HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-16 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
4
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:NOVEMBER 16, 1998 CMR:427:98
SUBJECT:APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S APPROVAL OF A
FENCE VARIANCE CONDITION FOR 581 ADDISON STREET
LIMITING THE HEIGHT OF A SIX-FOOT FENCE THAT IS
CURRENTLY LOCATED IN A SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE
RECOMMENDATION_
Planning Commission and staffrecommend that the City Council deny the appeal and amend
the Original variance Condition No. 2 of a variance granted for 581 Addison Street, to state
that a three-foot fence shall be allowed in the sight distance triangle.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant desires to keep an existing six-foot-high fence at 581 Addison Street, located
in the street side yard setback and in a sight distance triangle adjacent to an existing driveway
that provides access to a detached garage. The property is zoned Single Family Residential
(R-l) and is located across the street from Addison Elementary School. The Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 16.24.060 states: "...no fence may be constructed for a
clear distance of twelve feet from the point of intersection of driveway and property lines."
This triangular area is referred to as a "sight distance triangle." In the City of Palo Alto
fences booklet, which is a guideline for implementing the fence ordinance, a site distance
triangle is shown as a graphic under "Back-To-Back" corner lots and refers to a triangular
area twelve feet back from the edge of the driveway and twelve feet back from the property
line. For a more detailed analysis of this project, please refer to the Planning Commission
staff report and attachments (Attachment B).
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 28, 1998..The minutes
from that meeting are attached for reference. The Commission recommended denial of the
CMR:427:98 Page 1 of 2
appeal and an amendment to the original variance Condition No.2 to read that a "three-foot-
high fence be allowed in the sight distance triangle."
The Commission members felt that the existing six-foot-high fence within the sight distance
triangle obstructed the clear line of sight of a driver pulling in or out of the driveway. While
the original variance condition permitted a four-foot fence, the Commission accepted staff’s
recommendation, based on further site-specific investigation, that no part of the fence height
exceed three feet. The Commission members noted ~hat the appellant’s proposal of installing
an industrial safety mirror on the corner of the house would not provide an adequate
substitute for clear vision and would be a detriment to public safety.
Although the Commission sympathized with the homeowner and agreed that the need for
family privacy was valid, it did not, however, override the concern for pedestrian safety,
specifically children walking or riding bikes on the sidewalk. The Commission
recommended a three-foot-high fence in the sight distance triangle, since Transportation and
Planning staff recommended a maximum height of three feet as an alternative to prohibiting
any fence in the sight distance triangle.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Planning Commission minutes dated 10/28/98
B. Planning Commission Report and Attachments dated 10/28/98
Plans (City Council Members only)
PREPARED BY: Carolynn Bis_sett, Associate Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:~. ~
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
cc: Victor Greene, 581 Addison Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
CMR:427:98 Page 2 of 2
EXCERPT of DRAFT minutes of the Palo Alto Planning Commission
Attachment A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
October 28, 1998
REGULAR MEETING - 6:00 PM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL:
Session called to order at 6:00 P.M.
Commissioners:
Owen Byrd, Chairman
Kathy Schmidt, Vice-Chair
Bern Beecham
Annette Bialson
Phyllis Cassel
Jon Schink
Patrick Burt
Staff:
Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official
George White, Planning Manager
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Wynne Furth, Senior Attorney
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
Amy French, Associate Planner
Carolynn Bissett, Associate Planner
O.~.C.OMMUNICATIONS: Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda.
with a’l~tation of three minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker’s re)~a,~.st card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning Commission
reserves. the r!gh~mait the oral communications period to 15 minutes.
