJ"l'.1y*�.�•,?•_. �• •i..-ter _� _ `�_ •
`• _1�. .•..��c�'����•tt'.:�:-�s..��-"�•� y�1�r��^.^�'r``•\`a•.i�:•.ti.i,; �. f;•�� '�• +. �1:��:.. =. -i+G= _ -
� :\ti .'�.'.�w.-`: -�l""�.'_�•`^C'``�\fir�\v�S'-? r , ... _ •,'� _ ..: �.� - :'.^+:
1M_K`:d
�uk.
cif,"''•!..� sh{s`3- a w,�.wx7'+ab :-'fir
7Flori i'�e'x3ilarlr s` r �} 0��,,a,,y�txr,
kc'—'fjE. F
i
lb w �.
°• i� ;r
olf
�, y.':,.�'. � �_: lbw:•., � ��•
. S •.- •
.- t _ ^ _ :. "``•` `.�`,_.
1•/I •vet .\2• i^'^�/e� �i!.,. �.�a.r t. •y'a..._ -:����. `.� '.\��..r�•�:. %� ~a
i:�i��' ti3'�--��v�.tZ-7£:: w��L �'c'w^ ''�•-ji.%?+�'+��:' �.=' r_: �.7�r=a- ���w• Apo,y�,r
tm
tz
Illis
`•''ii' •3'-,%'•°�T`•�''�T• -�� •'z``�s�'.-: ;'f�s�-ti� :-,,;���-*?��.��- ='�eti�-s:, �.`-.�'` ri+.. »
M -•
,v '��l.�ti:ii:�: •tv '3;.;tie'��.t.r:.•.:id�»:w 'a vim:.«;Z,�,'u.••'
y�l��..L1�� \'�+• •�'le-:4'. J `�^ ti's" K; ti-f�
�. �. `�•; ��=-�' '•tea: �-' - _ t�•:.�
G,eR�.y��i_^�h�;i=y 2+`a 2+,'�'���y►.::•3�+`��•ic.• ,.�•�•-a`_' "�"S 1e:
,'�:.•?:y'ti'�'- ;'i\�``� S�,��w.+ •.fit� i.� v�: S.101 S•
tK
Ir
`♦ ty "-+�3 ti- t\'tau 1•i� .w�� •:\' , ;:�*�; ••• r.." +��
.�-^y'+CY�•.i�ti,�`�ho.�:iti�\�i3:ti'�^•►+<'C6���1'�:\.'� s�•�. M,v:? ��
`Y+1t+a.rLa��.�i.lti''a+�.7.°a1•:,••���1►�ua:\..\ti�•e. .��lt�la.. �—
v.6•.`vr,}�C .!�L�eati\f�w;�vp ti�\f�Y�:•\t�\_� •i.• 1f'^,•.:..��•' �.]
d�!tY w i'Si?�•1r��'!.`�•'�`i��1..kw�i�"�i�t :.�1�.i1jr:
a '3 a r "` �t ♦ +
�:j1:���=mot + a�a• `��yl`�t'tt•'�ti�i ,.iat•.a ��� �w+� �..�;1'
`•�p Sy;;i.��. v. �,I+.i\, \ �'��w Y•i•'\_,v`.',C' \ c+h'.i.�t1i\i:
r• ' t;
z •.y
� r
y��i¢'�:�1.1 .� .,�� ,jG�rf f'_ •_J 11�,•,;,v' { f
��J •r'
A Ys !11 �;7r?y r
Ar 0,121
'��Jr•/''.'W/�''✓.);✓'r/• ��'J�i!T��r f�iir•�j!'ir.»ti'�.-.r+^••!`r:' ,�';�� 1/ . / / •
'•?!-i !phi ,"/:• r j).••. .. •�:h'.1:�nr iV 1 .4•i1";`�J "L J7/ -4,t-
fJ,.....�.. ;rf'��• .�. .J/ ;.i.:•:'' ,,,.,,.�..f",i7��'j��'r�9 r�.rT".'i 1,.i;,.3.��'+'1=.ti P,••I:CF ° 1'�r .�
L1 •• , !j.' .�� •^' " �•'i�. :.; �-„,�1.•fif' ��..;',`��r; ..irz. •1.�:,,.rte• t y'y.!•°
..., i<• r :. ,:':':, t ?2-049 '' �=� '•.' .,,:,�>:;;. F'•, � �
�: '/,lea tk�•.26'4a ,'. - •-•' . :,: . :.7;” `�. �� ,-
CS R,
' � fir[/ / I.•S 1.
21•r
%jam�-
K1N
wi
}� n'1`{`1� to •. 1 - _• ;r:.
Ito - -
�_ -
OOH
r~
1F.1 ,n r>a 117 !rg
a 99 02
v
x
1 1_ 1 •)V -n\
�1 ,v f... it
c^
-r rr
1 i__'::a:•, '` ,�. ', s 3�' 1A ��PA"89 001; x;4.tip
�e •C`.�.i=��.'d3,•'�',k�.fi&:fn'3CrL�..".
Y^ ^u siL'i�'s+"_..• ..,'�.C, _f t- r.. � .1 fi/., ., :J•'-! _� ,.✓�....:`;�: �. 1: .... y r•�-
/ I., t f I ,. / . /yr. •I" " •i 41 / �{.. / �i • "� ' / i f-• . .r F.r!- ?.. i- r.
