HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-07-2008 Special meeting City Council MinutesMINUTES
CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
JOINT STUDY SESSION
FENCE ORDINANCE
OCTOBER 7, 2008
Mayor Waltonsmith called the Joint Study Session meeting to order at 5:30PM.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers:
Jill Hunter, Aileen Kao, Kathleen King,
Vice Mayor Chuck Page, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith
Planning Commissioners:
Yan Zhao, Linda Rodgers, Susie Nagpal, Robert Kundtz, Joyce
Hlava, Chair Manny Cappello
ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager
PRESENT: Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk
John Livingstone, Community Development Director
Chris Riordan, Senior Planner
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MARCH 19, 2008
Ann Sullivan, Acting City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section
54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of October 7, 2008, was properly posted on
September 29, 2008.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
None
JOINT MEETING AGENDA ITEM:
1. Fence Ordinance Study Session to Discuss Updates to Existing Regulations
Regarding Fences Walls, and Hedges.
Community Development Director John Livingstone presented the staff report and noted
that this is afact-finding meeting where the City Council and Planning Commission
could discuss the item and ask questions as well as receive input from members of the
public attending the meeting.
Director Livingstone explained that the overall goals for the update to regulations for
fences, walls, and hedges include establishing an exception process that would allow
property owners to exceed the maximum permitted fence height by adding a 2-foot lattice
to a six-foot fence and to clarify ambiguous language and areas of the code that are
currently difficult to enforce.
Mayor Waltonsmith invited Manny Cappello, Planning Commission Chair, to provide a
progress update of the Planning Commission meetings regarding updates to the Fence
Ordinance.
Chair Cappello noted that the Planning Commission has reached an agreement on 90% of
the updates to the fence ordinance; however, there are issues pending with elements
specific to the Hillside Districts. Chair Cappello indicated that the commissioners felt it is
important to:
o Preserve natural beauty of hillsides
o Allow free movement of wild life by allowing
- Split rail
- Three-foot high fencing
- Stone walls
- Openings in fencing
o Provide security for children and domestic animals
o Identify property line
Chair Cappello stated pending issues involve:
o Proposed fencing areas increased from 4,000 sq. ft. to 6,000 sq. ft.
o fencing beyond the 6,000 sq. ft. -allow free movement of wildlife
o fence height -anything beyond a three to four foot height will impede movement
of wildlife
o three-foot maximum fence height for front yards
o allowance for periodic opening in fencing still interferes with movement of
wildlife
o fencing around vineyards, orchards, horse corrals and sport courts
There was discussion regarding the definition of an orchard, the difference between the
Santa Clara County fence ordinance versus the City of Saratoga, and fencing
requirements around pools.
Director Livingstone stated the definition of an orchard has to be determined, Santa Clara
County does not have a limit on enclosures, and the current fence ordinance does not
address fencing around pools.
Mayor Waltonsmith invited public comments.
The following people spoke on this item:
John Purvis stated that he had sent an email to the Council, the Planning Commission and
staff on August 13, 2008 regarding the fence ordinance and asked that it be included in
the record. Mr. Purvis noted several areas needed to be addressed such as: the definition
of lattice versus fence, actual or finished grade of property, and height of fence posts. In
addition, he noted the lengthy process in addressing the fence ordinance updates has been
frustrating and feels that the issues aren't confined to just the hillsides. [Mr. Purvis' email
was included in staff report]AS.
2
Kay Abelar voiced her concern regarding fences that are 25 years old or more and if they
would be grandfathered into the new fence ordinance. She also questioned whether
strands of barbed wire on top offences was permitted.
James Johnston addressed the Council and Planning Commissioners regarding the
gardening aspect in the hills and feels that gardening is an activity or hobby that deserves
the same consideration as vineyards in the hillside.
Bruce Lafountain stated his property is in the hillside district surrounded by non-hillside
districts and that as a result of the different set of fencing rules his property endures a lot
of the wildlife movement -including bobcats stalking his family while working in their
garden. In addition, he voiced his concerns regarding the safety and security of his
family, the lengthy process of updating the fence ordinance and that the differences
between the hillside and the flatlands needs to be addressed.
