Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-014 Arace Fence Variance AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: July 27, 2004 SUBJECT: A TT ACHMENTS: 1. RECOMMENDATION: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: PA 04-014 Arace Fence Variance \/ ___ Report Prepared by, Mamie R. Nuccio, Assistant Planner I~ - 2. Resolution Approving a Variance request for an increase in fence height from 4-feet to an average of 6-feet, 5-inches within the front yard of a single-family dwelling located at 11671 Manzanita Lane Resolution Denying a Variance request for an increase in fence height from 4-feet to an average of 6-feet, 5-inches within the front yard of a single family dwelling located at 11671 Manzanita Lane Photographs of 11671 Manzanita before and after remodeling Alameda County Zoning Ordinance Section 8-60.55 Site Plan Photographs of fenced enclosure 3. 4. 5. 6. 6. Open the Public Hearing and receive Staff's presentation Take testimony from the Applicants and the Public Question Staff, the Applicants, and the Public Close the Public Hearing and deliberate Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a Variance request for an increase in fence height from 4-feet to an average of 6-feet, 5- inches within the front yard of a single family dwelling located at 11671 Manzanita Lane; OR Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2) denying a Variance request for an increase in fence height from 4-feet to an average of 6-feet, 5- inches within the front yard of a single-family dwelling located at 11671 Manzanita Lane PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicants, Glenn and Melanie Arace, are requesting approval of a Variance application to allow for an increase in fence height from 4-feet to an average of 6-feet, 5-inches within the front yard of a single family dwelling at 11671 Manzanita Lane, Dublin. The Applicants are requesting an increase in fence height in order to legalize an existing fence within their front yard. The purpose for the fence is to screen, from public view, recreational vehicles, which include a boat, and jet skis. BACKGROUND: The property at 11671 Manzanita Lane is located within an R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District and was constructed in 1964 as a single-story dwelling of approximately 1,684 square feet. The Applicants, Glenn and Melanie Arace, purchased the dwelling in 1998 and secured a building permit that same year to substantially remodel the home and construct a second story addition (Attachment 3). The home is now approximately 3,310 square feet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ COPIES TO: Applicant/Property Owner Peter MacDonald, Land Use Attorney ITEM NO. 8.\ In September of 2003 a complaint was received by the Code Enforcement Officer regarding a fenced enclosure in the front yard of the Applicant's home. After conducting a site inspection, the Code Enforcement Officer determined that the fence in the front yard exceeded the maximum height limit of 4- feet for fences within the front yard of a single-family dwelling. According to photographs submitted by the Applicant (Attachment 3), a fenced enclosure existed in the front yard prior to the purchase and remodel of the home in 1998. The enclosure was approximately 6- feet in height with framed, green fiberglass panels on top. The enclosure appears to have been made out of wood and painted to match the existing dwelling. The existence of this fence led the Applicants to believe it was a permitted structure and they purchased the home with the intent of storing their recreational vehicles in this location. As part of the Applicant's remodeling of their home in 1998, they replaced the fenced enclosure in the front yard with a wood enclosure that includes framed lattice on top. A review of the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance (Attachment 4) as well as the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance revealed that fences have always been limited to 4-feet in height within the front yard of a single family dwelling. Upon incorporation of the City of Dublin in 1982, the County transferred all records over to the City. A review of those records indicates that no approvals were previously granted for the subject property to allow a fence height greater than 4-feet in the front yard. Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that the enclosure that existed in 1998 when the Applicants purchased the property was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Analvsis The Dublin Zoning Ordinance allows for deviations from the dimensional standards related to fencing by way of a Variance; the decision makers for Variances include the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council. In accordance with Chapter 8.96, Permit Procedures, the Zoning Administrator is referring decision making authority to the Planning Commission because of policy implications. The Landscaping and Fencing Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance establishes the maximum permitted fence height for all zoning districts. In a Residential zoning district the maximum fence height in the front yard is 4-feet. A front yard is defined as the area extending across the full width of the lot between the front lot line and the setback line (See Figure 1). In the R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District, the front yard setback is 20-feet. A fence located within this area is restricted to a maximum height of 4-feet. In the side and rear portions of the property, fences are restricted to 6-feet in height with the exception of an additional 2-foot of framed lattice on top, for an overall fence height of 8- feet. Figure 1 ~_._..