�•�' �1�,%/ :,Jt,.:•//'/r ,.-:(r,i it~�� P•t n'�:';'.. '.%•.- .•.5.:'i IJ.'• .'Ii' • •nl/,•�,/
4 ,�'i:il pit y�y'1�yjj'//•l:r�; �1'��.!! •,�;' / � 7 .
j/'�' / ,.r'�:'.,T ,.'1• 1' r %r'i•/�,/•" �'y•I.'�:"/� •' •%' ':.r%•% ,•• '•'.f.S1`J.�•�f.';'i�%•�✓/I .-f
.•� ,�, %r ��/,;:% /'!,'trfr•�/I%�!•�;rd...•/�,• r./;,..,�i,i..•. �•�• !' •.:/I.��:f:. 1•i%' •,. •..
j.,, �.,: iiSi •f Vi.. •,•/•,,�'i it' I/l, yr.n i,'L rw, :l .'.�,�fJ;i I,.. •'•��'.�' .� ,i�✓'(iv�/'wr�/fr A v � �..
r•i ! %Y tli" i.I•,!-/ J �. •'� .�! f'' • '••i ,7f.��,• �,y j!.'v ' l� ia:,./�•, '�,
FVI
I IL
lt.S..�.:� ,•S;!•r t i..j. ;r• s,�f• ':J% S ./../•.... .. .. "' �.✓,/••�'S;�� �i .y,;/;✓I'% .+�.'
. f.,;j�•,". ,a, •r;'' ••% %'' •'ice '�'>.���. /. p wC •.Iti�
I...
L0CAri N5
DE�v
TO
r✓ " _ 1
•':;,• -';e - '�'•`° :�,.\-\ '\; ��-;_yam._.._, ��` ,• \ ••\ �
1, � ;*�y vt mow•,: .. .. '. _ 7 � � _
r ` �
r
• RACE Q�
L D
_ T &ELL1 S
S�
• ` � �� LA�71��
SJPPo� PI�P�N
� post
�x�sTI NCI
S S TE M
View
LL 51.
t-tA71—i ICS C4-
wtr-k
1
�� { III ; • !
• I 1I I` 1 I�..�k• � �`
LAT I IG—r •� ;err
I I l i G
. r•
1,EV�'TtON YIt-W
''...-....�..:oZk iy_'.r'S. ...`�....3�b.'J"„�°::�..�..+;•'Z J..�.�..J'+.,:Iry t+-.r.:4 A�7-:,iLtiA t.aLSs.sYr'G-/R.L/l. �i,i4 R,!AF.'�'.It9►4+ric. •If.w4..: .rL.t - "!. _ _
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: April 17, 1989
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
REPORT PREPARED BY: Rod Barger, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: PA 89-001 Petray Variance
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT: Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to
deny a Variance request to allow an 8 foot high
fence (now existing) where a maximum height of 6
feet is permitted.
APPLICANT/OWNER: Joseph T. Petray, Jr.
11450 Winding Trail Lane
Dublin, CA 94568
LOCATION: 11450 Winding Trail Lane
Dublin, CA 94568
ASSESSOR PARCEL NU1LBER: 941-2772-103
PARCEL SIZE: 1700= square feet
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: PD - Planned Development District/
125 unit multi-family to;.-rhouse development
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING: North: Single Family Residential/PD - Planned
Development
South: Vacant County Land/(A) - Agricultural
District
East: Single Family Residential/R-1-B-E
West: Single Family Residential/PD - Planned
Develotme::t District
_ _..._ ZONING HISTORY:
a ItC SUvJe�:L groper-, ..;an a po_,1v11 OL Lxid 1Velison aiCd Zunea Oy A.tameca
County into an Agricultural District in 1986 (96th Zoning Jnit) .
In 19SO, Alameda County amended its General Plan changing the Neilson Ranch -
land use designation from Agricultural to Residential, including both single.-
family and multi-family land use designations.
- -------- - - -- -- - - - ----- ------- ►- �b �` .
x Ffda f
ITEM NO. S. 2--
6, D
PA 85-017 - On January 13, 1986, the Dublin City Council approved a Planned
Development pre-zoning and re-zoning of this 14.9 acre site from a Planned
Development (PD) District allowing both single-family and multi-family
residential uses to a PD allowing multi-family residential uses.
PA 86-021 - On May 23, 1986, the Planning Director approvel a Site Development
Review application to allow the development df a 129 unit multi-family
townhouse project on this 14.9+ acre site.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Section 8-60.55(d) (Fence Height Limitations) of the City Zoning
Ordinance establishes 6 feet as the maximum- permitted heig.nt for fences, walls
and hedges in a residential district.
Section 8-93.0 (Variance) indicates that the strict terms of the Zoning
Ordinance may be varied in specific cases upon affirmative findings of fact
upon each of these three requirements:
a) that there are special circumstances including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which deprive
the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under the
identical zoning classifications;
b) that the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the -limitations upon 3ther properties in
the vicinity and zone; and
c) that the granting of the application will not be detrimental to
persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare.
Section 8-93.1 - .4 establishes the procedures, required action and
effective date for granting or denying a Variance, and indicates the granting
of a Variance shall be subject to conditions, limitations and guarantees.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project has been found tD be Categorically
Exempt from CEQA under Section 15303, Class 3(e)
of the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the April 17, 1959, hearing was published
in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public
buildings.
BACKGROUND: .
On March 14, 1989, the Zoning Administrator held a public 'nearing to consider
a Variance request to allow an existing 8' high fence where a maximum of 6' is
permitted. The Applicant did not attend the meeting, but his wife was there
to represent him. However, after a simliar Variance request was denied at
this meeting, Ms. Petray walked out of the meeting prior t:) the start of the
public hearing on her item. As she was walking out, she indicated that there
was no use in attending the public hearing since she felt that their Variance
request would be denied. The Zoning Administrator suggestad that she
participate in the hearing, but she declined. The Zonin- Administrator went
on with the public hearing, received testimony from Staff and adopted
Resolution No. 05-89 denying PA S9-001, Joseph Pat:r=v Variance request
On March 22, 1959, Mr. Petray appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to
the Planning Commission.
