SUMMARY REPORT CITY COUNCIL

Transcription

1 Agenda No: / 041 Key Words: Discussion re: Section of Zoning Ordinance (Fences) Meeting Date: January 14, 2014 SUMMARY REPORT CITY COUNCIL PREPARED BY: Dave Dowswell, Community Development Departmen RECOMMENDATION/REQUESTED ACTION: Give staff direction as to whether to proceed with amending Section of the Zoning Ordinance (Fences). BACKGROUND: In November staff received a complaint about the parking of a large commercial truck in the backyard of the property at 251 West Chestnut Street. On November 26, 2013 staff investigated the complaint and observed a truck tractor parked in the rear yard of the property at 251 West Chestnut Street. Staff also observed a new six foot fence had been constructed along the South Jefferson Street side of the property 5 feet from the sidewalk. On November 27 a letter was sent to the property owner (Attachment 1) advising him that according to Section it is illegal to park a truck in a residential zone. The owner was also notified that the fence along South Jefferson needed to be shortened to 3 feet or moved so it was 10 feet from sidewalk. After receiving the letter the owner of 251 West Chestnut Street contacted Councilmember Bogue regarding staff's letter. At the December 10, 2013, Council meeting Councilmember Bogue requested an item be placed on the January 14 agenda regarding the City's fence regulations. DISCUSSION: On July 24, 2012 the City Council approved an ordinance amending the City's fence regulations (Attachment 2). The amendments to the ordinance were in response to an application for a variance that went before the Planning Commission on June 21, 2009 for a fence built at 171 South 3 rd Street that was too high. In response to this application the Planning Commission directed staff to survey the old town area to show where there were other fences that did not comply with the City's fence regulations. At the time the fencing at 251 West Chestnut Street was in compliance (Attachment 3). 1

2 When the new fence regulations were adopted in 2012 the Council agreed that any pre-existing non-conforming fence located in the old town area was allowed to remain and could be repaired or replaced in its exact same location without a variance. Any new fencing had to comply with the new regulations. The owner's fence along South Jefferson Street side has been built since 2009 in violation of the City's fence regulations. The attached photo (Attachment 4), taken in June 2012, shows a makeshift fence along South Jefferson Street. The makeshift fence is roughly in line with the shed located just to the south of the owner's driveway off South Jefferson Street. Should the property owner apply for a variance to keep the fence along South Jefferson Street five feet from the sidewalk the necessary findings to support a variance could not be made as there is nothing unusual about the owner's property that would justify granting a variance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: None required. This action is not considered a project as defined under CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1. Complaint letter dated November 27, July 24, 2012, City Council staff report regarding fencing survey of existing fencing in old town area 4. Photograph dated June 2012 showing makeshift fence along South Jefferson Street APPROVALS: Finance:,4/in City Manager City Attorney:

3 MAYOR JACK BATCHELOR, JR. VICE MAYOR DANE BESNEATTE COUNCILMEMBER STEVEN BIRD COUNCILMEMBER THOM BOGUE COUNCILMEMBER JERRY CASTAN. ON, SR. CITY TREASURER SCOTT PEDERSON November 27, 2013 Jose Hermosillo 251 West Chestnut Street Dixon, CA Re: Illegal fence and truck parking Dear Mr. Hermosillo: Our office received a complaint about you parking a big rig tractor in your rear yard off South Jefferson Street. An inspection of your property on November 26 th showed a large rig parked in the rear yard near the fence that you share with the care home on the corner of West Cherry and South Jefferson Streets. It also showed you have moved/built a new six foot plus fence approximately five feet from South Jefferson Street sidewalk. According to Section of the Dixon Municipal Code, "Except as provided in this chapter, it is unlawful to operate or park a truck other than on a "through truck route" or "local truck route" as designated in DMC " "Truck" means any vehicle the gross vehicle weight rating of which exceeds five (5) tons. West Chestnut Street and South Jefferson Street are not designated as either a "through" or "local" truck routes and your truck has a rating in excess of five tons. Also, according to Section E2 of the Dixon Municipal Code, "Within Required Side Yard. The maximum height (of a fence) shall be six (6) feet to within ten (10) feet of a side property line adjoining a public street. Fences within the ten (10) foot side yard adjacent to a street shall be a maximum height of three (3) feet." The fence along the South Jefferson Street side of your house is less than 10 feet from the back of the sidewalk and also appears to exceed six feet in height. Based on photographs of your property this fence has been built or relocated in the last 18 months. Upon receipt of this letter I ask that you immediately stop parking your big rig tractor in your back yard. Also, you must remove your fence, or relocate it so that it is 10 feet from the edge of the sidewalk, or reduce it to three (3) feet in height in its present location. Failure to correct these violations could result in you being cited. City of Dixon 600 East i ATTACHMENT 1 (707) '07)

