HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 Ashcroft Fence Variance �v ✓ L�o
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 7' 7" high
fence (now existing) where a maximum height of 6
feet is permitted at 11452 Winding Trail Lane
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Resolution upholding Planning
Commission's action denying PA 88-133 Ashcroft
Fence Height Variance
Attachment 1: Applicant's appeal letter to the
City Council.
Attachment 2: Planning Commission Resolution
No. 89-017 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. 4-89 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. 2. PA 88-133
-1-
1
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5) Adopt resolution upholding the Planning
Commission's decision to deny PA 88-133,
Ashcroft Fence Height Variance at 11452 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 application from Gordon Ashcroft to allow a 7'7" high
fence (now existing) where a maximum height of 6 feet is permitted. After
receiving testimony from Staff, the Applicant and the general public, the
Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. 04-89 denying PA 88-133, the
Ashcroft Variance request.
On March 24, 1989, Mr. Ashcroft 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-
017 denying PA 88-133, Ashcroft Variance request.
On April 25, 1989, Mr. Ashcroft 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 1'7" addition to the height of their 6
foot tall redwood fence, resulting in a total fence height of 7'7" . 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 enclosed rear yard area from pedestrians walking
along Rolling Hills Drive. Rolling Hills Drive is located to the north and it
is elevated above the grade of the subject site.
In order for the Applicant to retain the existing 7' 7" 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
-2-
r
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 project 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 number 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 ASHCROFT VARIANCE
REQUEST TO ALLOW AN 7' 7" HIGH FENCE (NOW EXISTING) WHERE A MAXIMUM OF 6 FEET
IS PERMITTED AT 11450 WINDING TRAIL LANE
WHEREAS, Gordon Ashcroft filed an application for a Fence Height Variance
from Section 8-60.55(d) of the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow an existing
7'7" 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 field 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 88-133 Ashcroft Fence Height Variance request at 11452
Winding Trail Lane; and
WHEREAS, on March 24, 1989, Gordon Ashcroft 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 88-133 Ashcroft Fence Height Variance request; and
WHEREAS, on April 25, 1989, Gordon Ashcroft 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
LAHIBI
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 88-133 Ashcroft 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-
't y'r '"�� / .I� L �rl !pN � ..rr.Wr..-..._... .�. .. .. _ -_.. ._- .. .-.._ .._.._._.. .....-. .i._...._-. � .._ _..•. _
✓ ll�s�2 GJ Al
rc APR ?
/�G�j�✓ %�`//s DUBUN FLANNING
?PI94114161
c'.4/��
r>Tu�C -7�' ti �.2�)'4
Az
r'
/27
TNT 7
A4 4 JvN,A/C
L NFc�� ,�>e .� / 46'L'x Lev/�
L)>L'c_
U-77c,Iz,1 S'fwf i /� is ULz s ^
o
• G L'tL�
�� ;I axe
[!.S /• r >< jLr•�14a • r 0 rr�. }} �r�k� 1 i t � 1T�r:. •.r A // .%!Y'f ry ! z r tl,,�r p�irrrS � •.ins. .. •' ' 4
ar.•.,•.,: {�,c I , r , �� .h ji,/, tl R � ,/,� ,.;, 9a .,.,r ��, /,,i :�r � r:. ,4. `.�� ..... '' r
RESOLUTION RO 89 ;,'017 .
�r � Aar I �.J r. /•i :!' t f l � � � rte. � +r- •• _
< A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CCHMISSI03i
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION DENYING
PA 88-133 ASHCROFT FENCE VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 7 FOOT 7 INCH HIGH FENCE
(NOW EXISTING) WHERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 6 FEET 13 PERMITTED
AT 11452 WINDING TRAIL LF;E
WHEREAS, Mr. Gordon Ashcroft filed an application for a Variance from
Section 8-60.55(d) of the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow a 7 foot 7 inch high
fence on the rear and sideyard property lines at 11452 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
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, or. March 14, 1989, after hearing and considering all said
reports , recommendations and testimony as herein a:;ove set forth, the Zoning
Administrator denied PA 88-133 Ashcroft Fence Height Variance request at 11452
Winding trail lane; and
WHEREAS, or. "larch 24, 1989, Gordon Ashcroft appealed the Zoning
Administrator's Parch 14, 1989 action; and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 1989, the Planning Co=ission _zeld a public hearir.
to consider said appeal; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports,
recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED TILkT THE Dublin Planning Commission does
hereby find that:
a) Thera are no special circumstances ircludin; size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which would
deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by ot::er property in the vicinity
under the identical --onin- classification, in th t there are si.milar.
,._. ,
COpOg1'aphlCal COQ..1..10115 for Sitar �iiJi1� k0lllnz- ,i; 1S Drive, $11\'ar-dLa Uri\'2
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 0-
special privilege. inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties iI:
the vicinity and zona, 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. n V'"i
�'"
c)s, • Tkie granting`oY ,this Variance 'would be'detrimental to the
• :neighborhood iri'that.it•would set"a precedence of allowing fence heights in
, ,excess "of t 6 feet'where It ,>is unnecessary;' L"J
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby uphold
the Zoning Administrator's action denying PA 88-133 Ashcroft 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 May 17, 1987,
I
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April, 1989.
AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mac's, Okun, and Zika
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Planning Commission
ATT ST:
L� Layl�
Planning Directo
-2-
}: f. • r fy ti� i� r _ {V a-x1 11,1— t T,}q. yv1/ V_s.'u yy d s, -.
i i"•> tz.��( °� raF 4r'w zl 'yy 4,j ' lt✓ y + ✓kt .r .S1 r S i 7:
.{4,
'''� �� sfy Sid �`5 ns�£{?'�`'s; ��h i�'''�'� °�' 'a"?rk' q h �',f�1} x''f ysr � r�,y;S c';�.. - e �' j c d y„t' /F � � � � •it
.. , 4 r �. ,.� }~�ti�. X�i r i s �':i j� fit.�- aj K/.� a. �, �..� �� r:r: .r.ti
�C 7c
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SUBJECT: PA 88-133 Ashcroft - Appeal of the Zoning
Admnistrator's action denying a Variance
request to allow a 7'7" high fence (now
existing) where a maximum height of 6' is
permitted at 11452 Winding Trail Lane
Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report.
Mr. Barger indicated that on March 14, 1989, the Zoning Administrator held a
public hearing to consider the Variance application from Gordon Ashcroft
allowing a 7'7" fence which now exists. A 6' maximum height is permitted.
The Zoning Administrator denied the application. Or, March 24, 1989, Mr.
Ashcroft appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision and the application is
now before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Barger indicated, that the Variance application was in result of the
Building Inspector identifying a zoning violation while in the field. The
Zoning Investigator was alerted and Mr. Ashcroft .as told he would need to
either lower the height of the fence to 6 feet or apply for a Variance.
Mr. Ashcroft applied for the Variance.
Mr. Barger indicated that the Applicant had constructed an additional 1'7"
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 circ=—stances 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 o 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. The
granting of this Variance would constitute a special privilege. In these
cases, the rear yard areas are enclosed by 6' high fences. 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. Althot:gh Staff recommends denial, Staff presented
alternative solutions to the :applicant. These include 1) planting tall
C,
rowing trees or shrubs around the outside perimeter of the fence; or 2) us--'--:-
tall , fan-shaped redwood lattice cork plant suppo_ts placed in the ,rot:nd
adjacent to the interior perimeter of the fence w"on could hold spreadir.
type plants .
Regular Meeting r
�y
..( .I�f t"C
� t/. -.•.t�1Y� 'tl i �..r A f�F ;;] r %, r'.' '.! .�r-`, fyl'� C t.«•+r+ !'zest:1%°� °'ta.r�J��,��yF 3.'. t^Yik/'��.'i'�/���r „a,X 7 -_r t' ;,;1
? � .ti. / ._.. _,.'. �� �t'y f Y�:hI 1.•{,S.° /, .�.. > w'j-ros� '� .] vl Y.