This Variance application is a result of the Building Inspector identifying
this zoning violation in the field. He alerted the Zoning Investigator of the
violation and she consequently contacted the Applicant, inJicatinc, that he
would either have to lower the height of the fence to 6 feat (or less) or
apply for a Variance. The Applicant decided to apply for the Variance.
-2-
.:.E..::.,-r: w _.� y M T: '-,rT� S�a�G"o."T`.W!"''Sii'e,1 +-TA.Y. l�'{. W 13'^ :.Z c Y:�Q;.S+ r.. .Ti -�L.C,f{''�".A.�'�r�:S.W�r3`."+?� °tf. :aiq"1�.,"'f#" ;...;].+iC F�r�3•=tM,�vc'u'F= �t �`^ y,r•'
. � F.,. .y��T,lyT^1 z�-.S"rc�w ryk/Y y..�i�K+FY � f ! L F r+•"`^'�.. �yN l, dy;�y� _ T"�2-Yt� Y''� _Jr�'s. T'/;.+ _ _ -
..
J
ANALYSIS:
The subject site is a part of Kaufman & Broad's recently completed
California Vista townhouse development located just off of Silvergate Drive
and Polling Hills Drive. The site in question fronts Winding Trail Lane,
which is one of the streets running through the development. The rear and
side portions of the Applicant's property frdnt Rolling Hills Drive.
The Applicant has constructed a 2 foot addition to taeir 6 foot tall
redwood fence, resulting in a total fence height of 8 feet. The fence
.extension is constructed of redwood lattice material.
The Applicant has indicated that the additional fence height is needed
to provide privacy to his house and enclosed rear yard area from vehicles and
pedestrians traveling along Rolling Hills Drive. Rolling hills Drive is
located north of the subject site, and it is elevated above the grade of the
site in question.
In order for the Applicant to retain the existing 8 foot high fence, a
Variance must be granted.
Prior to granting the Variance, three mandatory findings of fact must be
made. These findings state: 1) that there are special circumstances relating
to physical characteristics (such as lot size, shape, and topography) which
would deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by others in the
identical zoning district; 2) that the granting of the Variance does not
constitute a grant of special privileges;: and 3) that the Variance will not be
detrimental to the neighborhood.
A review of the request reveals there are no special circumstances
relating to the physical features of the site which would warrant granting the
Variance.' Although the topography of Rolling Hills Drive in relation to the
subject site allows partial views into portions of the AD-Olicant's rear yard
and home,- there are similar circumstances in the City where the same situation
occurs. These include:
(1) a majority of the units ir: the California Vista project fronting on
Rolling Hills Drive and Silvergate Drive;
(2) at properties on the east side of San Ramon Road (south of Vomac
Road) ; and
(3) at units in the Amador Lakes apartment/condominium complex along
Stagecoach Road.
In each of these cases, streets are elevated above t:ae sites, allowing
views into the properties.
The granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special
privilege. Since there are similar situations in the City where the road is
elevated above sites and rear yards are enclosed by 6 foot high fences, the
granting of this Variance would be a special privilege.
The granting of this Variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood
in that it would set a precedence of allowing fence heights in excess of 6
feet where it is unnecessary.
In that there are no special circumstances related to this property
which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by 'other properties in
the City, Staff recommends denial of the Applicant's request to vary from the
maximum permitted 'fente height:
_ Although Staff recommended denial of this request, Staff provided the
Applicant with a number of practical solutions which could assist in attaining
the Applicant' s desire to maintain privacy in his rear yard, while at the same
time gaining full compliance with City zoning regulations.' These included:
a) utilizing tall growing trees or shrubs strategically placed around
the exterior perimeter of the fence (as shown in Attachment 10) which could
eventually provide a dense and attractive screening device; and
-3-
.:,y,, -#"i'•. ;..:.+.rril..i.'/r .w..Y,..Yr2..af�.;I,;f,.C.r .:.x'♦ _I:,,.✓/Y '3-w.:;/w 'n.C.' Y.'-t:. ....-.::✓,�.1w5r.S.✓ 6XJ�'�o4sr!�7+b.T...�..Ja; m:.✓..rS:,Niirs *'_�+.it
b) utilizing tall fan shaped redwood lattice work plant supports placed
in the ground directly adjacent to the interior perimeter of the fence to hold
vines, roses or similar spreading type plants, which could eventually provide
an effective screening device,
Staff discussed the above options with the Applicant. He did not feel
that either of them would be as effective as -the existing illegal fence
addition.
Because of the above facts, Staff recommends that tha Planning
Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's action denyin3 the Variance
request.
RECO11,24ENDATION:
FOR11AT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take testimony from Applicant/Appellant and the public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant/Appellant and the public.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5) Adopt Resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator's action
denying the Variance request, or give Staff and Applicant/
Appellant direction and continue the matter.
ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning 'Commission adopt the attached draft
resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator' s action denying PA
89-001 Petray Fence Variance.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Draft Resolution upholding. the Zoning Administrator's Action
Denying PA 89-001, Petray Fence Height Varianc.
Background Attachments:
Attachment 1: Applicant' s Appeal Letter
Attachment 2: Appealable Action. Letter dated March 15, 1989
Attachment 3: Minutes from the Zoning Administrator's -public hearing dated
March 14, 1989
Attachment 4: Zoning Administrator's Agenda Statement/3taff Report dated
March 14, 1989, excluding attachments
Attachment 5: Applicant' s G;ritten Statement
Attachment 6: Site Plan
Attachment 7: Elevation
Attachment 8: Photographs
Attachment 9: Assessor' s Parcel Map
Attachment 10: Staff Studv
-4-
y�, E
1 1� if • � r -' / tf 'tea•;.: --: ,�•a/�r Yy%;•,,;, •r;.