Balu Balakrishnan voiced his concerns regarding fence exceptions and that a lot of
properties exceed the recommended two acres at 15% fencing limitation and these
properties should be grandfathered into the new ordinance. He also stated that 15-29.080
section (b) item number (3) (on page 10 of the attachment to the staff report) was
confusing and needed some clarification.
Drew Perkins commented that the fence ordinance as it is written now is an
improvement; however, he recommended that the word "hedges" be more clearly defined
and urged that hedges be restricted. He believes there is little difference between hedges
and green fences and that hedges can restrict the view of the hillsides. He added, if
hedges are allowed they should be restricted to a certain height.
Steve de Keczer stated he just planted 100 yards of hedges so that he could remove the
very unattractive old fence on his property once the hedges grew taller. He asked if his
fence would be grandfathered into the new ordinance. He also noted the 3-foot high
fence requirement should be raised to a higher level.
Mike Byrd stated he is currently building a home in the hillside area and that it is very
difficult to fence the property, including the pool area, within the 4,000 square feet
currently allowed. He noted even the proposed 6,000 square feet will be problematic and
feels that the fencing area should be based on percentage of the lot size. He also feels it
is important to grandfather in existing fences and to allow property owners to improve
their chain link fences by replacing them with something more attractive without having
to abide by the new ordinance.
Martin Rossip stated he feels there should be fewer restrictions on fencing and that the
restriction on the amount of square feet be removed. He also feels people who would like
to create wildlife corridors on their property should be allowed to do so and people who
want to restrict wildlife movement on their property should be allowed to do so.
Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public comment.
Mayor Waltonsmith noted there were several comments regarding the "grandfathering
in" of old fences and asked if that issue had been addressed by the Planning Commission.
Director Livingstone responded that it had been discussed and the Commission felt that
the best option would be to create an exception process; if fences were legally established
and then if 50% or more of the fence falls down years later, the property owner will have
to make the new replacement fence legal per existing code or apply for a fence exception
process.
Councilmember King asked about the barbed wire on top offences and if that was legal
and if that would be grandfathered in.
Director Livingstone replied that it has never been legal
City Attorney Richard Taylor stated that when a complaint is filed, staff would have to
ascertain when a fence was built and if it was legal when it was built. In addition, he
noted that the "grandfathering in" provisions in this new ordinance would not allow an
illegal fence to continue to exist. He reiterated that if a fence was legal when it was built
and 50% or more fell down, it would have to be replaced according to the new code.
Mayor Waltonsmith asked if there was more or less flexibility regarding new fencing
requirements of the proposed updates.
Director Livingstone replied that overall there would be more flexibility with the new
code than there was with the old code.
Mayor Waltonsmith noted that during the public comments, speakers voiced concerns
regarding the struggle to provide safety and security for their families from wildlife and ,
to also allow un-impeded movement of wildlife.
Commissioner Nagpal stated that this issue was a concern for the commission in wanting
to preserve the rural character of the hillsides as well as recognizing the non-conformance
of the enclosures of the developed hillsides.
Councilmember King asked about the fence post height issue raised by a resident.
Chair Cappello clarified the "fence post" is actually a "pilaster" and that it is allowed to
go two feet above the fence height limit and in no case would a pilaster be allowed to
exceed eight feet.
There was continued discussion regarding:
o the various types offences -hedges, chain link, or wood fences
o the height of fences
o grandfathering of fences
o Fence Exceptions 15-29.080 section (b) item number (3) clarification
o fencing around pools
City Attorney Taylor recommended staff review the proposed wording on 15-29.080
section (b) item number (3) Fence Exceptions and clarify the intent of the wording.
Mayor Waltonsmith stated that there are two objectives regarding this study session and
that is to; 1) address the weak wording within the fence ordinance so that the code can
successfully be defended for legal purposes, and 2) the aesthetic, philosophical issues.