4 Give me a call at if you have any questions. Sincerely, David Dowswell Interim Community Development Director cc: Christina Gastelum, Code Enforcement Justin Hardy, Associate Planner

5 Agenda No: /0 Key Words: Screening Landscaping Regulations Amendments Meeting Date: July 24, 2012 SUMMARY REPORT CITY COUNCIL PREPARED BY: David Dowswell, Community Development Director RECOMMENDATION/REQUESTED ACTION: 1. Adopt a resolution approving a Negative Declaration relating to amendments to Section "Screening and Landscaping Regulations" (project) in compliance with CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) (Attachment 1). 2. Hold hearing, waive reading, read by title only, and introduce an ordinance (Attachment 2) confirming the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend Section and add Section 12.2A to Chapter 12 Article II of the Dixon City Code (Zoning Ordinance). BACKGROUND: On June 21, 2009, the Planning Commission, at a noticed public hearing, considered a fence variance request by Adam Hairston for 171 South 3 rd Street. The Planning Commission postponed a decision on the variance to allow staff to review the existing fencing of other properties in old town and to investigate possible amendments to the existing fence regulations. On August 18, 2009, the Planning Commission, at a noticed public hearing, reviewed information from Staff, regarding fences that do not currently comply with the Zoning Ordinance and provided several alternatives for consideration. The Commission directed Staff to expand the fence survey in the downtown area and continued this item to the next meeting. On November 17, 2009, the Planning Commission, at a noticed public hearing, considered several alternatives for fence setbacks. The Commission directed Staff to draft an administrative permit process for amending the fence regulations for consideration at a future meeting. On March 16, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the revisions to the existing fence regulations including the proposed language to establish an 1 ATTACHMENT 2

6 administrative permit process. At the hearing the Commission agreed that all existing non-conforming fences should be grandfathered in. The Commission also agreed that there should be no administrative permit fee (Attachment 3). The Council was scheduled to review this item on July 10, At the request of staff this item was continued to July 24, 2012, to make a number of minor edits to the ordinance. DISCUSSION: Initially, when the changes to the Zoning Ordinance were first proposed they were designed to address the fence situation with the house at 171 South 3 rd Street. After further discussion the Commission directed staff to expand the study the whole city. Staff surveyed the downtown area shown on Attachment 4 for compliance with the current fence regulations. Staff observed 32 (23 fences and 9 hedges) of the 158 lots with fences/hedges that do not comply with the current regulations. Some of the non-compliant fences are located along alleys while others are perpendicular to the sidewalk/street along the side yard property lines. Most are located on side yards. Several locations have hedges adjacent to the sidewalk making the sidewalk unusable or difficult to traverse. Two properties have historic garages which were likely built prior to the Zoning Ordinance located on the front property line. These garages create a vision problem for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Not all of the properties that have non-compliant fences are located on corner lots though the vast majority are. The proposed amendments to the fence regulations are designed to provide the maximum flexibility for fencing of residential lots to minimize the need to apply for a variance. If approved, they will establish procedures by which the Community Development Director can allow deviations to the fence standards for unusually shaped lots. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Negative Declaration (ND) was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. During the public review period staff did not receive any comment letters. No comments were received at the March 16, 2010, Planning Commission meeting. ALTERNATIVES/ OPTIONS: Do not approve the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments. Approve some but not all of the amendments. Direct staff to make further amendments and refer back to Planning Commission for review. 2

7 SUBSEQUENT ACTION(S): If introduced and given first reading, the ordinance would be brought back to the City Council for a second reading and adoption. The ordinance would take effect 30 days following the second reading. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution adopting Negative Declaration 2. Ordinance amending Section of the Zoning Ordinance and adding Section 12.26A to the Zoning Ordinance 3. March 16, 2010, Planning Commission minutes excerpt 4. Old town fence and hedge survey area 3