It ,�q3 I �% t•I,•✓.., �f�/ Js,/.fjl.�!�j:%��!.ii� J a�.r'1/•"� y. / •'s i .r',/t. ri) ��i r !rJ;:."'i;• / 1
�K' �� i j �Y'l'7 r"�L/,+/•�^_/,//.// /.P J /..r,r ../� .a ,Ir 4.�•/��..,j.�/,rl:J il..J_:,`.. t,/ r• / I I Y
to/r.!
I 1 _./ .t.r..,w��' / // �•' •'r' �.�•���.��.Y':.,1 //,.:� :f .•ir�/y.+/♦ rr .'. j'� 9'•° i
Ii /r � 'S .. .^Y/ /r;y- / I .S/. .� fir/ / i '/ � 'r..-" ,.• ' L.
r� I r^.Y / /'J / i• //. ..// � .+i:f �.�,E, /I..♦'I/I�����Y /. r�it J�/•.i�/. •' 7
/s r y ! / j✓yi6� G �/ / , :!/, �i /J i if'7r�c/
...
•14 / i r 1. t� 1 ,•v r `r /�/..// � •(••r 1. _(.±,/ � !:'�.., ar�//I/J
�'/ 'j!:'I /! /`•if I � •n. •r: 7 ^.-,,. � '' r.a•I:/:'• .5. y�. •ssr eI YYY �� rr �fL.6!.Ji., r"�y� !. ._
,r�/ISi`•ti':Y;./,':/��'. I � / �. .f ! •r.:i i'�!;.•.:/l e� / ).;.r f.. .,I ;/ 'r �./�r !/�`~ xf^� .w�. r! �y r /
/,�,,. ' , • �._...._..... ...._ .. _. • r...•...'/.�..Jiil..:�,.y,.r. .fir—.,..1_r�/s:../L"-J.�•...j i _.
CC: PC
Ow
jOA
Ajeclo" 1q, Y
�fig r r\
coin f��r�/r
a
(I
1fi7C,!'`. C � `'
� � r
��1L' • [�i2.�1'
i l �
61/
A T_ TACHWitill
V
-. e' ... .:J� $ M"i'f°".� •..e'rv.0�:. �...M ,¢� F,.,i�s t "''"riti .$'..T#",�'I.r �.b;�l�. � if 'yt+f�tl�i��xx 'a`hT a. .�: -b i.r;
,t' ,fi'}72A���:✓t.','Lt,..'� , ,4�_f�+'j}',r,�,A "F3Hr.�id� d+.�'�'.aa,,i,
RESOLUTION NO, 05 - 99
A RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMI171STRATOIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING PA 89-001 PETRAY FENCE VARIANCE REGHTSOFTO Y''.WV ANY8FOOT HIGH FENCE
(NOW EXISTING) WHAT 11450 WII DINGITPAIL Tom''?
WHEREAS, Mr. Joseph T. Petray, Jr. filed an application for a Variance -
from Section 8-60.55 (d) of the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow an 8 foot hi&h
fence on the rear and sideyard property lines at 11450 Winding Trail Lane; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Ect and has been found to be
categorically exempt, and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on said
application on March 14, 1989; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects
as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted reco—ending denial of the Variance
application; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator heard and considered all said reports,
recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; and
RE, BE IT R.SOLVED THAT TH Dublin Zoning Administrator does
NOW, THERE:O
hereby find that:
a) There are no special circumstances including size, shape,
topography., location or surroundings, applicable to t7he property which would
deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity
under the identical zoning classification, in that taere are similar
topographical conditions for sites along Rolling Hills Drive, Silvergate Drive
and San Ramon Road where the street is elevated abcve the sites and the rear
d by 6 foot high fences.
yards are enclose
b) The granting of the Variance application will constitute a grant o-
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the vicinity and zone, in t at r-o special circ�c-andesame zoning district
granting the Variance. Other properties in the Cit;?
must comply
with the fence heir^t limitation i=poses by the Zoning Ordinance,
unless special circumstances exist.
C) The grantir.� of this Variance would be detrimental to the
neighborhood e that it would set a precedence o� allowing fence heights in
excess of .6 feet where it is unnecessary.
FURTHzR FESOL`�ED T kT THE Zoning A�-;-nistrator does hereby deny FA
BE IT
S9-001 Petra Variance application and directs the Applicant to bring the fence
into conformance with the Cit>•' s Zoning Ordinance (regulating h3nn�oril J_4,...
_.. t�
'a"--e-to 6 feet cr les.:.c
M lower111 the hei,`1't or i.e .e c'e
. _ ...... .- f .. _. - '. .. .. _ _ . ..
1959 .
PASSED, APFCO�':D AND ADOPTED this 1+th dad' of March, 19S9.
ionin, Administra of
ATTEST:
aow
�-A_ a
Sanior
• Ili �t,� /, �� "' �:; 1
I .' , Vii., ,i I , n,.,F i« S�) A�.d•y ."Y/f.�LL:�if�...•..' l'.`/'".• r
�'�,•i} 'l�•frr�/d l I, Y.Y,; J. '� I ,,�f• � .'} i-/,..:•.'ice
/ 'I .. �'. •' '.'r>`'. 1,I. �'� ..,.rr' - � ./
�ywl,• 'L1'.:�• ,1; :!.i/ rs.7t-.✓,r.• 1/ '•':�• .r:: ••�•' '!1,1 r/'f.�r.4�'�,�.a',a.r�•1.: 'i- •
� '���"':^f yr1�%�,•''f;r'�a'I I'Y •�'.%�'�,!':/,1,��„"�,J.'! r•' • ': !.• .%' 'rf''::Nr•%, %�yi�`r.../v•�.1tl.i;iJ��" ���
�.�I '+�M.'t,•`�.11':/.� '•���. .� ..I/. I �. Y�1 f,.f'i��✓i.'.r✓�'.f.f.I '.rr•�./�.,�- J'
i
Mr. Tong indicate that this section of the rdinance does not apply to
landscaping, on fences.