Mr. Gordon Ashcroft, 11452 Winding Trail Lane, indicated that the building _
inspector nor the zoning investigator reviewed the situation with him.
Mr. Ashcroft indicated that there were special circumstances regarding his
property. The patio was completely visible- from the street and the additional
fence height was necessary for privacy. He would also like to install a spa.
Mr. Ashcroft indicated that he would like to see the City build a fence along
Rolling Hills Drive. He indicated that Ms. Juanita Stagner had approached him
about 14 months ago and told him he would need a Variance.
Mr. Ashcroft stated that only people who needed higher fences would build
higher fences.
Cm. Mack ask Mr. Ashcroft to clarify his statement regarding Staff not coming
out to his property.
Mr. Ashcroft indicated that he was referring to the Planning Staff not coming
into the yard.
Cm. Burnham asked Mr. Ashcroft if people !in the t-wo-stow house behind his
property could look into his rear yard.
Mr. Ashcroft indicated that there was no problem with the two-story house.
They couldn' t see anything.
Cm. Burnham asked why the issue has been going on for 14 months.
Mr. Tong indicated that the Applicant applied for a Variance in November of
1988, as indicated on Attachment 5.
Mr. Ashcroft stated that he did not respond to rotes left on the door;
however, he would respond to letters.
Mrs. Petray, 11450 Winding Trail Lane, indicated that the two alternatives
Staff recommended were not approved by their homeo.�er's association.
Mr. Ashcroft indicated that due to the winds the trellis would need to have
strong supports attached to the fence.
Cm. Zika asked Mr. Ashcroft to clarify the association disapproving shrubbery.
Mr. Ashcroft indicated that shrubbery above the fence height was not allowed.
Cm. Barnes asked Staff where the association's approval for the fence was.
Mr. Barger indicated that Attachment 5 was a letter from the association
approving the fence extension.
Cm. Okun asked Staff if the association could take such an action and if they
had contacted the City.
Mr. Barger indicated no, it w s the City's reSp0^.Sbilit\' to approve fence
heights.
Regular Meeting PCM-8-51 April 17, 19S9
.a l. ,� . ,jt. .$ � ::� �.,� j 1i, ,� k,�Jrri7x'xsr /.•+�Wo .r r r�.iry.r+ t e f;.,, PF. ft. ��i �
�r d - �S .0..• � r i ..P�i}Sy/( �E 3 r;f�i .f r i�.! '4 ol{1�v:x f -'Ya'y; J 1- j. 1..y7 3 w✓..f: Y t - i. 3.t':
�£• LL.` y{ +1�, i.!� r{. v 1'G.ly.{ M;.r,ari qq ,.F°;�"'�•' ':i�t' ro t 3+¢R.`!. '� i r7 fse s.'- }•.r F 6 R •x vE. �y .i xr
tl t 1 t� aJ r`i*. a ✓.v. � .i'. 7'� J-+jifj. '!th .1?;}iq,sr{ •d,y'" , $�$ {r'yi4 y✓jY.9. .C 3•b:-., ' f. i r.z.. .at s}F air 1r �f� f!p .� �.�•
h
,;,� fix• 7 of ! J r 1r, f �,,,c; ' j✓ ty` J i415k4 #y x a {,��f "' `s.� 1 �!' �<r" y r
Y
.e 4- x !� t 'fir J dA` r j n to s• - .q e- c Y,
,.t f t > t: 4 rr{t '�`t�yyy��t'1*9��l�� Ya�Y'�t�''S y��.o-,t�� rro _ff� ._jf✓ r ti. � h 'i-�#�1£"'`- l Y:) v
• r fj tK jy ifs � j t .. +
Mr. Ashcroft indicated that the fence looks good and was necessary, _
Cm. Burnham indicated that appro•ial of a fence eitension would cause a 'domino
effect and others would follow suit.
Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing.
Cm. Okun asked if the homeowner's association did not allow shrubbery.
Mr. Barger indicated that according to Mr. Ashcroft, this was the case.
Cm. Okun indicated that the homeowner's association should be contacted and
told about the City's rules and regulations.
On motion from Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Mack, with a vote of 5-0, the
Planning Commission adopted
RESOLUTION N0. 89-017
UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION DENYING PA 88-133 ASHCROFT FENCE
VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 7 FOOT 7 INCH HIGH FENCE (NOW EXISTING) WHERE A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 6 FEET IS PERMITTED AT 11452 WINDING TRAIL LANE-
Mr. Tong indicated that this action would be final unless appealed within 10
days.
Cm. Burnham sugEested that the homeowner's association should be contacted.
SUBJECT: PA 89-001 Pe`ra' - AoDeal of the Zoninz
Administrator's action denying a Variance
request to alto:: an 8' high fence (now
existing) where a maximum hei,ht of 6' is
permitted at 11!50 k'inding 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, logo
to consider the Variance request. The Applicant's wife attended the meetinf;
,.
however Ms. Petrav walked out of the meeting prior to the start of the public
hearing on her item. Ms. Petra}- had indicated that there was no use attend;-`
th hearing since the previous Variance was denied, their Variance would be
denied also. The Zoning Administrator denied the application.
Mr. Barger indicated that 11r. Petray appealed the Zoning Administrator's
decision on March 22, 1989 .
mr. Barger indicated that the Variance applic,"tic; was In result of the
Building Inspector identifyins, a toning violation while in the field. The
Zoning Investi;ator 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 ap2'_ied for the Variance.
Rec-ular Meetin,, PCM-S-52 April 17, 19S9
loo 7
Ir
Jr
IN
'`n \yam .••:'��/�?�=,�ri a>,i.�Ir.,L`:��/-••r,-''i I'/ /,' / ! ���� � �
LOP��'��` •� � �`�•''�,.:+:�� .;.' 1.1.1 r
,.`w•
� t��,.� ��� ,� ;1_,r:t�I/Lr 7• ��'�� ( �i':•C�% / /� C.� %,�/,c:� ,ST/•'/�'/_'�i ' /�//�',r) -S/ ��=icl/1 f /< , C y cr)
I' C`_���� �;..,-'r`�'• I �f.:=r�a.r /.••`,�:�_� -%�i`t /�!�/'� Y//✓ u / '/: ���%��'�/�'S/u �l� 'i�7 CA (� y
.% 1 G
,zz
11. cZ ; [
�\ �J'� r~-t �=�ti� i l;;a •� � ••� �:�t:.;;.'--y.t,�,
AO
,IN
` � fit`i.�� , t�C�� r: l.�ii•'�-�-�'! 1 •/Ci (/ Coo,/r l./
t.
tz
\
:- ' ' � �-•
• _ice_-__._...._... .... ...._...--'---•-..—_.......__.---'—' .i• •.�:\.;�Z�_ �`•j�x.���
lid
•{ / // •.1 ' ', qtr'\ -. `��Z:`, `
`� \
Vi `�w�
�� � _ • . . '.,.�=>,, zti:�' I��
! ., :\. ^� 1. aa ~., 1\•:
r � V
rrt
--�� ._....._... _ � �•;; F.L. �
k `\ NNI`�1�
' I� U :' ` �,,.��:•.� �t � tit
•��i.�' �'��. 1 �t'`;is 't\ `�\
/ ZN i
?sic�'.:::,`:, �.:`• ::��:E
6j
01,&0 ot 71,
IA
vy
fy
of.
1,0 j
o'e.
14
WA -.7- g,
"!J,.,AV.
f.
.4
,.%L
A' . I ,1 // !' r ' �7 '� i'♦ �Y/''.! ♦/. /'"�,. 'j
'�.///f/ ri/�, % . %' /„y�,•��i ;f•-1,� .
