Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101-Staff Report.pdf SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Christopher A. Riordan, AICP DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending the Regulations Related to Fences, Walls, and Hedges & Negative Declaration RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council open the public hearing, accept public testimony, close the public hearing, approve the attached ordinance, waive the First Reading and direct staff to schedule this item for a Second Reading for adoption on the consent calendar at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. REPORT SUMMARY: The following is a summary of topics being addressed with the update related to fences, walls and hedges: Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes Definitions The code currently does not define hedges and does not distinguish walls from retaining walls. The regulations use the terms interchangeably throughout the subsection, requiring assumptions and interpretations. The definition of fence will include walls (other than walls of a building and retaining walls). Definitions for hedge and retaining wall have been added. Height Measurement Fences are currently measured from the lower elevation points and include the height of any retaining walls. A property owner with the higher grade on one side of a property line is thus allowed a shorter fence than a property owner on the opposite side. Where, for example, a 4- foot grade differential exists between two properties, a property owner with the higher elevation point is allowed only 2- foot high fence if the maximum fence height is 6-feet. The proposed language will measure fence height from the higher of two properties. Some language has been removed for consistency purposes. Retaining walls will be measured from the lower elevation of two properties and the 5-foot maximum height for retaining walls has not been changed. Fence Height The code currently permits fences to a The proposed changes would allow a 6- 1 Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes maximum height of 6-feet. However, fences are frequently constructed to be 6- feet in height with 2-feet of lattice on top. These fences are not allowed by code and create code enforcement issues. foot tall solid fence with additional 2-feet of lattice for a maximum of 8-feet. The proposed changes would also allow fencing composed of wrought iron or wire to a maximum height of 8-feet. Fence Exception Currently, any variation to code regulations requires a variance. Variances are reserved for situations where a hardship exists. The update would establish a fence exception process allowing property owners to request the Planning Commission approve a modification to regulations for a particular situation where a hardship may not exist, but where deviation from the code is allowed. Green Fences The code currently does not regulate the height of trees or other natural landscaping, even when planted in a linear pattern creating a boundary similar to that of a fence. A definition of hedges has been added to the code in lieu of the term “green fences,” which is not used in the proposed language. The proposed language will exempt hedges from height restrictions, except for street and driveway intersections. Driveway Intersections The code currently does not limit the height of fences near driveway intersections. The proposed update will add a height requirement of 3-feet for fences and other elements located within a 12-foot by 12- foot triangle near driveway intersections for projects triggering design review. Pedestrian Entry Elements The current code does not regulate the number or the size parameters of entry elements. The proposed language suggests a height maximum of 8-feet, and a 5-foot maximum for both width and depth. There are no limits on the number of entry elements. Existing Non- Conforming Fences Fences legally established prior to a particular date are currently exempt from some limitations within the code. Given that many fences do not require building permits, it is difficult to determine when a fence was legally constructed. Specific dates have been eliminated and the term “legal” has been added to ensure that the section applies only to legally constructed fences. Removal of more than half of a legal fence or element will require the replacement structure to comply with code requirements or require review via a fence exception. Height and Materials Within Hillside Districts Currently, wire fencing (other than chain link, barbed wire or galvanized wire) with 4-inch openings to allow for the passage of wildlife is permitted. The code specifies that the wire must be black or otherwise colored to blend with the terrain. With the exception for The code has been modified to permit fencing that delineates the area of enclosure in hillside properties to be composed of the same materials and heights that are permitted elsewhere, including chain link. The height and materials for fencing outside the area of 2 Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes recreational courts, chain link fencing in the hillside district is currently prohibited. enclosure have also been specified. Area of Enclosure for Hillside Properties Hillside properties are currently permitted a maximum of 4,000 square feet