Mr. Ashcro indicated that both hi and the Petray pro rtj need Variance
approval or higher fences than 6 eet. -
Mrs. Petray indicated that t ere are other fen s in their development that
have fences higher than 6 eet and she meas ed then to ma1ke sure. She also
stated that Kaufman & B ad said it was a ight to build a fence in excess of
'6 feet and the Homeo• rs Association proved the fence addition.
Mr. Tong closed t public hearin and deliberated. He indicated tha e
cannot verify w at Kaufman & Br d may have said, however, Kaufman Broad and
the Homeowners Association do of determine whether or not this oposal is in
compliance with City Zoning tand.ards. The City rakes this d ermination. He
indicated that a number o issues regarding this applicatio must be answered
including; when will th spa be installed; clarify the S- f alternatives for
landscaping and; have he Applicant request, tbrcuga t Homeowners
Assocfiation;- modifi lions .to the provisions prohibi _ng landscaping in public
areas to consider llowing landscaping that could *_ovide additional screening
in public-areas.
i
Mr. Tong indicated that he cannot mace the findings to support the Variance
request in that there are no unique circa stances that warrant approval.
Mr. Tong/asked Mr. Ashcroft which of e following actions he would prefer
take; 11) have his request be coati ed so that he could discuss t^.e
lands aping alter:'atives. with St-_f or; 2) take action on the item to
Mr Ashcroft indicated that S aff' s alternatives are =.ac^.'_?tab and if his
plication was going to be denied, he would tare it to hi ' z body.
Mr. Tong made the findi �s to deny the Ashcroft Va=ianc aquest as shown by
the draft Resolution the Staff Report (Exhibit A). He indicated that this
action is appealable within 10 days and if Mr. Ash -oft wished to discuss spa
or landscaping opt'ons, call Staff.
RESOLUTION NO 04 - 89
DENYING P 88-133 ASHCROFT FENCE FAR 'CE REQI;_ST TO ALLOY A 7 FOOT 7 INCE1.
HIGH FED' E (NOW EXISTING) k ER:. A. IMU:i E TGEl 0? 6 FEET IS PERMITTED AT
11452 S;INDING TRAIL U-NI
• x � � �
SUBJECT: PA 89-001 Petray Fence Feisht Variance, 11450
Windir.E Trail Lane
Prior to opening the Public E�� en this it2_, v:,S. Joseph Petray walked
out of the meetir.� Mr. Tong as ed her if she �o:ld like to stay for the
meetin,.
Mrs. Petray said s did not :art to hear the -i-_2 bec-a}:se` sha knew_ that it
would be denied lira the Ashcroft Variance ;:as.
.A Namur a
ACHMEN-
Ay/Ff;,,�'r * � ,I• ,�.y rv;�•w r4/ y r' r �'•!, ��j�"" . ..
I "!/r ,J/: :l;f yJ'i. i�• � /,�rJ;f�/.;,"r//�� .��r `T'.; i 3.•{,/•'�� fr•i�/•'�•', i �;1,
.tl,,.��'/.t;rr .�'J'' ,J.•�:4'?,d f' .i/ ✓'% %' '� ,1•):/. :�'%% l�;y r ,•.h'� r i:, 1.A'r.. r�y:y%•.r.. / .7
•�, %• .,•. % 1. •, ..� ,, 7 ,Mr ,r'{�7 .:^y i• it•I'..' _.': f. i'r,.r7•
..�`%,rw•.• ..'' .•r�: '!I /,r /r ,� • _ Irv:• �:.i• •fr-'
.'/,'. .. .� •• .��-t /r�� �•ar •.% iT/:i'G;^ L': r' r•• i•'"I l ':• +��'� Jam;
.V /' an;)r%J! '/:%./:�..±r.•. .:�:/•'�r.! •/' •'i�.i�..LI•ll�si'+LiY'�w+t�S' �• ��, i+14'.;,1L,.'% i' ,
��.•�i't%�i,i.�s,• � .,i.r��.,.J+.'� .� •� .:,;".y,'/'l.fil::r.,"r.r•,� :�.'Y..`.••�-��%l.•'��'f'�'•.'%
.rte
blic hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Mr. Tong opened the pu
Mr, Barger indicated that the Applicant as requesting
fence a Varta ce8f from Section
8-60.55(d) (Fence Height Limitations) o where
a maximum of 6 feet is allowed. He indicated that the Variance application
was a result of the Building Inspector identifying the existing zoning
violation in the ef�efoot addition Applicant
apply for asked
a yriance�iTheInvestigator to
Applicant
either remove th
applied for a Variance.
Mr. Barger indicated that the Applicant constructed a 2 foot addition to the
height of their 6 foot fence resulting in a total fence height of 8 feet. The
fence extension is constructed of. redwood lattice material. Mr. Barger
indicated that the Applicant needed the additional fence height to provide
privacy in his enclosed rear yard area from vehicles and pedestrians traveling
along Polling Hills Drive, which is elevated above the Applicant's property.