��/ �/ �I fi.. 'fW
Ai � /�/ .�. l�� 1 1��� �••/�
.'�'�i/ I�(a� p� Xr'�/�� �l✓,!, "�';/il 1/'I�l Yy� �irrrT/! .r7,G J , / ./ / /`v1/ fi lrr ,�/�,�!�}/f� '.�1"r
'� 'f' � //'.,f!�'Yf!I/'f�f(`j•/ ��1 /' / ��)// r�1'� //J''f ��,!,�,'/•!%�
�,Y���/i��(!i/ ��..�/�•��/III Mh•�� /r�`''�%�i,�/i 7. ��,'�•i I///� /!L .ir1 .!O/r" ' ���•► ,r,/I, !,�{f�� %'•�lyys�r�.:I�;//iy/'/'!% �..'.:� .
r",r•/ i. '+l /r'1 Iv'jt�. /.y .•.r •!f/{.
/ ✓. .y` !•;./ �r, ''.r'/! / ! J./
/,'•►� �•���'-A''/'•�l� I•I �i✓f� /i �✓f'��j�.�(i �/�/M�,�, '✓�! �'��/J//�I�l, •
•,/%l, /,;I ,'�j', !'.1/ II�� /',,. , /!! , .,Y•�1"� ¢►(;./f/ ��'�r+/';'j:l�'•I
t:J►! rl•!;� 1"Y,' /. / N %%{/J^ fj/, � 1 /f✓ '�y��a /y:/i�� ..c�♦/�r/
/r/z�1I. ,-,.ej���.'.��,vy.J'�/''Y'�r' �_•/•/�• '/%/ � �. /r�/ ♦� /t/ �•�'t'% 1
r.. �f� . ,�Y'�/�.!%//i�%�/ • �,ji�''�'. �� J /!j;�/((2r'(/�r� j�•:v/,'/�,rr�'�y/ ffi
yi%�!•.��•f•;I:, G.N ri!//'. ///! •l%"�% I/ N / r/�/f.1+ � �'Y.�./.,
�f/,�'/,/,/,'J, ,'�r�••�/..i/ rir'•l�lr.�✓''•,r�:�/l�,/"'/ •�li-ley (/� / j/ / !� , i/ �� •.
WAWA
. .
ASSESSOR' S MAP 941 �Area►�. 2s-��►n-u�
xc: i'• loo• _ TR.541016,E `•
2772 lel
TR.4943twi
{Ci TR.4991,47/Z s
� �\ 2775
Xel
t 'o
b 0,
` !*
�o oaoo . - JJ
>� 'J 0
0 110
A
o E)N
N
�
4C1�� t 0
` \ z . r
L'• 1 r \ ll;�
W.., i 0
^�I/,5 U4ZC`NY R0 1
8 �II\I ItsJ n; !� �1� — — •-�:
0'
DE
' �� � �! , �.l•,( VJ�: �'e<�' ±-y .--�_•:rn-e� i:� r_•2•,ra �c+•7 a-' a' ;�•.-�y
�r r •.. . .. � I / N ��(/irlV•r f/r rr
• / rr 4 ' / � /�i/l/ r /Jit V/� 4Y' I/ r• I,y,ij•y., ..., ,
�J��J/� ,!, ,. / T"'�I/ /J��' �/� ' r•Yfn/���rC��+l, �/,��/Ir•f���/;/,Iy.l.r-.• - -
�j• / ' ' ;/,! �..�. qr" � ' r�l�/ �y�/YA'/�Y�ry�Y '��' %- %Yb� r!/t/n'. aJ• /•II�i,/��Ii,,//:�v:,,^/
f9r✓..1�11�f4/• I /Yt AJIJ ..� /� .ir I / / _ l'r..r.rl/' /�• /' �I' ....tw•�,'.`c,r,',
� �� •� �Ia �'�� ��� r, r rl
•r / /, /�/�7N�✓ r / / �/ 4' • /i.i�/•r'`. '✓I.�j.:�I `�4 /J � , /�I�1'r/''.1.jr�// /', I
IRi r~//,M��/'�� �i/ r /, •/ � Y I � ��'/,/. /!�/i�i_ t/�f. �r//'I•/^/' /'.' r��'�'/II��j�•'" ('i}/{l:T�•I+'
�I. 17'/'. f���.�;�I/7I/� ,�/ / %� r/L.:. "'>r"/'I:�.//�/�If"�I;rtR,� •I��i .�ii�/./�� rtJ7.�ifr�.; �•.��i�rt���Ir,�S�rr%�<�;•�,.
t r��t� � �,,�r, f� � � ;;... ,lam �. � �i�I.'�+ /•-�,,./ c'�►,/-.tr,,� �•r,l, ,, �,�'' ' ..
�,�� J� l� ,L •f� �s: •r,�.��rl�/ih:�71G/°'3�'�,�iA•1/t�l��f"�%f �� .+/.'r�rrl/ I
/,`/,ern♦11�'"y � �� J "` �`/y,��" ..1/iAi` w'�L��.i•�%Ali'/i�w��rL11� /f '/ +''" '"r>r� •.
/ I/ /r 'r/�•• 1f �iL/,/' /Yi/ /Ji,.Y;.f.;�Yv//•t /7 � .. .� /'./ •r
+J .r�'��•�'%r`�i✓/:�✓•.'��.�•�'��•rI/rj•�n/;' �/�/r' ��C'.'%'•,� •s���F-�"-'I, r
/.•r/ y I .tr- .. 7 i iu �+ 7j� /I.N/..- /•�..
��A~�•l'� �r/�/i ..�„+��"r /�/r�'�+/i/'i..::lr%:i'i ''f• ,�r`�J'• �� ?l�Clh,:J�`�
f f1fr 1/•s,r/�r ///if�w,,�1"Y/�,.�,r •��., -j��.,,..'.• � / ar#off y /t
.a�,/7 rn}�.•?'I� ./✓`/r i,J'y'(�J Y.� / ySr�•!'��1,f,,,r����� p/�,�:11-:••����ls �/ f',f•.�r,//,Ii
`' N. (•;' ! ,66 L.. �y,+r,�1'- , Cll1' /• :P vj/ w /•":' �-?.7. ✓mow/ �..'
j�"' l' ,r��� J•�;:.2'�v'lam,- � s;--;-•; t w� � �/,, ,,,,%�� �; � . ,�
yir f � J _ r�J/,1f..
?•I�'1�'v t�/"I/”�,.�,�'� •../���.�,•I -: '��.•"'f? ':r'..;J.: .� ,,.il�.I.• f/j, ./,e;;v1::;�.i F_•.,�� :�•�:!�•!./,,fr�J ' '
' i,.'�i'./�i: .•'!'f,:.ice, :�•�.i" 'r:.:'/'�•- r'• i � '/1 ''I 'i• i ,
IV
- 2 -._ --
OTC AL.
P _ -...
`J � F -'_� - '/rte �--•-=-. _ 4 1 •.
vj
TO
:� � �--, �•` ••��x.`.1.1 '.\ . _ �• �' :,\ �.
rye '•;,��;�\ .T`U.y`. ��-\•r \`� '::•;:v` C� �.� K,__rH,.�•,--,.� ,.�1 r
A.�1•.c.�`.� ��•• •\� � ±'� �.a •'
SON a
�. '.Y � r.�r. Y .. it ♦ u nr ;.t ✓ -+ Pile b F i t r
�'���„�y',1,{Y,s'.. L}ly';#� `r3 � r ?�-� ,. - /i'�c �;,�.�.�: �' ..?=i'�"'a;i�tif,�,��/•�r v„9a7.{ttry>��i�'✓-� .��11��hi. ��,`*{ ��.Jr7�.�.3,�'s'ti�'' ., Tyr �� .. �
/ d N /y rr L=SG] yh l• !"/-�{� ft' d.� ! I )jj ,{'�. '{' '.A 1fr}^rp d
r
r� � i�. E ,.r. r � t �'i9'� !✓'.%�• �'h�r,��� G�'ve Ay #r��' n 7 :4^tr vf,�'-�'?'.:r�i u$' �Sl�r„�i�`iy''l �. +ry'n'. '"`i�` 1
M "/ +`` �•. N. r 'u 4q,.r'�>2 G"rti�"� r r. 'y��y r1 tr I
' � • �! ,�'c /ham J ��y) � / � / !