- :--:' \'-jC:.~ l_i [\~ \.~ h,::,,_}h :, ,....., ;;'1 2 The purpose for limiting the height of fences within the front yard is that fences taller than 4-feet in this area tend to interfere with views when residents back out of their driveway. This poses a danger to pedestrians, small children and bicyclists. Furthermore, land use and zoning policies related to front yard fence heights are intended to promote residential neighborhoods with open yard areas based on the design principle that open space encourages active pedestrian environments which fosters neighborhood interaction and results in a more livable community. Lower fence heights also allow for greater effectiveness of police patrolling and minimizing blockage of air and light to neighboring properties. The Applicants have constructed a 13-foot wide by 19-foot deep wooden fenced enclosure with framed lattice on top that varies in height from 5- feet, 10- inches to 6- feet, 11- inches between the side lot line and the garage for the purpose of storing and screening their recreational vehicles (Attachment 5). The fence is stepped down from the face of the garage to the front lot line due to a slight change in grade on the property (Attachment 6). This results in a fence that gradually increases in height beginning at the face of the garage and proceeding towards the front lot line. The fenced enclosure is set back 3-feet, 2-inches from the front lot line. Access to the fenced enclosure can be obtained through a double wide gate located 3-feet, 2-inches from the front lot line and a man-gate located perpendicular to the face of the garage. The Variance request is for an increase in fence height within the front yard from 4-feet to an average of 6-feet, 5-inches. The Dublin Zoning Ordinance establishes how to measure the height of buildings and structures which includes fencing. A fence is measured as the vertical distance from the highest point of the structure to the average of the highest and lowest points. Using this method for measuring the Applicant's existing fenced enclosure, the average height of the structure is 6-feet, 5-inches. Thus, the Variance request is for an increase in fence height from 4-feet to an average of 6-feet, 5-inches. Required Findings Pursuant to Section 8.112.060 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, and in accordance with State law, prior to granting a Variance all five findings of fact must be made. Staff's review of the Variance application resulted in findings that may allow for the Planning Commission to approve or deny the request. Therefore, Staff is providing the Planning Commission with information supporting both an approval and denial of the Variance, allowing the Planning Commission to use their independent judgment on which findings are better supported. The five findings of fact are as follows: A. There are special circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings; such that the strict application of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. There may be special circumstances applicable to the subject property including, lot shape and placement of the dwelling such that the strict application of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance deprives the property of the privilege of on-site recreational vehicle storage in the side yard enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical R-l, Single Family Residential Zoning District classification. The special circumstances applicable to the subject property are that the trapezoidal shape of the lot, being wider at the front property line and steadily narrowing towards the rear property line, combined with the placement of the dwelling on the lot at an angle, creates a situation where the easterly side yard is twelve feet (12') wide at the front of the house and seven feet (7') wide at the rear of the house making the storage of an average size recreational vehicle in the side yard impossible (See Figure 2). As a result, this 3 property is deprived of the privilege of being able to store and screen their recreational vehicles in the side yard in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 8.76 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance allows recreational vehicles to be stored in the side yard so long as they are screened by a 6-foot fence. The Zoning Ordinance also allows recreational vehicles to be stored in the front yard between the driveway and the side lot line (See Figure 3) but does not require them to be screened when stored in this location. By enclosing a portion of their front yard with a fence to screen their recreational vehicles, the Applicants meet the intent of the Ordinance which calls for the screening of recreational vehicles. Due to unusual lot shape and building placement they are unable to store these vehicles in the side yard where the Zoning Ordinance allows them to be screened. Figure 2 Figure 3 Easterly Side Yard I, ;0 '\~' -r~ r; i:c;;..''''5"C)-¡----- - -- f' Zoning Ordinance: Area in front yard between driveway and side lot line \ (1 J! I Ro,idence ] I Ik'~,..:·i ,À.'2~ ...0-', .",'""7' .:. j', ,r.