8 RESOLUTION NO. 1 2 o RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR THE SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS WHEREAS, the Screening and Landscaping Regulations Amendments were discussed by the City's Planning Commission on November 17, 2009 and March 16, 2010, at noticed Public Hearings; and, WHEREAS, at such time the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact based on the findings noted below; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dixon held a noticed Public Hearing on said Negative Declaration and Screening and Landscaping Regulations Amendments on July 24, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dixon hereby ratifies the issuance of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "A", for said project based on the following findings: 1) It will not have a potential to degrade the quality of the environment. 2) It will not achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 3) It will have no impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 4) It will not cause adverse affects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. PASSED AND ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIXON ON THE 24th DAY OF JULY, 2012, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Besneatte r NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Fuller Bogue, Ceremello, Batchelor eli Jack :tatchelor Mayor Steve Johnson Acting City Clerk

9 City of Dixon Community Development Department 600 East A Street Dixon, CA DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION Name of Project: Zoning Ordinance Amendments Amending Section (Screening and Landscaping Regulations) and adding Section 12.26A (Administrative Fence Permit) to Chapter 12 of Article II of the Dixon City Code. Location of Project: Citywide Project Developer: City of Dixon Description of Project: The City of Dixon proposes to adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 12 of Article II of the Dixon City Code relating to fence heights and location. The Zoning Ordinance Amendments would be adopted based on the authority vested in the City of Dixon by the State of California, including but limited to the mandated provisions of the Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Section et seq.), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Housing Act, the Subdivision Map Act, the Health and Safety Code, and other applicable State and local requirements. The Ordinance is intended to protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and, more specifically to: a) implement policies of the City of Dixon's General Plan in order to meet the City's goals and objectives; b) promote orderly growth and development in accordance with the General Plan; c) manage land use in a manner that will assure the orderly development and beneficial use of City land; d) manage land use in accordance with the availability of natural resources, public facilities and services; e) protect and preserve important natural features of the City; 0 reduce hazards to the public resulting from inappropriate land uses in relation to natural and built hazards; and g) attain the physical, social and economic advantages resulting from comprehensive and orderly land use and resource planning. The Zoning Ordinance would be amended and implemented so as to be consistent with the City of Dixon's General Plan, any specific plans, and the City's Subdivision Ordinance, and would apply to all land uses and developments within the City boundaries. If any conflict were found between the regulations of the City, adopted by ordinance, the most restrictive of those regulations would apply. The amendment of the Zoning Ordinance includes minor updates of the ordinance intended to comply with current laws, City requirements, and policies. A summary of the more significant of these updates include the following: RESOLUTION NO.: ii.;1 DATE:, JUL 2 4 tog. EXHIBIT A 1

10 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIXON AMENDING SECTION (SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING) AND ADDING SECTION 12.26A (ADMINISTRATIVE FENCE PERMIT) TO CHAPTER 12 OF ARTICLE II OF THE DIXON CITY CODE (THE ZONING ORDINANCE), RELATING TO FENCING THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIXON ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section of Chapter 12 of Article II of the Dixon City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Standards Applicable to Required Screening Unless otherwise provided by Section required screening shall be subject to the following standards: A. Screening Types. A screen shall consist of any combination of the following types: 1. Berms. A berm shall be not more than twenty (20) feet in width at the base. It shall be constructed of earthen materials and it shall be landscaped. 2. Fences, Solid. to form an opaque screen. A fence shall be considered "solid" or "opaque" if seventy-five percent (75%) or more of its area forms an opaque screen when viewed at a right angle. 3. Fences, Open. Open w ave, mesh or chain link type fence. 43. Planting. Plant materials, when used as a screen, shall consist of compact evergreen plants. They shall be of a kind, or used in such a manner, so as to provide screening having a height which meets the requirements set forth in Section and a minimum width of two (2) feet, within eighteen (18) months after initial installation. The Planning Director shall require that the screens in either paragraphs 1 7 or 2 above be installed, if after eighteen (18) months after installation, plant materials have not formed an opaque screen or if an opaque screen is not maintained. 54. Materials. Fencing materials shall consist of chain link, chain link with slats, wood, vinyl, decorative or solid block, stucco, stone or other similar materials. Plywood, corrugated metal, corrugated fiberglass, tarps, and shade screen fabric are not permitted materials. 1 ATTACHMENT 2