_ reviewing the Variance request there are.no special
Mr. Barger stated that in
•�-`- - circumstances� relating -to• the- physical.features o= the site which would
warrant granting the Variance. re indicated that although~the topography of _L
- Rolling Hills Drive in relation the
similar circ�.�slanc portions
of the Applicants rear yard, -
the same situation occurs including a majority of tae units oinrive California
as
Vista project fronting on Rolling Hills Drive and S lverga;
at properties on the east side o` San Ramon (sown of Vomac Road) where these
streets are elevated above the sites.
Mr. Barger recommended that tee Zoning Administrator deny the Variance in
o
recognition ec the findinzs mace and established in tae draft
denial shown as E%n�D�t r. in the St-al'-f- Report.
Mr. Barger also indicated that although he was recommending denial of the
Variance he included two alter native solutions which would assist in attaining
the Applicants desire to maintain privacy in his rear yard while at the same
time gaining full ull compliance with City zoning standards. First he suggested
_
planting trees or tall shrubs around the exterior perimeter of the fence.
Second, he suggested using tall, fan-shaped red,cod lattice work plant
supports placed in the groun d directly adjacent to the interior perimeter of
vines, roses or similar spreading type.plants.
the fence to hold
Mr. Barger indicated that -he discussed the above mentioned alternativesohwith'
the Applicant. i owecer, the Appl'-ca:it preferred to keep his 8 foot
fence.
Mr. Tong asked M=. Barger if he discussed the la:dscape options with the
Applicant.
Mr. Barger indicated that Mr. Pet=ay said if the application is denied, he would consider tee two landscape options.
Mr. Tong asked if any one wanted to speak on this application. No one spoke.
'Ton` closed the -Public hear;nr . �.. _.. _ ..-._
,.
Mr. Ton— indicate C. t l.it he Cal_Z: t r.alN t1le fln� t0 SL'?PJlt aDr_O\'31 Oi ti:2
Varl3nce request in that there are no unique circt:^_starces that warrant
-approval. -
-4-
/� •iG ,,I ��Y/j/'��//i�}f/Y �, �sJ�r i�:,`7j��/r,(I%i�(�i�/�,�..',t1'•��•r'�rT� 'i`.Ir A •1!�^/,Cy!��t �i�l�/ ���i:. �)7,�i 4�1
it ,! l® '1iI/Gr:'/�jy�'�i��' 'iS�f�ii�°,%,ff �yi'� �if•� "J:.FyI�!g ''•rte/ ii aq f. ;7ft;:l"' r ji^ /%'s
/'t �� �;r��•• //i�%%��: t ✓',,eit �/� J�;c„► M •f•,, %:.�r;�"r r r� =%�� �'' �„• / v';�?.;., "'.
'Fl,•�/y � i f. � ���'„'', .J; ^�� .• .fi.�;� .'�,.�j,,�;,'y, ;...,� �, t;yri:.'•.'•i�y,'i�r .{/,•,%�a.� +.sa,. ,�:a,
;�,�• � "•:.1 �f`w l•`/� ;i' /� i� .�%•�•s., r '��'ir''1/'` ll•�t"'e: .' r,;•r. (,-'�, a!i.i�'Y'a.yt�,,�rr
w ��� � / '�•''� f�y!%!����'�9rv:,j/f�;i+j��;+,pfi���������;t�f�,,iifj%�j�jJ!. �r/
(/` j lf. �.• �.i..i �i Wjt - r` �j jllh/y s�•s�I+i/t Iir/
;rt;+� � '� N7 t '�•ij.��'�'%/�.•>i�' %'i`:K�/��.i��Y•',rs���������is%•y�Y"j��v% !rte
^ '� ""''F• �rr'�i •��r�i�iVll��li :�9X`f/.rtT?"%
f
• t
•
.,+'a..;�..ya. ••w.-•F�'•+�`4•a.q.�ti`.1'iy�\�.`rw\!�'a,.\�'�Y•��t'", �a:�.�;",••y;�`�`t,,� t t•q...� i l�y`�� :..; �.. �.
.a ac.� q•tt�c i yL..� r,•t•\J'C.•�'Y�.v,i��:•C� ta?�' ;t'. t.. �.`,• ��,�a`��•'twle�•`4�••v�•: ���s� a �i •�.C+� v .�, ti2��� �y �.�
•ay � at tl, t�j S•a`;Q��,h .�'` t�� .u, t,. i •fit• � : '�. y.. s � ,�i.f•.`' t tti t••. �.` v� t ..t :.s fb� t`. ` �a`ZZ� t
'�'�. . at C' v�� �� .a:•, tiS.;
�
,� ` tw�la. •`,1��i.i:'�tat•�. �t� �' w:.,: 'a�'+, !? e:• , •'
K
•�1�•ii` `� Y:a �' ( �t• ~ .L 1+ :M r'`t st it R:t .... _�•:1•.� �V.`'.�r t1'�v' O:jt .�t.... .,�:., � y:J... ��i•,...
T. .\ rS� �, •4 `�y�Z 1t i,t,•t:'�\lam. 3� `•"- �. l ; {`Z .`_:ai.• ,4'ta 3` ��* 1 a
7 Zit. t .a7. r .Z t :^•, \` iS, - t1.,.•.• .•c�\•'::.� S�"�:., •`
a+�� •• l `.�liyjn�� , e\�'i��� �1��;3(� C\�i•��..I.�� �t"''1T3�} �:;1,`•�ltit�<.t� t�."'��.•�, �1;�r •+ya .1•�:�� .1....�.�l�jn-� �:,
jj .. '� t^\ •�t�� *T V`S"?.�f' •��, .�:'c+v�'y�.�,1`T�,.•�t�i�j S���;l ±li:1i•��r t.i li•,.•'��•c.,e�yt•\�r1t's' 1 � i..;•:;�tj.s.1,4� � t ♦ '' }.
v�t`gs�I�1�1.� 11� �•��,��•a .t t; �S r`�tli��..t; R� :�C.Jy�t�1! •�:��'��`,i�.it��t^:ar :,:Sf�1t�'t�aF���r.��'�t• i .�tr� �i � i�r<< \ w��`�.1.
