PC 022504 - Laserfiche WebLink

- Mr. Iserson advised that the Zoning Administrator public hearing was then held, where Mr. Muat expressed his concerns about the visual impacts of the fence. A compromise was reached at the hearing whereby both parties agreed to a seven-foot tall fence to be built on the common property line. The Zoning Administrator approved that fence based on the compromise. Subsequently, staff was informed by Mr. D'Arcy that he intended to put fill on his side of the fence, building the grade up approximately two feet to support the seven-foot high fence on top of it, effectively making it a nine-foot high fence from Mr. Muat's side. Mr. D'Arcy relied on a provision of the Code which stated that the fence height was measured from the higher grade. Staff informed Mr. Muat of that change because it was not made clear at the hearing; Mr. Muat did not concur with the fill to be placed on the applicant's lot and subsequently appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision. Mr. Iserson noted that overheight fence requests were fairly common and that privacy, noise, and security issues were often cited. Staff believed that the measurement of the fence height was intended to occur from the existing grade, not to build up a small portion of the pad artificially and then put the fence on top of it. Mr. D'Arcy had constructed a retaining wall in from the fence and was preparing to achieve that higher grade prior to the Planning Commission's hearing of the matter. He noted that Code Enforcement visited the site and asked the applicant to stop work on the retaining wall. Staff believed that the provision of the Code was intended to measure the height from the existing grade and was not intended to allow the grade to be increased in height, with the fence built on top of fill. Since the Code allowed the fence height to be measured from the higher grade, this would result in a fence higher than allowed from the neighbor's perspective. With respect to Mr. Muat's concern about drainage, staff did not believe that there would be a drainage issue. Staffls recommendation was to follow the intent of the Code and not allow the grading and the retaining wall. Staff recommended that the Commission deny the appeal, make the overheight fence findings for aseven-foot tall fence based on the existing grade. He noted that was the approval made at the Zoning Administrator hearing, which both parties agreed to at that time. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Lt. Darrin Davis, Senior Code Enforcement Officer, advised he would schedule an administrative hearing before the City's hearing officer if the applicant did not comply with the City's action. The applicant would be given a deadline to comply or would face daily fines that could range from $50 or $100 per day, up to a maximum of $1,000 per day. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin, Mr. Iserson confirmed that the Commission had the option to deny any overheight fence. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 25, 2004 Page 6 of 19