Chai_rman B_yrd: The f~tem on our agenda is Oral Communications. This is the time when
_members of the public may’~ak to items not on the regular agenda. I have no cards for Oral
Communi.catio_ns._ Seeing no one-~o wishes to address us in that section we will close that and
mov~a Changes, Additions’~d~.Deletions. Do Commissioners have any changes? Then
move_ 1 .go tO_ Unf’.mish_ed B _~io,.ess. Our Unf’mished Business item tonight is our
~nss’mg Incentives~ Benefits for the Proposed Historic Preservation
?~din_an~e~ .W°7. S?_ff_ lik~ t° ~e__mind us where~
M~al:- Atthe last me~g on October 14 the Commission
com~at were liste~,~.hat is shown on the overhead
proj~ last meet’mg, to ass~e Commission as well as
chment A is what
then they are
r in terms
chnica~
items that the Commission went through are shaded and you have already prov d
City of Palo Alto Page I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
C9mmissioner Beecham: I think that a general approach here is to encourage people to remodel
an~,g,,dd and change if necessary rather than tear a place down and build a new house. So that iswhy w,,e" are in fact considering giving people additional FAR as long as they save the existing
structur~,,~nd go through a design review as an alternative to knocking down a contributing
structure oix4,ignificant but not landmark, and then we lose all the historic features of it. So that
is the intent o’f,,,what we are doing. It does change it certainly, that would be the effect in a large
number of caseg,,~ut the original structure would be largely maintained and the integrity in the
neighborhood woukl, be preserved in that manner. So that is the intent of what we are doing. It
may not _meet ~11 reqh~z~ments but that is our basic outline.
~: I thit~ !here is another issue that goes back to whether homeowners will
have the prer_oga_tive to comi~ or not comply with the historic preservation ordinancesl Under
the current dr.alft .permanent ~reXg~,lations there would not be the prerogative so we arent really
trying to provide incentives for people to prevent demolition. The Council might reconsider
whether to allow the significant resou~es to have voluntary compliance. In that case, we would
then be looking for incentives to discoi~ge demolition. That would not apply to the landmark
structures so any of the benefits ..that we ha’~ in here for landmark structures definitely would no, t
alter behavior in terms of demolition and as/t~ draft regulations are currently written it wouldn t
apply for the significant resources either. ~
_
Commissione~" Cassel: If the rest _oft.he ommisN~ners don’t mind, we have an agendizedmeeting starting at 7:00 and we would ~ontinue.this d~sion when we finish it.
.Chairman Byrd: Why don’t takea two minute break to alN,w Staff to change chairs and we’ll
continue with our agenda. _ ~ "
Let me call us back to order. T~" on our agenda is the a’N?roval of the minutes from
-our study session on September 30, 19981 _D~Iha~e a moli~n? ~
Commissioner Schmidt: I move approval of the minutes of September 30,N~8.
Commissioner Schink:Second.
Chairman Byrd: Any discussion~p osed? That passes’Xgz,0 which
brings us to new business. We have_ _age__nda this evening. ~ first
is an appeal of a fence variance for 581 Addison Street~llke to in~oduce thisxil;em
and introduce a new Staff member.
~81 Addison Street (File No. 98-V-13: Appeal by Victor Greene of the Zoning Administrator’s
approval of a Fence Variance condition limiting the height of.a six-foot fence that is currently
located in a site distance triangle. The condition allows the fence to be located in the vision site
distance triangle if it is four feet or less in height. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: R-1. This item is
tentatively scheduled for a public hearing with the City Council on November 16, 1998.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Ms. Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator: Thank you. I would like to begin with the introduction
of Carolynn Bissett. She is one of our Associate Planners. Some of you may recognize her from
the counter. She has been a Planning Technician with us for about three years and was recently
promoted to Associate Planner. She is the project planner for the 581 Addison project so she is
with us tonight for the first time.
Chairman Byrd: Welcome.
Ms. Grote: Moving into the item itself, this is a case of a six foot high fence that was constructed
in a street side setback and a site distance triangle adjacent to a driveway at a single family house.