• • . . • .. , • . •. . . .• . � , .'WORK . - � • -
f ME 0�
FZ LL
D
S�
P I STI NCI soPC' ��T
�cT1O1.iAl. -
Vvew
ALL 5/
W�i2k 4
1
:RA
f4
I I EXIST A&
p°5T
L�V�1't�ON YIt-W
i
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF P.7-PORT
Meeting Date: April. 17, 19Z9
TO: Planning Commission _
FROM: Planning Staff
REPORT WRITTEN BY: Rod Barger, �enior Planner
SUBJECT: _ PA 88-133 Ashcroft Fence Variance
GENERAL INFOP,MATION:
PROJECT: Appeal of the Zorir:g A�inistrator's decision to
deny a Variance request to allow a 7'7" high
fence (now existing) where a maximum height of
6' is permitted
APPLICANT: Gordon Ashcroft
11452 Winding Trail lane
Dublin, Ca 94568
LOCATION: 11452 Winding Trail Lane
Dublin, CA 9456E
ASSESSOR PARCEL 1:.:•iBER: 941-2772-104
PARCEL SIZE: 2=00= square feet
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Medium Density Re=_dential
EXISTING ZONING
AND Lk\D USE: PD - Planned Devalc__e t District/129 unit
Multi-Family Towr-c_se Development
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING: \o_zh Single-F=ia- Res idential/PD-Planned
Development District
Sout-: Vacant Ccun--\" Land/(A) A°rlcultural
District
Ea=t: Single-F:__-_y Reside'. --ial/R-1-B-E
nest: Single-Fa___. Reside zial/FD-Plan:?ed
Development D_s t,is z
TONING HISTORY:
luC CUtIIC�I V:v�:.:1.�.. ...._ JV:t.1U:; ni t':..a \� Cdn t:o -. _.�� ^n_•ni h..
Alnme.da COI:..--\' in--o a A;__c.:l--oral Distr_.... i.. 1956 (:'U--1 7onin`, Unit)
In 19x0, Al,,-e'- Cour.::y :--'EP.:Od its Celleral .Ian to _h:311�ing the Neilson
[\;1I1C11 1aP.d l:S: des1�na---.n Lrom t�_r1Cl.1t'.._.._ to Res:-;-ntial, llloludln`
hOCll Slll12-ia:: RI?� ::':11--'_-fa;all\' 13i?l� CeSi`i?3t101?S
- -- ----- - - -- ---- ---- ---- - - - --
ITEM
!� f� •r.- � D d` r'•�'�'l��.tGrj�,Y ,(iS � f r �;ya t ghf f� a i R r��< y� k•'a./' ,� -.4� r t t
7q �S .Y%'u�1-u7y,�;�j �1�w:'�r 1 � tiS.C'r`71�..r}+`gpL;/• �j r Y. �,' },�,. . t�� ,e' '���� s���'�.tiL°+'ff''S'-r �'i.�e� �ft�S.;�YS i✓4U' rf! '�f ' ..
J.�n, �N.�Jijj''� Lf � rrr l'i��BL': �ry 9{/ld^r'�'La+1+/r' it�f.-�•,/xs�'C�F !9�1�u� K�,r�✓�.raj .,i2.17�t / ✓ �, < r}�.1., t�`� � i
�,.s l 'IG.�f',y11 }tti t•rfp'i'�r.fY, 4��T,rlf{H��•1 f`�`,'f`�">r'• s v /�71Z1 jq t f,h/'„.1 n�p!J3I� ,ee�yt': �"�' ��fJ�.lrr >n::-� r'Y H f<. i
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 a-:)proved a Site
Development Review application to allow the development of 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'.at for fences, walls
and hedges in a residential district.
Section 8-93.0 (Variance) indicates that the strict terns 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 prcerty in tha 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 other 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 t :e 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.
ENVIRON`IENTAL REVIEW: '1h is proj ect ha's been found to be Categorically
Exempt from CEQA under Section 15303, Class 3(e)
of the California Environ-ental Quality Act
Guidelines
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the April 17, 19S9, hearing was published
in The Herald, trailed to adjacent property cwners, and posted in public
buildings.
BACKGROUND:
On March 14, 1959, the Zoning Administrator held a public :tearing to consider
a Variance application from Gordon Ashcroft to allot: a 7'7" high fence (now
existing) where a maximum height of 6' is permitted. after receiving
testimony from Staff, the Applicant and the general public, the Zoning
Administrator adcoted Resolution. No. 04-S9 denving FA SS-133, the Ashcroft
Variance request.
On March 24, 1959, Mr. Ashcroft appealed the Ze::'_- _ Administrator's decision
to the Plannin, Ce: Inission.
T*ii S Va:')all( d. Rh{2l I.CR! J.011 .l N, d .1:?�alr. ( �. r.Re n'tl!". ^? T^ J3.:r•" '� c�^.t_ ii.
this zonil:g violation in the field. He alerted t:^e Zor.il:g Investigator of t e
violation and she consequenz1v contacted the Applicant, inJicating that he
would either have to loi.er the height of the fence to 6 feat (or less) or
apply for a Variance,. The Applicant decided to 3^':'\' for the.. Variance.
0
-2-
r a / tt +rr F ✓�<`� q Y y� t.� { (� rarer j�) (�r�r
�; x)t /� , Sl ,�," yr�,i ,;,5 }�1 r�.. &.1sfu^". •2, + I/Y.•r '�r-;!/';
�+ r lry�`y��,'Ytr}1'� 'ft�1 � Yr�/� r�;� ht,i 't, -,x .8.4 f •'z9 r i' f A'Rx �# �' x t,"�tt" ,
r�!- �� ; ;,��• sp �''��r'�,1"�,I�r•��N'�+��t�., ��i +!'`� }�. ,w�f. i Jt?�', �,1. u'",,'��-�S � � �'+
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 Polling Hills Drive.
The Applicant has constructed a 1 foot 7 inch additiDn to the height of _
their 6 foot tall redwood fence, resulting in a total fenc3 height of 7 feet 7
inches. The fence extension is constructed of redwood lattice material.
The Applicant has indicated that the additional fencB height is needed
to provide privacy to his enclosed rear yard area from ped:strians walking
along Polling Hills Drive. Polling Hills Drive is located to the north and it
is elevated above the grade of the subject site.
In order for the Applicant to retain the existing 7 foot 7 inch high
fence, a Variance dust be granted.
Prior to granting the Variance, three mandatory findings of fact must be
made. These findings state: 1) that there are special cir:umstances 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 s-)ecial circumstances
relating to the physical features of the site waici 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--)licart'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 Sil•:ergaze Drive;
(2) at properties on the east side of San Ramcn Road (south of Vomac
Road) ; and
(3) at units in the P=ador Lakes project along Stage=oath Road.
In each of these cases, streets are elevated above t:e sites allowing views to
the residences.
The granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special
privilege. Since there are similar situations in to 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 pri•:ile7e.
The granting of this Variance would be detrimental tD 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 circuIlistances r2_ated tD this property
which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the City, Staff reco::.mends denial of the Applicant's request to vary from t;.2
maximum permitted fence heic-ht.
Although Star reco manned decrial of this rac:esz, S:air. presented to
t�lP ArpUc ilt-, .,^. i`.11i:D°r o* r19CCbC�'1 so!.urJAns .:': ? co.:1
his desire to nlail:tain privacy in his rear yard, while at tae same time
gaining full coclpliance with City zoning standards. These included:
a) plintin tall growi117 trees or shrubs strstagical1v placed around t :e
outside.- perijilotc,.r of the fence (as shown in Attac:_ent 10) which could
eventually provide a dense and attractive scree ing device, acrd;
-3-
' ,r l• ,./�'.`.; + /:1 ,r�i {!4, !,,.[E,�w.+ .N. r ��:s1✓r frA �f-di Z gi�l�ifgf' ,� .rq>% .' 3 xfrf".<#Y� ��+�,:'�'.�d l r .; � .