11 B. Signs and Sign Supports. No signs or sign supports shall be permitted on any required screening Height Standards Applicable to Required Screening and Fences In accordance with the provisions of Section or in addition to those provisions, fences, as defined in Section 12.02, and other screening shall be subject to the following height standards; provided, however, that wherever the provisions of Section apply, those provisions shall govern. A. Commercial, Professional Offices and Medical Districts. Required screening, except for plant material, shall not be more than six (6) feet in height. B. Industrial Districts. Required screening, except for plant materials, shall not be more than eight (8) feet in height. C. Automotive and Equipment Type Uses. Notwithstanding the provisions of an applicable zone, fences and other screening on any building site within an automotive and equipment use type, required screening shall not be more than eight (8) feet in height. D. Parking Facilities. Notwithstanding the provisions of an applicable zone, screening around an unenclosed off-street parking facility, as specified in Section D required screening shall not be more than six (6) feet in height. E. All Other Building Sites. Fences, walls, and other screening on building sites not subject to the regulations of Subsections A through E shall be subject to the following height limits. 1. Within Required Front Yard. The maximum height shall be three (3) feet within any required front yard. 2. Within Required Side Yard. The maximum height shall be six (6) feet to within ten (10) feet of a side yard adjacent to a street. Fences within the ten (10) foot side yard adjacent to a street shall be a maximum height of three (3) feet. 3. All Other Areas. In all cases other than those specified in Subsection E.1 screening shall not be more than six (6) feet in height. 4. Double Frontage Lots. The maximum height shall be six (6) feet for fences located on the rear property line. 2

12 F Residential Fence Exceptions. Reduction of the street side yard setback for fencing specified in Subsection E.2 may be allowed for properties in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.26A. SECTION 2. Section 12.26A is hereby added to Chapter 12 of Article II of the Dixon City Code to read as follows: 12.26A ADMINISTRATIVE FENCE PERMIT 12.26A.010 Purposes The provisions of Section 12.26A.010 through Section 12.26A.040 shall be known as the Administrative Fence Permit Regulations. The purpose of these provisions is to allow for minor adjustments to the street side yard fencing standards for corner lots contained within Subsection E A.020 Action by the Community Development Director A. The Community Development Director is empowered to approve or deny applications for Administrative Fence Permits to allow minor adjustments to the fencing standards in Subsection E, subject to the following findings: 1. The adjustment will not impair the harmonious relationship of adjacent uses; 2. The adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the neighborhood in which the project is located 3. The adjustment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; and 4. The adjustment is necessary due to unusual or special circumstances or conditions relating to the shape, size or configuration of the property, or orientation of the improvements in order to gain full use and enjoyment of the property (see Sample Unusual Corner Lot diagram below). 3

13 1 Sample Unusual Corner Lot B. Adjustments shall be subject to the following fencing standards: 1. Fences located on a street side yard may be constructed to a maximum height of six (6) feet subject to the following: a. The fence is set back two (2) feet from the property line or back of sidewalk. b. The two (2) feet of land between the property line or back of sidewalk shall be irrigated and landscaped. c. The fence cannot extend in beyond the nearest front corner of the main structure (see diagram below). 2. Fences adjacent to driveways, including on double frontage lots, shall not encroach into the clear vision triangle (see Fence Permit Standards diagram below). 4

14 1 Fence Permit Standards 12.26A.03 Application Procedure and Fee A. Application for an Administrative Fence Permit shall include the following data: 1 Name and address of the applicant. 2. Statement that the applicant is the owner of the property or is the authorized agent of the owner. 3. Address or description of the property. 4. Diagram to scale showinq location of proposed fence. 1 : : e - e 4'. Z e - 5

15 . e e * (This Section recommended for deletion for non-inclusion by Planning Commission) 12.26A.04 Public Hearing Procedure A. Staff shall notify all adjacent property owners within one hundred (100) feet of the subject site at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. B. At that public hearing, the Community Development Director shall review the application and the statements and diagrams submitted therewith, and shall receive pertinent eveidence concerning the proposed fence and the proposed conditions under which it would be erected or maintained, particularly with respect to the findings prescribed in Section 12.26A.020.A. Any objections to an Administrative Fence Permit shall be considered in the decision to approve or deny the request. The Community Development Director has the authority to impose conditions to ensure safety, or to deny request in whole or in part. The decision of the Community Development Director shall be final unless an appeal is filed within fifteen (15) days of the decision. Such appeal shall be heard in the manner prescribed in Section The Community Development Director, may at his/her discretion, refer an Administrative Fence Permit to the Planning Commission for a decision. SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days following its adoption. SECTION 7. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, within fifteen (15) days of its enactment. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2012 by the following vote on roll call: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 6