4
City Attorney Taylor explained the legal issue with the fence ordinance is the ambiguities
in the existing fence ordinance that may cause difficulties for staff and residents that have
fence problems to communicate and to understand what the rules are as well as avoiding
the legal expense in explaining the ambiguities to a hearing officer. He also noted there
are a number of small word changes that need to be addressed and the final proposal
should then be viewed by the City Attorney.
Mayor Waltonsmith invited each of the Council members to present their views and
provide input to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Hunter:
o Has problems with the 6-foot fence and the 2-foot lattice added to it and would
like property owner and neighbor to agree with that choice.
o Would like to add wording that wrought iron fences cannot include spikes on top
in hillsides and flatlands
o Has no problem with hedge fences
o Has no problem with 6,000 square feet around pool area and/or back yard
o Would like some definitions of what constitutes an orchard
Councilmember King:
o Supports the 15% fencing option
o Very much into the practical side and doesn't understand why you can't fence
unless you have a vineyard, sport courts, or garden
o Should allow residents that have bigger lots to put in more fencing
o Agrees with allowing the 2-foot lattice
o Is okay with the 8-foot fence, but both sides of the property should agree; should
also apply to hedges
o Agrees that both hillsides and flatlands need to be updated
Councilmember Kao:
o Believes hillsides and flatlands need to be addressed individually
o Front yard fencing on large lot needs to be different than on a small lot
o Wrought iron fences on several small lots would create a prison feeling -need
variation
o Was undecided on hillside fencing limits
Vice Mayor Page:
o Supports 15% fencing -should look at the lot and see what is involved
o Is fine with 6-foot fence plus 2-foot lattice
o Feels most wildlife travels along creek bed corridors
o Doesn't feel that it would be appropriate to grant fencing to every area of the
property
o Include some limitations -but consider some factors other than just square
footage
o Separate the different issues from the hillsides and the flatlands
Mayor Waltonsmith:
o Concerned about the increased use of fences and bigger fenced in areas
o Prefers openness of the hillsides with views
o Wrought iron without the spikes on top is a little more appealing
o Black metal is more appealing versus the bright metal
o Would agree to the 6,000 square feet of fencing
o Opposes the 15% percentage -feels it will change the rural look of Saratoga
o Natural beauty is important and wildlife in the hills is what Saratoga is about
o If we are going to go to the suburban look by encasing the hillsides in fences, that
is a philosophical discussion that will have to be done at a larger level
o Security for children and domestic animals is an issue, however, we can't build a
fence high enough or deep enough to keep wild animals out
o Consider the idea of building a double mesh-type fence to keep deer out
o Consider planting native trees and plants that deer won't want to eat
o If you are considering having larger areas for residents that have orchards and
vineyards, then those residents should be required to have a business license
The Planning Commissioners asked if they should continue working on the fence
ordinance as a whole and try to reach a conclusion on the hillside issues or go with the
proposed changes that have been agreed on regarding the flatland areas and come back at
a later date to discuss the hillside district.
City Attorney Richard Taylor stated the proposed changes the Commission has made to
the flatland areas has come a long way and noted the hillside district already has special
rules regarding fence requirements, and additional proposed changes would be necessary
to make the hillsides and flatlands fit together in one updated ordinance.
City Manager Dave Anderson stated that with the pressure of all the other ordinances that
have to be addressed feels it would be difficult to get back to this ordinance if they split it
at this point.
Council's recommendation to the Planning Commission was to: 1) go back and hold at
least one additional meeting, 2) take public testimony, 3) work out the details regarding
the maximum fence square footage, orchards and vineyards, front yard fencing exception
process option, and send it on to Council.
Recommendation passed 5-0.
The fence ordinance will be discussed again at the next Planning Commission meeting on
November 12th and it was noted that signage will again be used to inform residents of the
meeting.
Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the Study Session at 7:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted by:
Ann Ivan, CMC
Acting City Clerk
6