¡ F -_~«'/ -jfif"!::::;'GY Another unique characteristic of the property is that it is located adjacent to a comer lot (7254 Hansen Drive) where the back yard fence of the comer lot is also the side yard fence of the Applicant's property (See Figure 4). Under this circumstance, the Applicant is permitted to have a good neighbor fence that is 6-feet in height with an additional 2-foot of lattice on top in their front yard, along the side lot line, so long as it also encloses the rear yard of the comer lot. Under this circumstance the Applicants would not be able to fully screen their recreational vehicles as proposed, but would be allowed to have a 6-foot high fence in their front yard. Manzanita Lane Hansen Drive Location of good neighbor fence 1167] Manzanita Lane 4 It can also be argued that there are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property based on the fact that the front yard of the Applicants property is a standard front yard similar in shape and size to other properties in the vicinity and under the identical R -1, Single Family Residential Zoning District classification. The special circumstances relating to the property discussed above deprive the property of the ability to store recreational vehicles in the side yard but do not preclude the storage of these same vehicles in the front yard. The Zoning Ordinance allows recreational vehicles to be stored in the front yard between the driveway and the side lot line (See Figures 5 & 6). When storing recreational vehicles in this location the Zoning Ordinance does not require them to be screened from public view. As such, the property would not be deprived of the privilege of on-site recreational vehicle storage as recreational vehicles can be stored in the front yard. =>:~ Figure 6 ¡-___ _ ... . ....... ....n__ I ì i I l. .-- --- - -"- -- -'- ¡ j I ir- -1: I I Ii Zoning Ordinance: I I R(:"idencc: II Area in front yard I; 1 ì 1 between driveway I I, ,-------11 IDd "d, lot lio, ""- i_,l-,~- _, _ ,;, ~;/I' -, Í//j I I//~¡ Figure 5 ;:; ¡r-- '> Applicants Residence: Area in front yard between driveway and side lot line I I 1 j! ~:~ ~'L, B. The granting of the Variance is subject to such conditions that will assure that the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. It can be argued that the granting of the Variance is subject to such conditions that will ensure that the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. The unusual shape of this lot, the placement of the dwelling on the lot at an angle, and the location of the lot adjacent to a comer lot where the comer lot's rear yard fence is the side yard fence of the Applicants lot, all create a situation that does not constitute a granting of special privileges because all such circumstances do not exist upon other properties in the vicinity. The trapezoidal shape of the lot does occur on 5 other lots within the vicinity of the Applicant's property (See Figure 7). A review of the available site plans for these properties indicate that these homes are not set at an angle as the Applicant's home is. Also, none of these homes are adjacent to a comer lot where the back yard fence of the comer lot is also a side yard fence to that particular property. For these reasons, the granting of this Variance does not constitute a granting of special privilege. Conversely, it can be argued that the granting of the Variance may constitute a granting of special privileges because the front yard of the subject property does not differ from the front yards of surrounding properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. The purpose for requesting the increase in fence height is for the screening of recreational vehicles within the front yard which is not a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance but rather a preference of the Applicants and their adjacent neighbors; therefore, allowing an increase in fence height within the front yard would be a granting of special privilege. 5 Figure 7 Lots 34 & 35 '<7 ~~ t ~ - 1 _-,,~r"~· \ - r'o: ' -1.. ___ I ¡ \ ~' "" 0< \, '" 1, ~) ~ ' ~/" r \ i"'" ~ · ~ \ '. '\.., "" " ":.', '_I ,Þ' , :¡¡ w\.'Y ,,\' ",",V~~~--þ- y\ {\ _.~ó r;," ~ 'I, ./ \~. ~'f' A ~ -<.- -__;---1 %\ ~ / ~ .- ~. ," ;:.® ,____~ \ _..~.rø-.\ - ~: \ \~___- 7 '" ' --~"'"- V ..".t-,. tV >~'^ (Ij):: \,~®'j ~ ,_;:,-\-~~~O" ,- "".' . '\f,.ß. C "",~.®' \ ~_, 6)..~ " .. '?,\ ~~ ~ _;~_:~~~_ ~ '''''.' Þ,~ Y,.", /Z.. ~ ì "-@'\.0¥\ ,( ,;.'" ,.." ~ "/~ 1 :H:.~;~.-) ./;@:.~~~v \'__'-~:.;~)~,~C \\ J<.~.~,r ®~;¡. '''' \ \ !~ ~>.--".". . , \ ...,~,,~ , ' ~ ~® ..~ i ~ ---=.. ----'~-.-y ~~ _____~.-\--.--.-----\,p \ '~ /t',,~., . o\-® \ \ "J' (.>, . ' .,..p." "'Ì" " @';r®",/~..-¡.,--·-\-":~:--t~; ''tv ;-" iii \ ", " "'.fJ~ß'· ®' \ .\~, ~ " ':") ~1;"';;(-"':-i""""-<:> I _ ....... t ---1'- ,{ ~ ' __.__.-.,.-- \ '®/";""14c ",","\@ ~,J4,1, f' 'f. ,I <Ii .h ® ¡)) \ (Ð ~ \ ~ . '" :'j)'';¡ . f)_I J ·If J . ...'. \ ...4- i~., -. '~--/'-- "f ;;. "--''''J- '1' ,~...)~., '..." ... _l___ .._' ~"·.S;'N= \ .. '. ' . . "'-'-',;;~ I . ---"'-, ?' ¿. , o(V ~,,_ ! . , ,-=-¡ ". kJ-""",!~ .\ _"",,,'0-. '-'-'_ _ . , ).,,-~ \ !t' \~ '" ~,}< . ,t, (0":* "-""'~""f~~I-""' n '., \. ''''.'''' ",,-© t ;"! ~,t .~. ,I, \\, < \ì (>¡ ~\ @? -''':..L'''''-J'''\ -- 11671 Manzanita Lane Lot 71 Lots 42 & 43 Lots 34, 35, 42, 43, and 71 are trapezoidal lots. C. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and welfare. It can be argued that the granting of the Variance would not be detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and welfare as the project has been reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau, Building Division, Public Works Department and Police Services, all of which have stated that no life safety issues would exist by allowing the increase in fence height within the front yard. The potential for visual obstruction by the increase in fence height does not create a situation different from that which is already permitted under the Zoning Ordinance in two ways: 1) the Zoning Ordinance allows the adjacent comer lot to extend their rear yard fence at a maximum height of 8-feet to the back of sidewalk (Refer to Figure 4); and, 2) the Zoning Ordinance allows a motor home to be stored in the front yard between the driveway and the side lot line (Refer to Figure 6) with a I-foot setback from the front property line. Under these two circumstances visual obstruction would be worse than the Applicant's fenced enclosure because the Applicant's fence is setback 3-feet, 2-inches from the front property line which provides a greater site distance than a 0-1' setback. For these reasons, the granting of this Variance would be less detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and welfare than what is currently permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. On the contrary, it can be argued that the granting of the Variance could be detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity and to the public health, safety and welfare in that the average height of the fenced enclosure at 6-feet, 5-inches is a visual obstruction to residents when backing out of their driveway which poses a danger to pedestrians, small children, and bicyclists. While a similar situation would occur if the adjacent comer lot neighbor decided to extend their rear yard fence to the back of sidewalk and/or the Applicants owned a motor home and parked it in the front yard between the driveway and the side lot line, neither situation in fact occurs at this time. Furthermore, the fact that two permitted situations create a potential hazard does not justify adding a third situation that would compromise the health and safety of pedestrians or bicyclists. 6 D. The granting of the Variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the applicable zoning district. It can be argued that the granting of the Variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the R -1, Single Family Residential Zoning District in that it does not alter the use of the property as a detached, single-family dwelling. The on-site storage of recreational vehicles is customarily associated with a single-family dwelling and is permitted under the Zoning Ordinance subject to certain regulations. Recreational vehicles stored in the side yard must be screened by a 6-foot high fence therefore the Applicant's request meets the intent of the Ordinance by screening their recreational vehicles from public view; however, due to the unusual shape and configuration of their lot, they are unable to store their recreational vehicles entirely within the side yard. Furthermore, the Applicants have designed the fenced enclosure with framed lattice on top which is consistent with the Landscaping and Fencing regulations which allows solid fencing with framed lattice on top. Conversely, it can be argued that the granting of the Variance may not be consistent with the purpose and intent of the R -1, Single Family Residential Zoning District which reserves neighborhood areas for residential living with appropriate standards of public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics because the existing fenced enclosure interrupts views and negatively impacts the residential neighborhood by restricting visibility. E. The granting of the Variance is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable Specific Plans. The granting of the Variance is consistent with the Dublin General Plan (no Specific Plans apply) in that the increase in fence height for the purpose of screening recreational vehicles does not effect or alter the use of the property as a single family dwelling. CONCLUSION: State law and local regulations require that all findings of fact be made in order to approve a request for a Variance. Staff's analysis on the Variance request is summarized as follows: VARIANCE FINDINGS PRO CON A. Special Circumstances of Yes. Special circumstances include, No. Front yard no different from other lots in the Property trapezoidal lot size, building placement at the vicinity. an angle, and, adjacent to rear yard of a comer lot. B. Not a Granting of No. Special circumstances pertaining to the Yes. Recreational vehicles not required to be Special Privilege lot (see above) do not exist on lots in the screened in front yard. vicinity. C. Not Detrimental to No. Does not create visual obstruction that Yes. Visual obstruction is hazardous to Persons or Property would not otherwise be present with a motor pedestrians, small children, and bicyclists. home or adjacent neighbors rear yard fence. D. Consistent with R-l Yes. Increase in fence height would not No. Increased fence height interrupts views Zoning alter use of the property as a single family and obstructs visibility. dwelling; it would support on-site storage of recreational vehicles screened from public view; and, the design of enclosure is consistent with fencing regulations. E. Consistent with General Yes. Yes. Plan 7 This Variance request has been reviewed by the Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, Public Works Department and Dublin Police Services. No issues were noted by the Building Division, Fire Prevention Bureau, or Dublin Police Services; however, the Public Works Department did submit comments on the project and conditions of approval have been incorporated into the Resolution approving the Variance to ensure that all Public Works requirements will be met. If the Variance request is denied, no conditions of approval would apply. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing and receive Staff's presentation; take testimony from the Applicant and the Public; question Staff, the Applicant, and the Public; close the Public Hearing and deliberate; and, adopt ONE the following: 1. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a Variance request for an increase in fence height from four-feet to an average of 6-feet, 5-inches within the front yard of a single family dwelling located at 11671 Manzanita Lane; OR 2. Adopt Resolution (Attachment 2) denying a Variance request for an increase in fence height from four-feet to an average of 6-feet, 5-inches within the front yard of a single family dwelling located at 11671 Manzanita Lane. 8 GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: EXISTING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Glenn and Melanie Arace 11671 Manzanita Lane Dublin, CA 94568 11671 Manzanita Lane, Dublin 941-0112-065 R-l, Single Family Residential Single Family Residential (0.9-6.0 du/acre) 9 RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN INCREASE IN FENCE HEIGHT FROM 4-FEET TO AN AVERAGE OF 6-FEET, 5-INCHES WITHIN THE FRONT YARD OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT 11671 MANZANITA LANE (APN 941-0112-065) PA 04-014 WHEREAS, the Applicants, Glenn and Melanie Arace have requested approval of a Variance application to allow a front yard fence with an average height of 6-feet, 5-inches within an R-l, Single Family Residential zoning district, where the maximum permitted fence height allowed by the Zoning Ordinance is 4-feet as specified by Section 8.72.080.A and Figure 72-2; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested this Variance in order to screen their recreational vehicles which include a boat and jet skis; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) together with State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA according to Section 15303, Class 3(e); and WHEREAS, the decision makers for a Variance shall be the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council; and WHEREAS, these decision makers shall hold a Public Hearing and after the hearing is closed may, based on evidence in the public record and the findings for a Variance approve, conditionally approve, or deny a Variance by means of a Resolution; and WHEREAS, at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator, and in accordance with Section 8.96.020.C.2, decision making authority has been referred to the Planning Commission because of policy implications; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a Public Hearing on said project application on July 27,2004; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending approval of said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. ATTACHMENT I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said Variance: A. There are special circumstances applicable to the property located at 11671 Manzanita Lane including, lot shape and placement of the dwelling such that the strict application of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance deprives the property of the privilege of on-site recreational vehicle storage in the side yard enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical R- 1, Single Family Residential zoning classification. The subject property has special circumstances in that the trapezoidal shape of the lot, being wider at the front property line and steadily narrowing towards the rear property line, combined with the placement of the dwelling on the lot at an angle, creates a situation where the easterly side yard is twelve feet (12') wide at the front of the house and only seven feet (7') wide at the rear of the house making the storage of an average size recreational vehicle in the side yard impossible (Attachment 5). As a result this property is deprived of the privilege of being able to store and screen their recreational vehicles in the side yard in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Another special characteristic attributed to the subject property is that it is located adjacent to a comer lot where the back yard fence of the comer lot is also the side yard fence of the subject property. Under this circumstance, a 6-foot fence with an additional 2-foot of lattice on top could be constructed in their front yard so long as it also enclosed the rear yard of the comer lot. B. The granting of the Variance is subject to such conditions that will ensure that the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. The unusual shape of this lot and the placement of the dwelling on the lot at an angle both create a situation that does not constitute a granting of special privileges because both such limitations do not appear to exist upon other properties in the vicinity. The trapezoidal shape of the lot does occur on 5 other lots within the vicinity of the subject property; however a review of the available site plans for these properties indicate that these homes are not set at an angle as the subject residence is. Also, none of these homes are adjacent to a comer lot where the back yard fence of the comer lot is also the side yard fence of the subject property. For these reasons, the granting of this Variance does not constitute a granting of special privilege. C. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and welfare as the project has been reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau, Building Division, Public Works Department and Police Services, all of which have stated that no life safety issues would exist by allowing the increase in fence height from 4-feet to an average of 6-feet, 5-inches in the front yard. The potential for visual obstruction by the increase in fence height does not create a situation different from that which is already permitted under the Zoning Ordinance which allows the adjacent comer lot to extend the rear yard fence which encloses their backyard to the back of sidewalk at a maximum height of 8-feet (6-feet of solid fence with an additional 2-feet of framed lattice on top). Nor would allowing an increase in fence height from 4-feet to an average of 6-feet, S-inches in the front yard create a situation different from that which is also permitted under the Zoning Ordinance allowing a motor home to be parked in the same location with a I-foot setback 2 from the front property line (the proposed fence is setback 3-feet, 2-inches from the front property line). For these reasons, the granting of this Variance will not be detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and welfare. D. The granting of the Variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the R-l, Single Family Residential zoning district in that it does not alter the use of the property as a detached, single- family dwelling. The on-site storage of recreational vehicles is customarily associated with a single-family dwelling and is permitted under the Zoning Ordinance subject to certain regulations. Recreational vehicles stored in the side yard must be screened by a 6- foot high fence or wall therefore the Variance request meets the intent of the Ordinance by screening their recreational vehicles from public view; however, due to the unusual shape and configuration of their lot, they are unable to store their recreational vehicles completely in the side yard. Furthermore, the proposed fence has been designed with framed lattice on top which is consistent with the Landscaping and Fencing regulations which allows solid fencing with framed lattice. E. The granting of the Variance is consistent with the Dublin General Plan (no Specific Plans apply) in that the increase in fence height for the purpose of screening recreational vehicles does not effect or alter the use of the property as a single family dwelling. BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby approve said application PA 04-014, Arace Fence Variance to increase the fence height within the front yard setback from 4-feet to an average of 6-feet, 5-inches for the purpose of screening recreational vehicles at 11671 Manzanita Lane, within an R-l, Single Family Residential zoning district, as depicted in the Site Plan labeled Exhibit 1 and the photographs labeled Exhibit 2, subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with prior to the issuance of building permits or establishment of use, and shall be subject to Planning Department review and approval. The following codes represent those departments/agencies responsible for monitoring compliance of the conditions of approval: [PL] Planning, [B] Building, [PO] Police, [PW] Public Works [ADM] Administration/City Attorney, and [F] Alameda County Fire Department. CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: GENERAL 1. Approval. This Variance approval for P A 04-014, the PL Arace Fence, allows for an increase in fence height within the front yard setback of a single family dwelling, located within an R-l, Single Family Residential zoning district, from 4-feet to an average of 6-feet, 5-inches for the sole purpose of screening recreational vehicles. This approval shall be only for the existing fence as depicted in the Site Plan labeled Exhibit 1 and the photographs labeled Exhibit 2. 2. Permit Expiration. Construction or use shall commence PL July 27, DMC within one (1) year of Permit approval or the Permit shall 2005 8.96.020.D 3 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. AGENCY lapse and become null and void. Commencement of construction or use means the actual construction or use pursuant to the Permit approval or, demonstrating substantial progress toward commencing such construction or use. If there is a dispute as to whether the Permit has expired, the City may hold a noticed public hearing to determine the matter. Such a determination may be processed concurrently with revocation proceedings III appropriate circumstances. If a Permit expires, a new application must be made and processed according to the requirements of this Ordinance. 3. Time Extension. The original approving decision-maker PL may, upon the Applicant's written request for an extension of approval prior to expiration, and upon the determination that any Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure that applicable findings of approval will continue to be met, grant a time extension of approval for a period not to exceed six (6) months. All time extension requests shall be noticed and a public hearing or public meeting shall be held as required bv the particular Permit. 4. Permit Validity. This Variance approval shall be valid for PL the remaining life of the approved structure so long as the operators of the subject property comply with the project's conditions of approval. 