�. i� 'y�r Y r4� M• y) �: 1CJs,}1�?+i '. ft r ., K {d�� huh ��M�� .�� '3<�� wy ,.+��� :+•,-• ��� -....N ..1 9 Y f,sue.. .y..
j9 r ;}.Y''u ar�9�d�7! �.,, t f A 4{,vf�nr.rf���y�yf,�llr�t°��P','N ,� 'S�r �,gj 1f�T'�3 p,,.�y�,;r Y�r,�i.j.- f ��'� `'�' ��,ry���'„ .'}�I'•'�ti" �j �''":nry�.�l i: t� '
`1 ..'q,.. .♦i t � z.•,.1 s• r.r++r/ .c.+ r°I '� r ✓ r /�,`atiK j�/ rC .�.' ! <' < 7 i+` <,. i" �
b) use tall, fan-shaped redwood lattice work plant supports placed in
the ground directly adjacant to the interior perimeter of the fence to hold
vines, roses or similar spreading type plants, which would eventually provide
an effective screening device.
The Applicant felt neither of these alternatives would be as effective
as the existing illegal fence addition.
Because of the above facts, Staff recommends that .thz Planning _
Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator Is action denying the Variance
request.
RECO1,U4ENDATION:
FOR14AT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Tare 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
Resolution upholding the Zoning Admir_istra-ors action denying
PA 88-133 Ashcroft Fence Height Variance
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Draft Resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator's Action
denying PA 88-133, Ashcroft Fence Eeiga Variance.
Backaround Attachments:
Attachment 1: Applicant' s '?pe=1 Letter
Attachment 2: Appealable Action Letter dated March 15, 1989, including
Resolution No. 4-89 denying P_'_ 88-133
Attachment 3: rlirutes from the Zoning Administrator's Public Hearing dated
March 14, 1989
Attachment 4: Zoning Administrator Agenda State=ent/Staff Report dated
March 14, 1989, excluding attaca=ents
Attachment 5: Applicant's Written Statement
Attachment 6 : Elevations
Attachment 7: Photographs
Attachment 8: Site Plan
Attachment 9: Assessor's Parcel ,tap
Attachment 10: Sta f Study
-4-
�
'
/
-
'
VINOING
March 22 , 1989
. .
To the Dublin Dictators :
�
l � i
This letter is in respons� o your poorly s ub s anc a t e d
reasons for Variance denial. YOU stated that the majority
of the homes on Rolling Hills Drive have similar
circumstances to my problem, that is incozrect~ All
Fence / on Rollings Hills Or. are "�above" sidewalk level
"except mine" . T suggest you get out here and take a
proper and objective look at my pnique problem.
'
Granting a variance is "not" a s/ ecial privelege. What
other people except is up to them. I do not accept your
pettiness in denying me and not Others. This variance '
will not and is not detrimental to the ns-;ghborhood.
Therefore , I appeal this appalling decision as crossly
unfair and unfeeling . I intend to kesp my fence in place.
If this cannot be resoIved, court action is pend1�o.
You buzeaccates are inter�ering with cons�itution a l rights ,
and that is what. this country is all Ebloui. You are
- �elibecatly �eny�n� me m�at the Bill o� Ri�hts clearly
states , and thet is ecainst- the lam. You Fre on-Feeling
and unwilling to acCep� chance when it is obviously
' needed
� .
�
'
If and when the rest o� Dublin' s fencss ere brought into
T so m�Il
�
compliance ,
Sincerely
�
'
-
D �
��
m � =` — -~
[]KR
J)UBLINpLAWNING
�
.
'r•�'/jySlM1A7'�yrn......r.��..t �.wnYw•w+••ri r;~,'Y.�� Yw�..�� /.7/JI/'Hi!//.+/r���i�+.l.•r��rr�ir►:r�✓_w.rri�n.iwrv...ww�.r..�.....w.ir"..i�..
y. /nI%y/Y:�l•.Nw.II/�:r•ra,Or✓b• ll� s r rjN / f ✓ � � i / /o,,.
jrtlp, <.�l%�', i;.''x.4.7:- �.; �' w.( �ra�.ti- '�'�.•."� / ,ff' /",.IJ �/"'` »�� yrr .i; '' ���� ;l�-,:��;•..,'i' ''' -
RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 89
A RESOLUTION OP THE ZONING ADHINIST?ATOR
OF THE CITY OF DIIZLIU
DENYING PA 88-133-ASHCROFT FENCE VARU.ACE REQUEST TO ALLOW A
7 FOOT 7 INCH HIGH FENCE (NOV EXISTING) AHERB A HAXnM HEIGHT OF
6 FEET IS PE?_fITTED AT 11452 VINDINC T7.AIL LAHZ
WHEREAS, Mr, Gordon Ashcroft filed an application for a Variance from
Section 8-60.55(d) of the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow a 7 foot 7 inch hig',
fence on the rear and sideyard property lines at 11452 Winding Trail Lane; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Ict and has been found to be
categorically exempt; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects
as required by law; and
WF:EREAS, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on said
application on March 14, 1989; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted reco`endir_g denial of the Variance_
application; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ar:-inlstrator heard and csrsidered all said reports,
recommendations and testimony as hereinabove se: fort:,; and
NOW, THERE.ORE BE IT PESOL E THAT THE Dublin Zoning Administrator Ices
hereby find that:
a) There are no s_ec'_al circumstances ?-c1_ding size, shape,
topography, Location or S: rrcu—,c!nZs, applicable to tic pr0oertl wh 1C11 wOU_C
deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by c�er roper-ty in the vicinity
under the identical zoning classification, in t..at there are similar
topographical conditions for sites along Rolling Eills Drive, Silvergate Drive
and San Ramon Road where the street is elevated Sao:e t;^.e sites and the rear
yards are enclosed by 6 foot high fences.
b) The granting of the Variance applicatic, will constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the vicinity and zone, in that no special circ'._^stances exist which warrant
granting the Variance. other properties in t`e Cis; and same zoning district
must comply with the fence height limitation i_:ose by the Zoning Ordinance,
unless special circumstances exist.
C) The granting of this Variance would be detrimental to the
r
neighborhood in that it would set a precedence of all-swing fence heights in
excess of 6 feet where it is unnecessary.
BE IT FURTHER TE_-%T THE Zcn_ _ :.:__..;strator toes hereby
deny PA SS-133 As croft `'aria.. e application a-._4 met er directs the Applic_..t
to brin- the fence into ccTI-c :ante with the Ci�.'s Ze^.ink Ordinance
(regulating fences) by lewerin tie height of t fence to 6 feet or less no
later than April 14, 19S3.
F:�SSED AF.:� OG:.D AND A,O:TZD Lai k L
Al ES:
NOES:
ASSENT:
ATTEST:
d 'dl . Ail: @i ~ "h•]7J
:✓,•�%� �I1'/,��dly I�%'..lr.f• �.!J a' ��. /!•�� r.�i r�J"! f••/>(�.rrf/1�., l��.rr �js1�••I�1,i%i / � / W" '/.. ./ �y,��ri/,�r/��:r!I .•'r, 1
.Y •%. ,l I '/�/, lf`Ii 1. ;. ./.., �I:3,�.'+,j ✓:'„ L;P,.••• I'/.p .f". ,/� 1
..}.. I"' .�•. v,51•� 'A M ••/'• "! I. -.,,. A .}/4r, r, i/' L/./(d..•'•t'.�,ru'�.J/�1 7} ✓�',%. �i�'. / •r'r,Iw•�•
'h/ :!r `;�'•% '/i. °' i' '/,ir % /"r h'....;'.[ '✓.%d. 1J' { 4r :��/ '' �rf �/ 1 0 'S � i',
�../ ,%/'..,. :� 1/ / r 1' 1 !{rr 1 /"AY"// // %"'�' / w 7'T J i.•I I.,
ar� r Y LI /• ! ),., '•9.•r a'•.�a�yv.�'r� (:"ter�fv"'"I �i?�! yd A„ 1••. /. !r// ni1'r';�' .Vii,,. .��i r15% •/ [,r• i,.i
?/' !i:•/'/.+ .. �..�/i �^/ 1.%/" / !� MjII' • ' / ''J
�i {'• / /r H'•"i L•Rte,//.y. ,}/�p�/ r ►•� � ../�'.:,
( �.4Y,f: '�.'r'/1�,�� 'i'��f�J Ivy/ (,:'l. •./,L ,} G'1.�L., :r.r/✓ /,/p.N., /i: I,. YY,•Y, 7:• ,.p/�`� / / /�, r:
1 1. ,/'yV I,1/, •(/i'/• ( �' rr I 1 lli /f %�:•✓;�Aj•..i%�,�/./,/ %r V•/L.ry�� ".•',f'i ir7• ir.
