Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 5-PC Minutes 07-27-2004 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 27, 2004, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Fasulkey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fasulkey, Nassar, King, and Machtmes; Janet Harbin, Acting Planning Manager; John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney; Mamie Nuccio, Assistant Planner; and Maria Carrasco, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Jennings ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - June 22, 2004 were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 04-014 Arace Fence Variance - The applicants are requesting approval of a Variance 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. Cm. Fasulkey opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Mamie Nuccio, Assistant Planner presented the staff report and advised the Planning Commission that 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. 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. The Landscaping and Fencing Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance limit the heights of fences within residential neighborhoods to 4-feet within the front yard and 6-feet in the side and rear yards. The Zoning Ordinance allows for an additional 2-feet of lattice on top of side and rear yard fences for an overall height of 8-feet. The Off Street Parking and Loading Regulations set forth standards for the parking of recreational vehicles in residential areas. A recreational vehicle may be parked in the driveway, the area between the driveway and the nearest side lot line, and the side and rear yards. A maximum of one recreational 137 ~ vehicle may be parked in the front yard and up to two in the side and rear yards. Recreational vehicles parked in the front yard must be set back I-foot from the front property line. All 5 findings must be made in order to approve a Variance 1. Special Circumstances 2. Not a Granting of Special Privileges 3. Public Health, Safety, Welfare 4. Consistent with Zoning District 5. Consistent with General Plan The first finding deals with special circumstances applicable to the property. It can be argued that there are 3 special circumstances that act together to deprive the property of the privilege of recreational vehicle storage in the side yard. These special circumstances include the trapezoidal shape of the lot, the placement of the dwelling at an angle, and the location of the lot adjacent to the backyard of a comer lot. The trapezoidal shape of the lot simply means that the property is wider in the front and narrows towards the back of the lot. The original plot plan for the home shows that the front of the property is 70-feet wide and the rear is 66-feet wide. It can also be argued that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property in the front yard to prevent the parking of a recreational vehicle because the front yard is a standard front yard similar in shape and size to the front yards of surrounding properties. Furthermore, the Zoning Ordinance allows a recreational vehicle to be parked in the front yard so long as it is parked in the driveway or the area between the driveway and the nearest side lot line. The second finding deals with the granting of special privileges. In order to approve the Variance request the Planning Commission would need to make the finding that the special circumstances applicable to the property, when considered as a whole, would not constitute a granting of special privileges because such conditions do not occur on similar properties in the vicinity. It can also be argued that because the front yard does not differ from surrounding properties that the granting of the variance would constitute a special privilege. The Applicant's are not deprived of the privilege of on-site recreational vehicle parking because they could park their boat in the front yard between the driveway and the side lot line in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and their jet skis could be stored in the side yard behind a 6-foot fence. The third finding deals with the public health, safety, and welfare. In order to grant the Variance the Planning Commission would need to find that the fence would not result in any negative impacts to health, safety or welfare. The argument against granting the Variance is because of the visual obstruction that the fence creates preventing adequate site distance between vehicles and pedestrians. It can be argued that the granting of this Variance does not create a situation different from that which is already permitted under the Zoning Ordinance therefore not negatively impacting health safety and welfare beyond existing conditions. Recreational vehicles are allowed to be parked in the front yard between the driveway and the side lot line with a minimum I-foot setback from the sidewalk. This arguably creates the same level of visual obstruction as the Applicant's fence. Also, under the Zoning Ordinance, a comer lot is permitted to have a 6-foot fence that encloses their backyard even when it is adjacent to the front yard of another house. Again, this arguably creates the same level of visual obstruction that the Applicant's fence creates and is a permitted condition under the zoning ordinance. The fourth finding is that the granting of the Variance is consistent with the intent of the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. As the fence does not alter the use of the property as a single family dwelling it can be argued that it is consistent with the zoning district. 138 Conversely it can be argued that the fence interrupts views and restricts visibility and therefore is not consistent with a single family neighborhood. It could also set a precedent in the community for the granting of more variances of this type resulting in more interrupted views and visual obstructions. The fifth finding states that the Variance must be consistent with the General Plan which reserves this property for residential living. 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 regarding the curb 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. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt one of the following: A resolution 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 adopt a resolution 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. She concluded her presentation. Cm. Nassar asked if it would be setting precedence by approving their request. Ms. Nuccio responded yes. The City of Dublin has never granted a Variance. Cm. Nassar asked what Staff recommends. Ms. Nuccio said it was Staff's intention to provide information on the pros and cons so the Planning Commission could make the determination. Cm. King asked where this is in relation to Hansen Drive, because there is a house on the comer of Hansen and Manzanita Lane that is building a fortress wall. Ms. Nuccio stated that it is at the other end of the street. Ms. Harbin stated the Code Enforcement Officer is reviewing that situation. Cm. King asked if Staff has an opinion on the curb situation raised by Public Works. Ms. Nuccio said that the Public Works department has indicated that it is a problem. When recreational vehicles are accessed over a curb, the curb is not designed to hold the load of a vehicle. Cm. King asked about RV's parking in the side yard drive way and whether they are required a curb cut for egress and ingress. Ms. Nuccio stated that Public Works does not allow side by side driveways. Those vehicles would use the existing driveway and maneuver in and out. The maximum width of a driveway in a residential area is 20 feet. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any additional questions for Staff; hearing none he asked for the Applicant. 139 Peter MacDonald stated he is representing the Applicants. He explained that the situation is unique with the house being on a trapezoidal lot. Every Variance is decided on its facts. In his view the staff report may be a little too even handed. He stated that the house looks better with the fence than without. This house and yard looks 100% better then when it was purchased it in 1998. A group of neighbors signed a petition in favor of the Variance, but it was left out of the staff report. He stated that they have a problem with Condition No.9 relating to the relocation of the fence enclosure gate. He stated that when the Applicant takes his boat in or out, two - 2x4's are placed next to the curb. He talked to a structural engineer and the curbs are built with rebar and footings. By relocating the gate, it would be difficult to move the boat in and out. They also have a problem with Condition 6, which states the fence enclosure shall be used solely for the storage of recreational vehicles. There might come a time when he sells the boat to buy another RV. The condition states that if they cease to store recreational vehicles on-site within the fenced enclosure for a continuous 3-month period, the Variance shall be revoked, and they are requesting more than 3 months. He would like for it to say primarily for the storage of RV's and the fence enclosure is used for a primary purpose other than recreational vehicles it shall be deemed a violation. We don't disagree with the thrust of the condition. The Planning Commission's approval of the Variance would be appreciated. Cm. Fasulkey asked if there were any questions for Mr. MacDonald. He explained that he and Mr. MacDonald know each other socially but there is not a professional relationship and no conflict of interest. Melanie Arace stated they have made Dublin their home. They keep their house up and do not want to have to look at a boat and trailer. It is not an obstruction or public safety issue and would appreciate their consideration for the Variance. Russ Jones, 11672 Manzanita Lane stated he lives directly across from the Araces. He moved to his house in 1975 and the previous owners of the Arace home did nothing to the house. He has no problem with the fence and could live with it. Mr. Schwint stated they moved to the neighborhood last year and one of the primary reasons they moved into the neighborhood was because of the visual aesthetics. The Araces have done a great job at improving the neighborhood. There are a lot of kids in the neighborhood and by having RV equipment exposed it could be inviting to children. Cm. Machtmes asked Mr. MacDonald how is this goal different than other properties storing a recreational vehicle. Mr. MacDonald stated the difference is the Applicant's do not want to look at a recreational vehicle in their front yard and they do not have a wide enough side yard. Cm. Machtmes stated that he does not see how the findings for the Variance are directly related to the goal of enclosing the structure including the beautification of it. Mr. MacDonald stated they do not have the option of putting their boat in the side yard. They purchased the home with an existing enclosure. Cm. Machtmes stated it is the homeowner's preference because it looks better. Mr. MacDonald stated the Planning Commission should make their decision based on the unique circumstances of the lot. 140 Cm. Machtmes asked what if another property owner came to the City with the same request but has the option of parking in their side yard. Mr. MacDonald stated the City should not grant their request or change the Zoning Ordinance to allow it. Cm. Fasulkey closed the public hearing. He explained that a letter was submitted to the City from an anonymous person opposing the fence. Cm. Fasulkey asked Staff for more information on the petition. Ms. Nuccio stated that upon submittal a petition was provided in support of the fence. Cm. King asked Staff if the curb and sidewalk is reinforced with rebar. Ms. Harbin stated that according to the Public Works Department the curb does not include any reinforcement. Cm. King asked if there is an ordinance that prohibits driving over curbs. Ms. Harbin stated that would fall under the City's Municipal Code and the Police Department would enforce that issue. Mr. Bakker stated that he suspects that the vehicle code prohibits one from driving their vehicle over the sidewalk and curb. Cm. King asked if the Applicant could widen the driveway. Ms. Harbin stated it is possible but it would remove on street parking. Cm. Fasulkey reopened the public hearing to allow Mr. Macdonald to speak. Mr. Macdonald stated that Public Works has indicated that the curb is 4 inches. When Mr. Arace remodeled his home he installed a six-inch curb rather, which was signed off by a Public Works Inspector. Cm. Pasulkey closed the public hearing. He explained that in the past, the Planning Commission reviewed extensively the parking of recreational vehicles. Cm. Nassar asked Staff the rational for Condition 6. Ms. Nuccio said to ensure that the enclosure is used for parking and storage only of the recreational vehicles. The basis to make the findings for the Variance is because the lot has special circumstances that prevent storage of recreational vehicles in the side yard. 141 Cm. Nassar stated he does not understand why they are arguing something that is not arguable. Cm. Fasulkey stated the house is beautiful. The boat hides behind a six foot fence. The precedence comes when you build a six foot fence in this fashion and then the City gets the next exception of someone wanting to hide a Class A motor home. He stated that he feels very strong about the work that was put into the ordinance of parking recreational vehicles. Cm. Machtmes stated that it is an improvement visually if the recreational vehicle is fenced in; but the problem is making the connection to special circumstances and how does the Planning Commission differentiate that in the future. The newer homes that are currently being built do not have the option of storing recreational vehicles either. Cm. King said his main issue is aesthetics, this is more pleasing and he is willing to go along with it. If the Commission votes in favor of the fence, where should the gate be located? He has a problem with Condition 9 because it makes it twice as hard to get the boat in and out. He would also like more information on the structure of the curb. He recommended that the project be continued. Cm. Machtmes stated he supports the idea of enclosing recreational vehicles because it can be an improvement visually. The issue is using the Variance tool to do that. It seems more proper for the Planning Commission to consider changing the Zoning Ordinance rather than spot zone through a Variance and make it a special circumstance. Cm. Nassar stated he is in favor of approving the Variance. When dealing with Variance findings, the pros and the cons, and looking at the analysis there is no problem with approving it. On motion by Cm. Nassar, seconded by Cm. King, by a 2-2-1 vote with Cm. Jennings absent and with a tie vote, the Planning Commission asked the City Attomey to advise on how to proceed. Mr. Bakker stated that the Planning Commission could deny the item to allow the Applicant the opportunity to appeal to the City Council if one of the Planning Commissioners is willing to do that. After much discussion the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) ADTOURNMENT - The meeting was adjoumed at 8:15 pm. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Manager 142