' i i+11:y� i f •.t� \� >~ar! .tJ,.t� t;{ 4, ..� taZ t .. t , i
'• •� ` a�. .,yi(P �1�`v �, . 1�. 1• (*��f?�� �.,�, C.tl.?t •t� .��.�` `�{•�. less .•i`l'l; -;�.\`i: " .\,,1:•�t.: 1 r .'is , •, .i -.
t t •is t �. �,. :w. s �l •••�.�i 11:f�. �J ..:mot •�•. ,E,:�.
`�#.7'„�a.ti7”{•i'�� Y�ti.'/y "':v.. <f�-s[d;r.r-�r 1 r;rte�{i sfy'f:$•'4'rhr�"�',�N_IK''�C..�r ti..y.f+1\j s+'�Y�,'A^.eA..'."A 7.;,!j,X,r•l�'r3 S,�I,.�T J.,{`1.�,1_r i v 4yyr 3,Z;•..y_v4Y t,.G�'.•�.�r t'+:i K f1'/i Tiw
• .-T A-
r P,�
R i' R''�,��T k°a?#Iti s`rfS-•/��y'^+.i.^'yi lrt k:.wrt.f 1.'iwa c 5 irxr�,.I cr'Jr..J,M.o.A�A
s'Ja
-
4
-
.�`
' ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. -
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT .
.._. -.._. . " " Meeting Date: March 14, 1989
Zoning AdminisZxator:._
T0:
Planning Staff'
FROM:
ance
SUBJECT' PP 89-001 Petray Vari
GENERAL INFORMATIG.l:
PROJECT: Variance request to allow an 8 foot high fence
(now "existing) where a maximum height of 6 feet
is•permitted.
APPLICPT/OWiIER: - Joseph T. Petray,. Jr.
?I
.. .. ___._ .... ____.. 11450 Winding.Trail Lane. ._._ _-. __--
-Dublin, CA. 94568
LOCATION: 11450 Winding Trail Lane
Dublin, CA 94568
ASSESSOR P_kRCEL IUMBER:
-941-2772=103
C—170 f _.. . ....-_-... _ ..._ _ .... _..
• SGL`"are °�e_L
P?RCEL SIZE: —
GENERAL PL11I
DESIGNATION': 2�edium Density Residential
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE: PD - Planned Development District/
125 unit multi-family tounihouse development
SURROUNDING L4.\D USE -
AND ZO NING. Norte: Single Family Residential/PD Pla^^.2d
Development
Scum: Vacant Co=—tv Land/(A) - Agricultural
District
East: Single Faily Residential/R-1-B-E
West: Single F zily Residential/PD - Planned
Development District
ZONING HISTORY:
<t 2 T 2115 J. Ran i e3_:
_ cr .th ` -'� ar oaad by al=e
The sL:bj2c F1 ^'z_t� \;�s' a portion- 1 t: i
0 1 _i i� '?-S6 cc n� Ln_t)
:1tO Ct
_ In 190, -Alameda County am _dad its Caneral Fls:: :aargirg the t:cilson Cars:
land use.- designation from Agricultural to Residential, including both sirgl2-
family and multi-fa:rily land use designations. .. . _ _... .
FA 85-017
On January 13, 19S6, the. Dublin Citv Council approved a Planned
Dtvalopr:eilt pre-conin^ and re-�oiling of this 14.9 acre site from a Planner
D`valapm��nt (FD) District allo:,ir._ bath single-far_ily and multi-family
residolltial uses to a FD alloti:in- multi-family residential uses.
sa - gi
L11 l
3
�Ycsy- •t:"2r'-•rru7�'C:: ;y„-, ;"r'",,F'F'ti�. Y/ r S'•,�+r�,y�°_R:°'•,�yµJ✓{. ;5�""��..` 7`�""�'cyY� ,q;i'.ss. P[�y -.�• .: �; c-t..
i 'S,m 3?" .•.+-..w _ a r•,l.,•.v i'15•'tea/ Y D;;Y 3t t^ r 7_}4i � 4C f
FS-n `" d•,�! .'t'+;r ,1.'s.at.f �..£� � •J✓4N4 ...4` 'f' + s ' x'� i_ d 7ti..7 _ �'
� :} i�� /r�x„N"+'}`r{'�r'� yi �' �a-.s �+F�rF; y, T.'s�cx ��a•,�y ? 7 C:�' t fiy "r � q"� �' S
a i'!c1 * ..t ..F t �,5 • r ,/d , '�,`�� '� i rr / s i
6 ,r.•,y .. �..,r.Hy � •I ,lY � . 1�a . k ,IC's" , kt �'j n.. 7'v
y - � ,• v"I 1.•• • Zr 4 r. fat , _ .r} .+ a •
,•/' I ,W/.: . 'Y./ N a r:,�, . .,S,y� 1� �°j I f j. ' _-:It .4 J
i. •t,�%%r-��':i/1f;�j�1. 7""'•�+'+r,�L=:��.r•aI/t• ' � i '� ,y �
planning I Airecror;approved
" a:Site;'Aevelopment ::h' ,�,T
6-G21 On May.23 1986, the ev enti of;e'129 unitnslti family ; r rr, Y t r,=
8 w
Opp to allow, the _d elopm =� .~ rr`
iYse ap this 14.9± acre site ,:�,, ;,;;.;.M=,;: •.; !. �,..�
house project on
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: ,
Section 8-60,55(d) (Fence Height Limitations) of the City Zoning <r... `.