:.r�{//, /ryi, �; ^S�/'�}l r,?..�•r; ,./,. •lLi /-:, n'r'•�•/,: Jw 4•a^`•,f: i�,/fjFf '; ,•�/A /� .r�� 9•f q fir•.: /�;, :�
,j'' ,/..;/:'i/)5•y'�r i''f.•. 1.,:1,(,. �..."��'II.C�' 1/�/"J%j•,' ./�/w,(,its ,�'rl•�•,� I/�i�i'•�" 1rS!_
,r. -.j .:r�:,r :'1',}I..n-�' 'il;�rL�//' ,r•;�y✓'' •'f:.'%' -f�•''Y+i+-��jr.✓/,l, '>l-'�r'J�./x.S.. ��1;�s�rf...•}. �
.:/.W. .... ,.w. .a.. �..... ......
Zoning Pdministrator Meeting - Yarca 14, 1989
i
A meeting of the City of Dublin Zoning Administrator was hald on March 14,
1989 in the Conference Room, Suite 210, City of D,.:blin offices, 6500 Dublin
Boulevard. The meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m. by Laurence L. Tong,
Zoning Administrator. :
Roll Call
PRE Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator, Rod
Barger, Senior Planner and Laura Hoff=eiste_, Associate Planner.
Public Hearing /
SUBJECT: P?: 88✓133 Ashcroft Fence Eei&,t Variance, 11452
Winding. Trail Lane
Mr. Tong, Zoning Administrator, explained the Va: arce hearing procedures,
opened the public hearing and called for the Star Report.
Mr. Barger indicated that the Applicant was request:— a Variance from Section
^^.ere a
8-60.55(d) (Fence Eeight Limitaticns) to allow a fence height 7' 7" w,
maximum of 6' is allo ea. Fe indicated that the Va_ia ce application was a
result of the Build4ng Inspector identifying the existing violaticr. in the
field. The applicant was ask b the Zoning I ';estigator to either remove
the 1'7" addition or apply for a Variance. The Applicant applied for a
Variance.
Mr. Barger indicated that the Applicant constructed a 1 foot 7 inch addition
to the height of the existing fence resulting in a total f=_nce height of 7'
7" . The fence extension is constructed of redwood lattice material. Mr.
Barger indicated that the Applicant needed tae additional fence height to
provide privacy in his enclosed rear yard area from vehicles and pedestrians
traveling along Rolling Hills Drive, which is elevated above the Applicants
: property.
Mr. Barger stated that in reviewing the Variance request there are no special
circumstances relating to the physical features o_ the sita which would
warrant granting the Variance. Fe indicated that although the topography of
Rolling Hills Drive in relation to the subject site allows views into portion_
Of the Applicants rear yard, mere are similar c_-c'_stanc2s in the City w here
the same situation Occurs inc1ug__;-� a najorlt\' c: t'2 vnits in the California
Vista project frentir-S on Rollin, Fills Drive and S_ vergate Drive, as well as
at properties on the east side e= Sail Ramon (s.0 i of Vcmac Road) where these
streets are elevated above t^e sites.
Barger rec01�::ZI:d d L� 3t ::z LJnl::`� AdaltllSZra::_
recognition of the findings made and establishes: in the draft Resolution
d,r.ial s110,1l as Exhibit A in the Staff 1�2?Ort•
-1-
i of kRd��a.�9 nd4w � r�
1 VfM %:/�MT��I/tf�/.7r.f?7wrr. w�r•�.••- r.�- w.•arww.�.w.w •.rr.ru.. .r•.
9i' ��j,f. ,q.,yc�.0�.,♦!%l,, •r.-,l:'r. :l�rr.�/♦4� /,� •�'
Mr, Barger also indicated that although he was reccc®ending denial of.thee; 'i_--
'1 Variance he included two alternative solutions which-would assist ;in`'attaininf ~
r
the Applicants desire to maintain privacy in his rear yard while at'the same a'' .
time gaining full compliance with City zoning standards,
planting trees or tall shrubs around the exterior perimeter of the fence,'; .
Second, he suggested using 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.
Mr. Barger indicated that he discussed the above mentioned alternatives with
the Applicant. However, the Applicant was not in favor of either and he
preferred to keep his fence.
Gordon Ashcroft, the Applicant, 11452 Winding Trail Lane addressed the Zoning
Administrator. He indicated that he needed the 7'7' high fence for privacy of
his rear yard from pedestrians walking along Rolling pills Drive. He stated
that there are other similar tall fences in the ce-lalcpment he lives in and if
he has to take his fence down, all of the others in the development would have
to do the same. He indicated that his Homeowners Association would not allow
landscaping in public areas, so that solution was not feasible. He also
stated that he would soon be putting a spa in his back yard and he really
needed the tall fence.
Mr. Ashcroft asked Staff if there had been any cc=lai:;ts
regarding the fence.
Mr. Barger indicated that there were no complaints.
Mrs. Joseph Petray, 11450 Winding Trail Lane indicated that she is Ins.
Ashcroft's neighbor. She spoke in favor of Mr. Ashc:oft's Variance. She
stated that the alter native landscaping is not acz
b -�ic,(12 t0 their Homeowner
Association. She stated that the fence looks ood arc the
€ t the lattice
alternative recommended by Staff is unattractive.
Mrs. Ashcroft spoke in support of the Variance.
Mr. Tong told Mr. Ashcroft that if he was going to build a spa in his back
yard, he could have a higher fence in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance.
The portion of the fence above 6' in height would have to allow 0 light
penetration and be lade of green. o; white green t:aclucent fiberglass, or
chainlink.
Mr. Ashcroft stated that the Homeor�; ers Association totld
not allow chainlirt
or fiberglass fencing, nor would they allow additic:`? r 1--,a
a�...scaping in the
public areas or any landscaping that is taller than the rear ya
- d fences.
Lou Phaneuf, Via Zapata, Dublin, asked Mr. Tong hcw to c ,
determined.
-03 ligt eWaission is
Mr. Tong indicated that it is measured by a light mete:,
Mr. Phaneuf asked if the fast to cete_mine 90% li`:,t e=;s;:on for various
materials is fact or lr.ta_p:a�3ti0 !,
',Ir. Tong ;i:di;itaii r.hat it is intarnretation.
Ron Doyle, 5121 Via Zapata indicated that trees and s,—,' do not alloy: 90
light emmission.
-2-
4
err ��,Zr. IC:' i 1 �/ •,�" T i;1'•• �/
'�r .v�,• •la„ '�r� � J„, •r!i/fir •. ��:r�„�'%�!� �i�Nom/
i i �. % '). /• ./�;.�'�i';�i� ;/"%ii/�;?��.r/,y: .�1,�f /Y�S'�,..fr�..i .'.. lif ,� t'I"%� ' .r:? .
,ter I, t ,� '!� j .�✓ /� /;s!' �/ ,�;f•�"',i i%/! ! i ' .i.ri..Ir/.✓� / i 1” f 7�..