5. Revocation of permit. The Variance approval shall be PL revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8.96.020.1 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be subject to citation. PLANNING 6. The fenced enclosure shall be used solely for the storage of PL recreational vehicles. If, at any time, the fenced enclosure is used for a purpose other than recreational vehicle storage, it shall be deemed a violation of this approval and the fenced enclosure shall be removed within seven (7) days of being notified that removal is required. If the Applicants, or subsequent property owner(s), cease to store recreational vehicles on-site within the fenced enclosure for a continuous 3-month period, the fenced enclosure shall be removed within seven (7) days of being notified that removal is required. 7. The fenced enclosure shall be maintained III good PL condition at all times. If the fenced enclosure falls into disrepair, the Applicants, or subsequent property owner(s), shall repair the fence within seven (7) days of being 4 WHEN REQ'D Prior to: July 27, 2005 On-going On-going On-going On-going SOURCE DMC 8.96.020.E DMC 8.96.020.1 CONDITION TEXT RESPON. WHEN SOURCE AGENCY REQ'D Prior to: notified that repairs are required. 8. Any change in the design or materials used for the fenced PL On-going enclosure shall first be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. PUBLIC WORKS 9. The existing double wide gate providing vehicular access PW to the fenced enclosure must be relocated from the north side to the west side in order to properly utilize the existing driveway for the storage and removal of recreational vehicles. Accessing the fenced enclosure by traversing the existing curb is not allowed. The Applicant may extend the width of the existing driveway to a maximum of 20- feet to accommodate recreational vehicle access but a separate curb cut (driveway) is not permitted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of july, 2004. A YES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Planning Manager 5 UJ :Z 0 ...J Z UJ < f- a ΕΎ en < < N (.) UJ z . c::: < ~ :IE ~ UJ '" 0 - ;:) ~ 0 « ;: c::: « ~~~d Area. ""---- ~ 2 ~ , 0 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II ij z o ('I') I- if ¡ I í q ~ 8 P '" => ~ ~ - Q) L J- ~5~ .. .~ ð~l~¡~ ~ :v ~~~S~f D 0 ':..,-, ; ~ ¡¥r~i : ~ r ~ ~I W' ii! :> 'ì ~ ii! ~ I ¡¡; 'It: ~ z ~ ~ - ~I Lo .... g I '" ~I < " ~I ~ '-'Y I I .6(1'99 3:¡N3~ 000#0 '-3- '-3_ '-3_ -, I ill ...J I 0 0 c.. <5 ill -9 ':J I ~, M o , rr ~ ~ W 0 °>-0 ~a:z f-OW ú?f-O GJ xú?CiS WNW a: \!Y s ~ ZO'9L 3NVl V.lJNVZNVi'1I ,e "' w x r, z « ...J Cì W ,- fj¡ EXHIBIT t ~- -'-::~:7 -:,';;~,~<iiii:.; ~~.. -. .,;."....:..:,.¡' ",.~~¡\'........~; 0; '-- -- ---- -- ---... ------ ----- . MA ·4 EXHIBIT Z. RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR AN INCREASE IN FENCE HEIGHT FROM 4-FEET TO AN AVERAGE OF 6-FEET, 5-INCHES WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF A SINGLE F AMIL Y DWELLING LOCATED AT 11671 MANZANITA LANE (APN 941-0112-065), PA 04-014 WHEREAS, the Applicants, Glenn and Melanie Arace have requested approval of a Variance application to allow a front yard fence height with an average of 6-feet, 5-inches within an R-l, Single Family Residential zoning district, where the maximum permitted fence height allowed by the Zoning Ordinance is 4-feet as specified by Section 8.72.080.A and Figure 72-2; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested this Variance in order to screen their recreational vehicles which include a boat and jet skis; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) together with State guidelines and City environmental regulations require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, the project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA according to Section 15303, Class 3(e); and WHEREAS, the decision makers for a Variance shall be the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council; and WHEREAS, these decision makers shall hold a Public Hearing and after the hearing is closed may, based on evidence in the public record and the findings for a Variance approve, conditionally approve, or deny a Variance by means of a Resolution; and WHEREAS, at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator, and in accordance with Section 8.96.020.C.2, decision making authority has been referred to the Planning Commission because of policy implications; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a Public Hearing on said project application on July 27,2004; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted to the Planning Commission recommending denial of said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission of the City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said Variance: ATTACHMENT 2. A. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property at 11671 Manzanita Lane regarding size, shape, topography, location or surroundings such that the strict application of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The front yard of the property is a standard front yard similar in shape and size to adjacent lots in the vicinity. The property would not be deprived of the privilege enjoyed by other property in the vicinity as a recreational vehicle can be stored in the front yard in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and is not required to be screened from public view when stored in the front yard. B. The granting of the Variance would constitute a granting of special privileges because the front yard at 11671 Manzanita Lane does not differ from the front yards of surrounding properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification. The purpose for requesting the increase in fence height is for the screening of recreational vehicles within the