This was constructed without a variance. It did come to us via a complaint from a neighbor to
our code enforcement officers who then referred it to us. Briefly, a site distance triangle is
defined as a triangular area 12 feet back from the corner of the driveway. Within that site
distance ~riangle nothing can be placed which would obscure clear site distance for a driver
backing out of the driveway. Typically things in a site distance triangle cannot exceed three or
four feet depending On individual cases in height. As I mentioned this did come to us via a
complaint. The applicant did meet with me as well as several other Staff members prior to
making his variance application. He was informed at that time the only two options available to
him would be to either apply for a variance or to move the six foot high fence out of both the
street side setback and the site distance triangle. He did opt to apply for the variance. The
variance was heard, I did approve it for the portion of the six foot high fence in the street side
setback. That portion was approved based on the variance findings that are included in your Staff
report. I attached a condition that required either a lowering of the fence in the site distance
triangle to four feet or less, or to move it completely out of the site distance triangle. The
applicant is now appealing that condition. He believes and has offered to put in an industrial
safety mirror a~ a substitute for-the clear site distance. I did not believe that that was an
acceptable alternative. I consulted several times with our transportation planning staff, they do
not accept industrial safety mirrors except in situation where there is no other alternative such as
a curving or an especially narrow road, perhaps in the foothills where there is ability to either
straighten the road or increase its width to provide clear site lines. In cases where there are
acceptable or reasonable alternatives such as moving structures or lowering structures, that’s what
they recommend. Based on transportation planning review of this particular item we are
recommending denial of the appeal thereby upholding the original condition of approval with the
modification to move the fence completely out of the sight distance triangle. Alternatively you
may want to consider a fence up to three feet in height. That is based on transportation planning’s
analysis that the highest or tallest that any structure should be in that site distance triangle. That
concludes this Staff report.
Chairman Byrd: Could Staff identify on Exhibit A which is on the overhead where the site
distance triangle is.
Ms. Grote: Let me see if I can point. From this point 12 feet this way and 12 feet that way. So
it goes in a triangle like that, roughly.
City of Palo Alto Page 18
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Chairman Byrd: Is that a City diagram that you can mark on?
Ms. Grote: I can mark on it. I don’t know if it is going to show up. Let me try. It won’t but
it basically goes 12 feet this way, 12 feet that way and then there is a triangular area. That’s a
rough estimation, we didn’t scale it.
Chairman Byrd: So the issue is the height of the fence along the two sides of that triangle.
Ms. Grote: That’s correct, or anywhere within the triangle.
Chairman Byrd: Where the applicant wants six feet and Staff is allowing three?
Ms. Grote: At this point it is a recommendation for either moving it out completely or up to three
feet in that area.
Chairman Byrd: On each of those sides.
Ms. Grote: Right.
Chairman Byrd: Okay, that helps. Any other questions for Staff?.
.Commissioner Cassel: The way this particular road is positioned, why would four feet not work?
If you are coming south the cars are going south on the house side of the road, on Webster.
Ms. Grote: In this particular case, the~e is the sidewalk along Webster Street, it is heavily used
by children going to the school nearby. It is an unusually highly trafficked area with bicyclists,
pedestrians, as well as automobiles. Given that our transportation planners really felt that three
feet would provide the best clearance. No matter what kind of a car you were driving you could
see over a three foot higfi fence. Whereas a four foot high fence in smaller cars you can’t see
over that four feet.
,Commissioner Burr: Does the site distance triangle regulation prevent shrubs from being grown
in that area?
Ms. Grote: It does. It would need to be ground cover or low plant material.
Commissioner Bialson: Do you happen to know what the height of the fence that the adjacent
neighbor has on the driveway side there? It think it’s a concrete or some other type of fence that
is now there. It looks like a retaining wall. It’s sort of stepped back, it’s lower towards the
sidewalk and a little higher as you go back towards the house. Do you know what that is?
Ms. Grote: I have not done that research. I don’t know the height. Often times when fences are
stepped back that way though, they are three feet at the lowest point and they step up gradually
to six feet but I don’t know in that case.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Commissioner Bialson: Can I ask, would the neighbor be subject to the same restriction then with
regard to the fence that they have on their side which obstructs the driveway visibility to the
sidewalk and the street?
Ms. Grote: If it is within a vision triangle, yes they are subject to the same restriction. We take
these on a complaint basis. So if someone has not yet complained about that we haven’t done
code enforcement on it.
Commissioner Cassel: That’s an old fence line on the other side, or appears to be, would that
perhaps pre-exist non-conforming? It doesn’t look to be that high.
Ms. Grote: I don’t know we’d have to look into that.