�f.N �:,%.'f.f�i':K;",�"f+�i� F�lf.•f.! :'tJ��i�...:.!.� ✓.9..1.f.'.1.•..J: i.....��..�:o(i+:L:/:.ci a.C1d.fL�..��:r.t...LL':.._ —
1'•
Tong indicated that .this section of the ordinance does not apply to
landscaping, only fences.
Mr. Ashcroft indicated that both his and the Petray property need Variance
approval for higher fences than 6 feet.
Mrs. Petray indicated that there are other fences in their development that
have fences higher than 6 feet and she measured them to make sure. She also
stated that Kaufman & Broad said it was alright to build a fence in excess of
6 feet and the Homeovners Association approved the fence addition.
Mr. Tong closed the public hearing and deliberated. Fe indicated that he
cannot verify what Kaufman & Broad may have said, hcwever, Kaufman & Broad and
the Homeowners Association do not determine whether or not this proposal is in
compliance with City Zoning standards. The City rises this determination. He
indicated that a number of issues regarding this a.plication must be answered
including; when will the spa be installed; clari j t:e Staff alternatives for
landscaping and; have the Applicant request, throw the Homeowners
Association, modifications to the provisions prohibiting landscaping in public
areas to consider allowing landscaping that could prcvide additional screening
in public areas.
1
Mr. Tong indicated that he cannot rake the findi:! s t0 suJport the Variance
request in that there are no Unique circumstances that warrant approval.
Mr. Tong asked Mr. Ashcroft which of the follo«-ing actions he would prefer to
take; 1) have his request be continued so that he could disco. the
landscaping alternatives with Staff or; 2) take act_cn on the item today.
Mr. Ashcroft indicated that Staff's alternatives are umacceptable and if his
application was going to be denied, he would take it to a nigher body.
Mr. Tor- made the findings to deny the Ashcroft Va:ia,ce request as shown by
Report (Exhibit .Q. He indicated that this
the draft Resolution in the Staff
action is appealable within 10 days and if Mr. ?shc=oft wished to discuss spa
or landscaping options, call Staff.
RESOLUTION N0. 04 - 89
DENYING PA 55-133 ASHCROFT FENCE VkRLANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 7 FOOT 7 INC..
HIGH FENCE (NON EXISTING) WHERE A N4XI).'SLH HEIGET C? 6 FEST_ IS PERIMITTED AT
11452 WINDING TRAIL L,\-
SUBJECT: PA 89-001 Petrav Fe-ce Height Variance, 11450
W;neing Trail Lane
Prior to opening the Public Hearing on this ite=, _s. Josaph Petray walked
out of the meeting. Mr. Tong asked her if she wouid 11.ke to stay for the
meeting.
_ _..
Mrs'. rel:l:ay S31(: 5`lZ-dl:. L of wan:: "? hear.'
would be dallied life the Ashcroft Variance was.
-3-
1 r' . r _4ffr H• e x
�r 1 4t , . •.� .fJ -..:. j ? .L. fvJ'It'r{/rl It r
"CIT7 OF DUBLIN
ZONIIG ADHINISTRAT02
AGENDA STATE:1EI1T/STAFF.RZ?G?T
Meeting Date: March 14, 1999
TO: Zoning Administrator
FPOH: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: PP- 88-133 Ashcroft Fence Variance
GENEP>AL I111F0RIIATION:
PROJECT: Variance request to allow a 7'7" high fence (now
e7.sting) where a m:.7---t= height of 6' is
permitted
APPLICP'iT: Gordon Ashcroft
114.52 Winding Trai? La-c
Dublin, CA 94562
LOCATION: 11452 Winding Trail La--e
Dublin, CA 94568
ASSESSOR PARCEL IZ--43ER: 941-2772-104
PARCEL SIZE: 2"00_ square feet
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Medium Density Res d_,.tial
E-KISTI\TTING G ZONING
AND USE: PD - Planned De.vele__e= District/129 unit
IMulti-Family To:.-r^o_se Development
SURROUNDING L1—ND USE
A—ND ZONING: North: Single-F`al_: Residential/FD-Plan,,ed
Development District
South: Vacant Cou:.-1: Land/(A) Agricultural
District
East. Single-Fa-ily R2sid2ntial/R-1-B-E
test: Sin�12-F�_l� aesider.tial/PD-Plc^t.2d
Develooe2:u ^:strict
ZONING HISTORY:
The subject ^i:Cc�i"t\' !::,� :onion of ti12 N2:15:^.-�'aoch tir23 :0i:2�� \'
r\' 11110 a �' _t La�"'DiSt 194'
In 19 11 A 1..::!:i C^t!nt: a:...'�:. .. l:.s vel'eral l0
Ranch land use designation from Agricultural.- to Residential, includin
both single-family and multi-f3milti• lard 1:_2 cgs/,nations,
PA 55-017 - 011 January 13, 19S6, the Dublin C ty Cot:ncil . .pro\i,J a
Planned D2\21o�vuent pre-:or.ln, and re-zollir. Of this 14.9 ac:a site f.c
z Flanllad De-valop"'allt (PD) District allot;in; bath single-family and
Ultlltl-fanlll�' rc`S1d211tlal tans to n FD allat:itl; i;tati-fa,nil\ resi�janti:!i
uses .
---------------
�� '� �d" rt N" +I .� r� -�f�`"'�•C�! � /r,t .,. t�Iy •;
r � 1 a e y/�,lt 'r/d' �' fa ? r�+ ri�+n +.:r�ji Ire K�fYs�' r'r b J !�'i .s.. ✓ ��.r i
< f
9' ♦ �.i r 5 , .d< � y,f yr! FN( / II
I-t/,.h 7 �7r� �. w r�"S.Y, �l� /�' / J � < i j•�I� f� ,<!� �Y t f�+ .
PA 85-021 - On May 23, 1926, the Planning Director approved a Site
Development P.eview application to allow the development of a 129 unit
multi-family townhouse project on this 14,9+ acre site,
APPLICABLE REGIJUTIONS:
Section 8-60,55(d) (Fence Height Limitations) of the City Zoning
Ordinance establishes 6 feet as the mar-imum permitted height for fences, walls
and hedges in a residential district.
Section 8-93.0 (Variance) indicates that to strict terms of the Zoning
Ordinance may be varied in specific cases upon affi^�tive findings of fact
upon each of these three requirements:
a) that there are special circumstances incl::ling size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which deprive
the property of privileges enjoyed by other prose:-i in the vicinity under t e
identical zoning classifications;
b) that the granting of the application will rot constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations 1SPon other properties in
the vicinity and zone; and
C) that t_^.°_ Lcrant- g oL t1e application _:' mot be -et i ental to
persons or property in the neighborhood or to the pi_blic welfare.
Section 8-93.1 - .4 establisl,hes the proce,_es, required action and
effective date for grantinS .o- de^ ins a Variance, and indicates the grants-7
of a Variance shall be subject to conditions, limitations =::d g,_arantees.
EN7IIRO` •1ENTr?L REVIM"4: This project has been found to be Categorically
Este-pt from CEQ:_ under Section 15303, Class 3(e)
of th= Cali fornia
Cuidelines
I�OTIFICATIOii. F'o1ic \etice o= the March 20, 13 hearing was publis;:ed
in The Fe=ald, mailed to adjacent proper.: owners, and posted in pub'_ic
buildings .
BACKGR0i1D:
This Variance applicatlOn is a result Of the Buildinz InsDector identiiyint
this ZCniT ° \ 101ctiCn In t:le field. He alerted tt.e Lo-in-c-- Investigator OLyt:e
violation and she ccnsecuanz1y c0, cted the Ape ticznt, ln^_icatinz that he
would either have to lo»er t o hei_7ht of the fence to 6 feet (or less) cr
apply for a Variance- The decided to a:_ for t,- Variance.