front yard. This is not a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance but rather a preference of the property owner and adjacent neighbors and therefore would be a granting of special privilege. C. The granting of the Variance would be detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity and to the public health, safety and welfare in that the enclosure is a visual obstruction that impairs the sight distance of both pedestrians utilizing the sidewalk area and vehicles backing out of the residence at 11671 Manzanita Lane. D. The granting of the Variance would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the R-l, Single Family Residential zoning district which reserves neighborhood areas for residential living. E. The granting of the Variance would be consistent with the Dublin General Plan as the increase in fence height would not alter the use of the property as a single family dwelling. BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby deny said application PA 04-014, Arace Fence Variance to increase the fence height within the front yard setback from 4-feet to an average of 6-feet, 5-inches for the purpose of screening recreational vehicles at 11671 Manzanita Lane, within an R-l, Single Family Residential zoning district. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of July, 2004. A YES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Planning Manager 2 Prior to Start of Remodel - 1998 #1 Prior Front Yard Enclosure With Fiberglass Panels #2 ~:~,~,:,,"""'_c ''''III!I.~'~?1''~~.!'J~ iJ ep 1 g ll,n~ ðWtJtØIt'!. L n. ATTACHMENT ~ Prior Side Yard Concrete & Fence #3 - --..: ...... - --- -- -~-- -~ ,., -L~' . .,~: 1-~~· ;:.~ Current Condition after Remodel #4 f,l~ ¡,ì'R J , lOrli¡. _.... f~'-'& § 8~.S2 YARDS: OFFICIAL LINES. No Building or Structure shall be located on any Lot or Building Site In the area between a Street Lot Line and any Official Right-of-Way Line, Future Width Line or Speciai Building Line along the street which has been estabiished by ordinance. ª ..8-6å.S3 - 'FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES. Fences, wa II s and hedges, as regulated in thIs and the following sections may occupy any yard and are required where specified in this Chapter. The term "wall" as used in this connection shall not be deemed to apply to the wall of a . Building, or to the supporting portion of a retaining wall. The term "hedge'l means cultivated plant growth along a line which is sufficiently dense to obstruct passage and visibility from one side to the other. ª 8-60.54- HEDGES. Where the Side Yard or Rear Yard of a C or M use abuts an R District, there snaIl be planted and maintaIned a hedge approxImately four (4) feet wide and six (6) feet high along that property line of that C or M District parcel, except that within twenty (20) feet of a Street Lot Line, the required hedge shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. ª 8-6ö-.S5 SAME: HEIGHT LIMITATIONS. The maximum permitted height of fences. walls and hedges, except as otherwise provided in Section 8-60.54 and 8-60.56 shall be as ronews: a) When located in a required Yard on a Corner Lot and within thirty (30) feet of the intersection of the Street Lot Lines or of the projections of such lines -- two (2) feet, measured upward from the centerline grade of the Street opposite thereto; b) When located in a required Rear or Street Side Yard of a Corner Lot and within twenty (20) feet of the corner common to such a lot and a Key Lot at the rear -- four (4) feet; c) When located in a required Front Yard other than as specified in subparagraph (a) hereof four (4) feet; d) When located In any A or R District other than as specified hereinabove, six (6) feet; e) When located in any C or M District and within five (5) feet of ~he boundary of any A·or R District, six (6) feet. ~ 8~~;6- SAME: EXCEPTIONS TO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS. The limitations on . he Igh t spec i f i ed in Sec t I on 8-60.55 shan not app+ys a) Where a higher fence is required by any other ordinance of the county or by State or Federal regulation; Where a higher fence is made a conditIon of approval of CondItional Use or a Variance pursuant to thIs Chapter, that no such condItion shall require or permit a fence height in excess of twelve (12) .feet; To a fence around all or part of a tennis court, a playground or a swimmIng pool whIch Is, at least In that portIon whIch exceeds the applicable limitation, constructed of open wire or steel mesh capable of admitting not less than ninety (90) per cent lIght as measured by a reputable light meter; d) An open wire fence up to sIx (6) feet high in an A DIstrict. b) a provided having a c) 0094 ATTACHMENT 'i Attachment 5 PA 04-014 PROJECT INFORMATION: ARACE RESIDENCE 11671 MANZANITA LN. DUBLIN, CA 12/26/03 PERMIT EV ·=OATE:=OESCRIPTlON,=S 0 PERMIT KH LANS PREPARED BY, VelöëiTeI ;'~:':;li:CiU~: A,'~:) :~"¡Gn"¡:::;:¡,'IG::I\.1Sl0r~ ~~-<''''Y.'-::-:Q;)~'-''':^.:'(,A; ;..,.,-: 1:1~ CI-'&...' :...... :·.:P"'Ol:. ..~ ['r..5,3:"5';::sB ,<J:5i ~:5 ~~ð ~A.\ ....·_·......~,CC:~&~I'E' ONSULTANT: CHK.:=APV. KH ~ rCENSL:RE: - , : . I ~ SITE PLAr~ wit c..> z w ~ c o o ~ Ò) co cO (0 M CE) CONe SLAB ~. \ ~ w ill ~ POOL _I A --¡-. Eo. WOOD FENCE G \.!:Y E \!) w Z ::; II] < (! (! z ¡:: II] )( w \!r 'D" 06.45' - - ~ EXIS~ GAS LINE G¡- EXISTING 2 STORY RESIDENCE - B [ -6 - - - £.p -- - - 04.13' G ,.¡ ~~. p a. - - ~ 5' \b" ..... DRIVEWAY ( ~ I I Ñ o ~ w z :3 c:( t: z ~ z c:( ~ Attachment 6 PA 04-014 Arace Fence Variance 11671 Manzanita Lane Dublin