of fence enclosure. Common practice is to enclose a larger area with the goal of allowing for the passage of wildlife. The code exempts recreational courts from the enclosure requirement, even though recreational courts are permitted to be as large as 7,200 square feet. The code will be modified to allow a 6,000 square foot or 15 percent of the gross site area, whichever is greater, enclosure that may be fenced with the same material and maximum heights as stipulated elsewhere in the City. However, outside the area of enclosure, fencing must be no taller than 3-feet and consist only of split rail, stone, or stucco. Additionally, recreational courts are no longer exempt from the enclosure requirement. Chain Link Fencing Material Chain link fencing is commonly used in many areas of the City, but is prohibited in the hillside district. The ordinance has been revised to allow chain link fencing in the hillside districts within the allowed enclosure area. Swimming Pool Fences (Building Regualtions) Chapter 16 (Building Regulations) of the City code regulates fences required around pools. This update will reference that section of the City code. Swimming Pool Fences (Hillside District Enclosures) The code currently limits the square footage of enclosure within the hillside district to 4,000 square feet, but exempts the area needed to fence a pool from the square footage maximum. Therefore, since the building code requires properties with a pool to be enclosed, a fence may surround the property and inadvertently enclose more than 4,000 square feet. The proposed language will require fencing for pools in hillside districts to follow the contour of the pool with no more than 10-feet of distance between the water line of the pool and fence. Only properties that already have a 6,000- square foot enclosure for another purpose are subject to this requirement. Enclosure Maximum with Hillside Districts Currently there is no requirement for a minimum distance in-between two fences to be considered not enclosed. This section was included in the Planning Commission draft Ordinance but has been removed for the City Council based on the Commission’s intent. Agricultural Uses Parcels with agricultural uses are subject to the maximum 6,000 square foot enclosure requirement. The proposed language includes and exemption which excludes fencing around the immediate perimeter of an agricultural use from the enclosure limitation. 3 Topic Current Approach and Problem Proposed Changes Front Yard / Side Yard Fencing The City has numerous lots (i.e. flag lots) that do not have frontage on a street, but are still required to adhere to a 3-foot maximum height for fences in the front setback area. This is particularly applicable when the front lot line of a lot abuts a side lot line of an adjacent lot. Where the adjacent lot may be permitted a fence that is 6-foot solid with 2-foot lattice, the subject property may be limited to a 3-foot fence along the same property line. The proposed language adds a provision that allows the maximum fence height for a side yard or a rear yard be allowed within the front setback area of the lot that would otherwise be limited to 3-feet in height. Solid 8-foot Fence An 8-foot fence or wall is currently permitted for certain arterial streets and for fencing adjacent to commercial properties. Since the proposed language would permit 6-foot solid fence with 2- foot lattice on other properties, language regarding the permitted 8-foot solid fence needs to be clarified. The phrase “solid or other type of fence permitted by this Article” has been added to existing language for clarification. Parker Ranch The Parker Ranch subdivision has specific fencing requirements; however the code does not reference these regulations. The regulations describing Parker Ranch fencing requirements will be referenced in the proposed language. Environmental Review Environmental review was completed in the form of an Initial Study. A notice regarding the opportunity to review the document and a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration was published in the Saratoga News November 28, 2007. The comment period took place between December 3, 2007 and January 3, 2008. Staff has not received any comments directly relating to the environmental review. FISCAL IMPACTS: The ordinance may lead to a decrease in fence complaints to the City’s Code Enforcement staff thereby reducing staff time spent on enforcement and reductions in City Attorney costs. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Fence Ordinance would remain unchanged and would continue to be difficult to interpret for both staff and the public. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Deny the proposed resolution and provide staff with direction. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Schedule the ordinance for a second reading. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: 4 5 Notice of this meeting was properly posted. ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution recommending the City Council approve the Negative Declaration and proposed amendments to Chapter 15 Zoning Regulations B. Negative Declaration and Initial Study. C. Minutes from the January 23, March 12, April 23, and November 12, 2008 Planning Commission meetings. D. Written Comments from Members of the Public