ANALYSIS:
T e subject s;ta is a part Of Kaufman & rece:,.tly c:^Di2C2L
Cal1LOr^:a Vista tC ..:hC1:52 deve_0T_enz: locazed jL'_: C== of Silv2r:. to D:;ve
a, ! R011i;`` Hills T-eve. TG2 site i. question -:...t_ O. vi^.lei Trail
^� one OL t 2 StT22:a i ' _^.j t1:Ouch t`2 C2:2_0"`^2nt. li 2 rear and
\ iC iS
side portions O: t`e prc�arty f.:e:._ cn Hi 11s D_i\-e
' h
til, ,foot rail _....;o.: r-'n :'o_,:1tir` ir. .. _: :t. ::5 _ Of ; fc.:- .
,1
l ll(:lle s.
The tc.ilCd �Xt2I1S10 \ is constructed of IeC.;cod lattiC2 material.
The. Applicant has irdicat d that the al?l?its,::al f2 Ce hei,,ht is rooc:c::
Ch p:p\'ll?r'. t)L'1\'3:.\' t,, 111s er.Closa rear yard area L::m Vehicles and
p%Jc:St11 1l1 C1 1\'c`.11n . 110I17 1 11111:- Hills Drive. \:\illr.: �llla Di:iv is
li�i lCl:lj to Cllc` n, _1 .1111 It is elc'V3',0d c'lbOV0 tl : 1'-'_-_1'i' Of thc' Sl:-JI'.l t S1:, .
Ill 01(10.1 fo,_ tho.. A,plicant t0 retain tho ox,_ t_ 7 foot 7 inch l:lSil
follco . :1 V;lrlan ct Crust be grantc\d.
e.y, i / �,. `Eerr ..e %. -a :firrr ,y� r�,+.•���r i.N of �����w�s�y`r6,lpJ,'�j'✓,� r�.� •J �iA°z ����f,�.-- �Jd�•F.y'J
.�,1�./r,
y n4 r Y 1 i3h 7f h: rr,fr �' p, �1 P"+"3 Yta v I ) vt. ..
f �1,��,r.,I .r e - .yr :/ KA',J '�l'> '.r71/ .)dl,'.v�r{..r r• a•••R'�:y« ! �....., sn.� r �+Fyf y„_ff
PA 86-021 - On May 23, 1986, the Planning Director approved a Site
Development P,eview application to allow the development of a 129 unit
multi-family townhouse project on this 14,9+ acre site,
APPLICABLE REGUI.P,TIONS:
Section 8-60,55(d) (Fence ?eight Limitaticl ) o£ the City Zoning
Ordinance establishes 6 feet as the maximum permitted height for fences, walls
and hedges in a residential district.
Section 8-93.0 (Variance) indicates that t e strict terms of the Zoning
Ordinance may be varied in specific cases upon af"fi^_ative findings of fact
upon each of these three requirements:
a) that there are special circl:rlstances inclu'__ng size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which depri:i
the property of pri-iileges enjoyed by other pro:er y in the vicinity under t:a
identical zoning classifications;
b) that the granting of to application will not constitute a grant of
svecial privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon Other properties 1^:
the vicinity and zone; and
C) that t=:°_ grcnting of the application +_l} not be detrimental to
persons or property in the neighborhood or to the p_^lie welfare.
l.
Section 8-03 .1 - .4 establishes the procec_:=_s, recUired action and
effective date for grant' g or denying a Varia'ca, and in dicates the grant=-of a Variance Sn a_l be subject to conditions, l:=:fcfi0ts and guarantees.
E`TVI?0`--'.LE.+TAL P..'1= ^. This project has be_- sound to be Categorically
✓ Exempt from CEQ: once_ Section 15:03, Class 3(e)
of t e California= _- -e-_al C;uality :_ct
relines
hOTIFIC�TION. -ublic ,etice o= t e March 20, 1.. , hearing was publishes
in The m2112C to adjacent proper.: c;-.a:s, and posed in public
buildings .
E�CGR0:.1D
This Variance application is a result of the Buildi-t Inspector identifyin,
this zoning viOla-_cn in t:le field. He alerted .-.2 Ze:: _ Investigator of t' e
Violation_On and S-1 Cc 2CL 2nt1y Contacted tnz a= i_C:nt, ln^1Cat1 that he
would either have to loxar the height of the fe-ca to 6 fee:: (or less) or
aFol} for a Vari--ca. The A2oI;_Cant decided to c^^_ for t. Varlanca.
A_NAL1SIS:
T e SL:bj c'Ct site is a "ca. Of Lauf.man &- � C: _ _2C2^.tiV co=_iaz:aC.
0311 ^.13 V1St tC ... Cl:s2 6eve i Op e 1ccated 1• -: C__ of S1! ar` to Drive
a F.O11 Hill- r i�2 Tna s_te in question -::.n__ on :,.ndin_ T:a,l La a,
and _in -
1�%iC l 1S OP.2 Of t�. st:8c3t5 r'_. t1:Olic 1 t^2 C :a_�:^e^.i 1x.2 r�3� u^.G
sldc O�tlOi:s cf tGd 1Opl�ca.• � � r-0=2fty`fron: c \,_i1 1:l11s Dive.
• F
ti:.. feet ra'r'e _....,o.�.4 s: . , re_::lti11g ir. _. :_ h. Of fc. ..
111Ci1ee' s
,ls . The td: c d, �XtcI1s10 i constructed O: r`
lei' i`d lazcic2 material
Tile: AL�plle:i has ll:j_i-3t2_i that the 8:��lt_..::a� fenoa h21_,hC is ':Cocci.
to pr0\•iLle Priva':\• to his mono- -d re. r Y. '1'_-e., —on veh1C12i 311:
�?%c�dSCl13IL: tr."ve. ills Drive. \Z,114n Hllli Dri\•i is
�l'` 3lle� It 15 c>l2\•ate'.el Ai>O\'c Cb: 3ac: 0: Cilc. Sl:b)c:Ct Slt
_
Ill O1C�e:1 IJ: tilt` A,L`lic':Mt tO Yet3111 the: tX::t_ % IJJt 7 inch hl"il
follcc , :t V:lri311:.e. mtust bo _r1311t0J-
.�i.r � Ye�..,l�r t� •� .'J�� I.l�rr'i i',[..a „s�R �1.y i. ! -� LS- �"'F �.-,.,�I r•!"� �b{� Ac��}e, A r.i'�� � :;/f�. 'Y je .it NM1-.tv c`,d•��rY�' a r�`f frr"
rr'�.l i-�f'`��Y j �?� ff'h!r -;- l� ' z-i f.`��t:.i 'SU r 7`. ,!.y� f�ry rr5� }.A.�.r.,I:ih Lr3r- r R7: '� I. � �r'i-'z r t. fir• .
f r+a-I} v i;i - L p x l�i .� r { ��. .i" y r.��a'r'rr ji's c✓L v .;r 1 s rr
•r .. ` 4 r. r ,rX s r
,� 'Irr t i r =•rr x.jx 'tt.� f S �. Y��1' .rt S j•r:l rt ,j�v t. yA r i�r. f rra#' 1
1 r °. .;•�U y c dal Y f rr r; ;r,r^r Yrs .y r i..}5}, jd'�.� / Y e��? t .• fi1 �Li �L rrt'` .3"' c �j . , '`t
1 1 ✓i.r, r 1 -, t :If �,.,�,f,iprb J� r� s A".yr+� � �} n.• r./if tf r� '�^1j• �W n/_t fit. - ! r Y I
h s i r s., � f f r �'•f''r 1+ -I_ 1 r Y ;f.!^ t /r ,C
v.
. .• r= < r :r it Vc i.-. .r..� F r. r f 1.r �. s
Exhibit A: Resolution of Denial
Eacyaround Attachment3: ,
Attachment 1: Applicant's Written Statement _
Attachment 2: Elevations
Attachment 3: F"aotographs
Attachment 4: Site Plan
Attachment 5: Assessor's Parcel Map
Attachment 6: Staff Study
1