Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 1- Reso Approving 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 WITIDN 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-I, 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 , 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 corner lot where the back yard fence of the corner 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 corner 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 corner lot where the back yard fence of the corner 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 corner 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, 5-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-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 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 RESOLVED 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-I, Single Family Residential zoning district, as depicted in the Site Plan labeled Exhibit I and the photographs labeled Exhibit 2, subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPRO V AL 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 PA 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-I, 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 (I) 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 by 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 24th day of August, 2004. A YES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: Planning Manager 5 lJ. z 0 ...J Z lJ. < t- O Z U) < < ~ N () lJ. Z z· a: < ~ ::¡ lJ. III ~ - ::0 0 ~ C ~ ..: :: ~ a: 0 ..: <r iT' ;< U - ~ f 1.1 ~ ?~ ,i ~ -- =u ~~~it ¡; ~,,~Š! I .. :0 8 ~r~; !f - ~ ~ ~ , I 0 ~, ~ Ii , , I I , , , 1\ ~, ~ z t: ~ :2 is ~ ~ M o ~ (0 o C\J w Ñ => ~ ri >- E ~ ~ ~ fj <r " ¡:; ~ ~ ,----~ rt-J~ r ~ I -\1)' <5 -';> I ~ I Lo I ..,. '" g ~¡ « " ~I B¡ -.!J ! I \!J ~:¡ ~ ~~~d Area.. '-- .611'99 3:¡H3~ OOOM ~ or ~ Ii L i'Ð ~ ~ :> ~ ~ ~I '-3-._::1_._]_ --' o o Jl. -5>~sv~"- w C!J>-o Za:z ¡-ow Cf.)f-Q XCf.)ëi) I.l.J C\ W a: ,~O'9L 3NVl V1JNIfZNVV; -I ¡ uJ I uJ ~ ¡ . ~. ¡., o " f ~ ..,: ~ GJ ,0 w w :r r, z <.: ....J Q. w I- lñ EXHIBIT 1 \ I _. ,. "11---' '¡.~':.':_-;'<?'" ~·-.,,-f1 . _. ..-.-----..............---- ----~ ~.---. MAR 11· 200.4, :¡¡, ~. "" 2;~:~tL:--~:·---~. _:;-;~',':'::'f~;jt/-·;·.,':';· ~"':~~ ~,.:J::-:~'=---.---.-" EXHIBIT 2.