16 Jack Batchelor, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Steve Jonson, Acting City Clerk

17 Excerpt from Minutes of the March 16, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting 8.3 Matters relating to Zoning Ordinance Amendments: (PA 09-11) (ZON 09-08) (Continued from ; #8.3) 1. Negative Declaration. 2. Ordinance amending the following: a. Section of Chapter 12 Article II of the Dixon City Code (Zoning Ordinance) "Definitions" regarding the definition of a fence. b. Section of Chapter 12 Article II of the Dixon City Code (Zoning Ordinance) "Screening and Landscaping Regulations" regarding height standards and setbacks applicable to required screening (fencing). 3. Ordinance adding Section 12.26A to Chapter 12 Article II of the Dixon City Code "Administrative Fence Permit" regarding the process to allow minor adjustments to street side yard fencing standards. Justin Hardy, Associate Planner, displayed diagrams depicting the proposed changes to fence placement criteria for regular and unusually shaped lots and discussed one resident's new fence which was recently constructed with a two-foot setback while the decision was pending. He asked for direction in addressing existing non-compliant fences, and responded to questions from commissioners regarding noticing, appeal fees, the definition of non-conforming fences, and 10-foot spacing from curbs. Chair McCluskey opened the public hearing. Leonard Granger, regarding his property on West Walnut Street, was concerned that a two-foot setback would severely limit access between his house and fence, and requested his fence be grandfathered-in. Ginger Emerson noted there are many issues distinct to older sections of town, asked for clarification on variances, and thought hedges should be considered fences and allowed to remain. Bud Fanning noted his property and pool have existed for 34 years and any compliance issues in the older sections of town should be grandfathered-in since landscaping replacement would be expensive. ATTACHMENT 3

18 Larry Simmons expressed concern about fences that directly abut the sidewalk, block the view, and create a safety hazard. Thomas Andres noted his 3 foot high picket fence has been in place since 1915, but does abut the sidewalk. Adam Hairston noted is was his new fence that initiated these ordinance changes a year ago when he applied for a variance. He added he is frustrated with the lack of progress that prevents him from further improving his yard, and thought it difficult to apply modern laws to homes that have been around for 100 years. Councilmember Michael Ceremello asked Mr. Dowswell to clarify where measurement from the sidewalk is mentioned in the code. Mr. Dowswell noted that the section might need to be rewritten to clarify whether the setback is measured from the back of the sidewalk or the curb, the standard setback would be ten feet, and the two-foot setback would apply to odd-shaped lots and those in older areas. Seeing no one else present to speak, Chair McCluskey closed the public hearing. Chair McCluskey supported grandfathering all existing fences, thought a two-foot strip of dirt was impractical, and thought the $ Administrative Hearing fee was exorbitant. Commissioner Duncan noted that Mr. Hairston has been allowed to keep his fence during the delay, that the administrative fee is too high given that citizens pay taxes, and he supported grandfathering all current fences. Commissioner Stalnaker stressed that grandfathering terminology should include Mr. Hairston's fence. Commissioner Wing supported grandfathering of existing fences, two-foot setbacks being the exception rather than the rule, and Administrative and Appeal Fees should not be charged. Mr. Dowswell noted the Administrative Fee could be eliminated, but it is not be possible to waive the Appeal Fee since it already exists. He confirmed the ordinance will be further amended to include grandfathering older fences throughout the City, a ten-foot setback would be the rule, with a two-foot setback as an exception for unusual properties, and he will confer with the City Attorney on property "more than 50% destroyed" as it relates to fences.

19 A motion was made by Commissioner Duncan, seconded by Commissioner Coppes, to recommend the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration and Zoning Ordinance changes, as amended. Roll call was taken as follows: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Coppes, Duncan, Stalnaker, Wing, McCluskey None None Thomson (excused)

20 ANDERSON ELEMENTARY NUT EAST C ST. SCHOOL EAST A ST. I N 3 W H OVIIV Fence and Hedge Study Area

21 S UTH r E 1 SO UT H SOUTH T m S. S FIFTH ST. 6") CA) Ca CD -I:... =Z )10. CC) CD a n on 0

22 31+ Fence 3'+ Hedge

23 EAST A I- C/3 1 3 '+ Fence / EAST WALNUT ST.Th FAST ehfr-rim 11-r I!T I I 2 3 '+ Hedge Garage -lairston Fence

24 I I AT TA C H M E NT 3 3'+ Fence PP 3'+ Hedge WE ST thet N T WEST Ctl ERR

25 ATTACHMENT 4 MI43 2roogle. '10.011b..&