Ordinan
ce. establishes .6 feet as the maximum permitted height for_fences,'walls: .. �: :.
and hedges in a residential district.
Section 8-93.0 (Variance) indicates that the strict terms of the Zoning
Ordinance may be varied in specific cases upon affirmative findings of fact
upon each of these three requirements: -
a) that there are special circumstances which deprive
topography, location or surroundings, app
the property of privileges enjoyed by other pro erty in the vicinity under the
p
identical zoning classifications; .
b that the granting
s ecial of the application will• not -constitute a grant of
that
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in.
P
the vicinity and zone; and
c).. ,.that granting of the application wi1T not be detrimental to-
the
persons or property in'the•neighborhood'or-to the public.walfare..�,._�r�,..,_�,_,._;_,._�_.
Section 8-93.1 - .4 establishes the procedures, required action and
effective date for granting or do conditions,of a Variance shall be subject t
F—N-IIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project has been found to be Categorically
Exempt from CEQA under Section 15303, Class 3(e)
OF the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines.
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the March 20, 1989, hearing was published
in Theme d, mailed to adjacent property owners, a:zd posted in public
buildings.
BACKGROUND:
This Variance application is a result of the Building Inspector identifying
this zoning violation in the,field. Hedalerted theantnlin Icaeinggthar he the
violation and she consequence-}
would either have to 10"er the Dlica-it height fence feat (or less) or
decided to apply for [heVariance
apply for a Variance. T . .
A\:1LYSIS
The subject site is a Fart °i °ylocatedBjust1offeof1Silver gatetDrive
California Vista townhouse level°pmin`question fronts Winding Trail Lane,
and Rolling Hills Drive. The site in q '
r.Q through the development. The rear and
which is one of the streets rurni
ro^e .v front Rolling Hills Drive
_.�.>... . teens 'o I—the-.Aprli:a:a s .F. r
side por -- ^. -
The Applicant has cor.str.•cteLl a a totalafenceeheight�of Slfeet�.f The
lY r
foot tall redwood fence, resulting in
fence extension is constructed of redwood lattice material.
The Applicant has indicated that the
additional
ardfarea from vehicles and Y
to provide privacy to his h°use and enclosed rear y
pedestrians travaling along Rolling Hills Drive. Rolling Bills Drive is
located north of tha sLlbject site, ar.a it is elevated above the grade of the
site in quastion.
,- . .. .,�-•�.i::�::,^:l �f N�.j ~'/+"�.(�i9. '1-'III..�Y•' 4.�/:'4r.
the Applicant to retain' the existin0:foot'hiVL► .fence, a
n order for �•�:,. ��.r;�= -;.<r. ';:;. .•.
in be granted,V ariance m u
:
Prior to granting the Variance, three'mandator] findings"of fact must be
made. These findings state: 1) that there are special circumstances relating
to physical characteristics (such as lot size; shape,':and topography) which
would deprive the property owner of privileges enjoyed by others in the
identical zoning district; 2) that the granting of the Variance does not
constitute a grant of special privileges; and-3) that the Variance will not be
detrimental to the neighborhood.
A review of the request reveals there are no special circumstances
relating to the physical features of the site which would warrant granting the
Variance. Although the topography of Polling Hills Drive in relation to the
subject site, allows partial views into portions of the Applicant's rear yard
and home, there are similar circumstances in the Cit-1 where the same situation
occurs. This includes a majority of the units in the California Vista project
fronting on Rolling Hills Drive and Silvergate Drive, as well as at properties
on the east side of San Ramon Road (south of Vomac Road) where the street is
elevated above the sites.
The granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special
privilege. Since there are similar situations in t1-,e City where the road is
elevated above sites and rear yards are enclosed by 6 foot high fences, the
granting of this Variance would be a special privilege.
The granting of this Variance would be detrimental'-to the neignborhood
in that it would set a precedence of allowing fence heights in excess of 6
feet where it is unnecessary.
In that there are no special circumstances related to this property
which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
_. . the City, Staff reco=^e^.ds den'-al of the Applicant's request to vary from t:�e
maximun permitted f ence height.
-Cr-^n^•di^_ denial o. t-is ICCL?Sl , the: ere a
Alt:lOUgn Staff�- S T' -'
number OI p1'aCt1Ca1 so-,uz:'_O:'_5 kiiiC. could assist atz nine t�c nve
i-, • --c-- in his rear yard, 'wri112 a� the SaIIe time gcinir'
desire to mainta_:. pr:
full compliance with City zoning reyulatiors. First, tall growing trees or
shrubs strategically placed around the exterior perimeter of the fence (as
shown in Attachment
6) could eventual) rovide a dense and attractive
screening device. A alter-
native alterative would be to use tall fan shaped
redwood lattice wort: plant supports placed_ in the g.ou^.d directly adjacent to
the interior perimete- Of the fence to hold vines, roses or similar spreadinS
type plants . This also would eventually provide an effective screening
device.
Staff did disc::ss the above options with t^e :.pplicant.
He did not feel
that either Of the= would be as e==ectiva as tae existin illegal fence
addition.
REco`LMENDATION:
Open public hearing and hear Star`: presentation.
FOR?U\T: 1)
2) Tn'-e testimom_- r_om Applicant and tae public.
3) Question Staf , Applicant and t::e rLblic.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate. _ -
5) ai�Ci Rec��1l:�iC C°^,\'1.nj t'aria-ce request, OT give Safi
Ol1C:i:1t G1reCt10n and. cones.^.1:.° ,t-.� IA3ttc'Y
ACTION: staff reco�r::ai:ds the "Zoning Administrator adopt the attached
_
Cl
Rasolution dan�-ing FA 001 Petrav Fence Variance.
-3-
_ r-