Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA04-014 Arace Fence Variance AGENDA STATEMENT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: August 24, 2004 SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: 1. RECOMMENDATION: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PUBLIC HEARING: PA 04-014 Arace Fence Variance . / . Report Prepared by, Mamie R. Nuccio, Assistant Planner C\~. 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. Agenda Statement dated July 27,2004 w/attachments. Public Works Memorandum dated July 27,2004. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 27,2004. Letter dated August 6, 2004 from the Law Office of Peter MacDonald. Letter dated February 13,2004 in support of project. Letter dated July 27,2004 in opposition to the project. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 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. 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ COPIES TO: Applicant/Property Owner Pa" MacDonnld, :;~A:::Y 1J , \ BACKGROUND: At the Planning Commission meeting of July 27, 2004, Staff presented the pros and cons of granting the Variance request to increase the fence height within the front yard of a single family dwelling from 4-feet to an average of 6-feet, 5-inches (see Attachment 3). The pros and cons are summarized below in Table 1. TABLE 1 VARIANCE PRO CON FINDINGS A. Special Yes. Special circumstances include, No. Front yard no different from Circumstances of trapezoidal lot size, building other lots in the vicinity. the Property placement at an angle, and, adjacent to rear yard of a corner lot. B. Not a Granting of No. Special circumstances Yes. Recreational vehicles not Special Privilege pertaining to the lot (see above) do required to be screened in front yard. not exist on lots in the vicinity. C. Not Detrimental to No. Does not create visual Yes. Visual obstruction is hazardous Persons or Property obstruction that would not otherwise to pedestrians, small children, and be present with a motor home or bicyclists. adiacent neighbors rear yard fence. D. Consistent with R-l Yes. Increase in fence height would No. Increased fence height interrupts Zoning not alter use of the property as a views and obstructs visibility. single family 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 Yes. Yes. General Plan Following Staff's presentation, the Applicant addressed the Commission and asked for approval of the Variance request. If the Commission were to approve the Variance, the Applicant asked that condition of approval No.9 of the Resolution be removed (Attachment 1). This condition of approval would require the double wide gate that provides vehicular access to the fenced enclosure to be relocated from the north side of the enclosure (facing the street) to the west side (facing the driveway) in order to utilize the existing driveway for access rather than traversing the curb and sidewalk. The Public Works Department submitted a memo for the Commission's review explaining the rationale for this condition of approval (Attachment 4). As a result of the discussion about the structural integrity of the curb and sidewalk, Staff has asked a representative of the Public Works Department to be in attendance for the Planning Commission meeting of August 24th. The Planning Commission received Staff's presentation, deliberated, and voted 2 ayes and 2 noes, one Commissioner being absent, on the Variance request. After further deliberation, the Commissioners voted 4-0 to continue the item until such time that a full seated Commission was present (see Attachment 5). 2 On August 10, 2004, Staff received a letter from the Applicant's representative reiterating the concerns expressed at the meeting and responding to the items discussed at the meeting (Attachment 6). 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; dose the Public Hearing and deliberate; and, adopt ONE of 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. 3 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) 4