Chairman Byrd: Any other questions for Staff at this time. Seeing none then we will open the
public hearing. We would invite the appellant to speak first. If you are going to speak I need a
card filled out and given to the secretary. Please identify your name and address and for the
record, and you will have up to 15 minutes to present.
Mr. Victor Greene (appellant), 581 Addison Avenue, Palo Alto: My name is Victor Greene and
I’m the appellant. My wife and I and our children live at 581 Addison. Basically it was our
intention to put up the fence so we would have some small measure of privacy. This is an old
house. It was built in 1905. There is no real setback. The house itself is only six feet from the
sidewalk. When we moved in we were unaware that there was a requirement to get a fence
permit. That was pointed out to us afterwards. When we put the fence up we tried to make it
basically part of the community and. make it nice. The reason we had it six foot high along the
street, as I put in the letter, was we wanted to have some buffer from the street because the house
is right on it and we had no real options. We have no yard at all. There is no usable front yard
that we can sit in. The only area that we could make just a little private seating area was there
in the backyard. Although it shows that it is nine feet wide, there are stairs that go down to the
basement so you have no use between the garage and the house, where we put the fence up along
the driveway line and along the street was simply so that we could put a small table out there and
sit in the backyard. Also to put the bicycles of our two sons out there and they wouldn’t be taken.
We really didn’t have much possibility to have any yard at all and we are asking just for a
minimum. When I was told about the problem I suggested that we could put up an industrial
mirror and I attached as an exhibit, just out of a regular homeowner magazine, an industrial
security mirror. I, myself have seen those on buildings all over when you have narrow alleys.
I see those on the comers of the commercial buildings in cities. I thought by putting that up we
would be able to come within the desired City enhanced safety. We’ve been extremely dutiful in
exiting the driveway, always looking out for pedestrians and motorists. Certainly we carry
homeowners insurance liability and we are trying to do everything we can to abide by the letter
of the law. We felt that under the circumstances this was means for the City to give us at least
some modicum of privacy and us to certainly try to abide by the code.
Chairman Byrd: Axe there questions for the appellant? Commissioner Schmidt.
Oty of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Commissioner Schmidt: Did you build the solid fence right by the driveway? There are two types
of fences there. One is a spaced white picket fence and the other is more of solid redwood fence.
Did you build both of those fences or did any of it exist prior?
Mr. Greene: Some of it did exist prior. Along the entire side of Webster Street there was a white
picket fence, it was three feet high. What we did was we took it from that area and moved it
around and then used that on the front of the house and on the site triangle for the corner. Then
we put the six foot high pickets all the way along the house so that we’d have light and air coming
in to the side. We didn’t want to obstruct the side of the house we just wanted to have it so there
was a little bit of psychological buffer. We have a five and one-half year old and a teenage, I was
more concerned about the five and one-half year old. I just didn’t feel comfortable about people
just walking right up off the sidewalk and looking into the window and seeing if he was there.
As far as the backyard, the only reason why I put the solid fence up is I didn’t want people to see
the bicycles. That was the only reason.
Commissioner Bialson: Do you happen to know how high the fence is of you neighbors that is
contiguous to the driveway? The one that I cited before that looks like a cement retaining wall.
Mr. Greene: I didn’t actually go with a tape measure and measure it but I can tell you
approximately. It has now, since the summer, kind of Spanish red tile not curved but flat and it
is staggerg. When you come to the sidewalk I believe it is about this high. I don’t want to make
it too high for my neighbor or too low, I think it is something like that. I don’t knbw how long
that.has been there. I don’t want to antagonize anyone but I jog through the neighborhood and
there is a ton of fences all of which are like mine. In fact, what threw me off is that when we
moved into the neighborhood we wanted to make our house look like all the houses around us.
The fences on so many houses onall the streets around there are just like that so that’s why it
never dawned on me that we were out of compliance. Maybe they are grandfathered in, I don’t
know.
Commissioner Burr: You mentioned several reasons why you were interested in having the six
foot fence along Webster Street, the area that is under discussion is just that 12 foot section
adjacent to the driveway. What significant hardships would you incur by not being allowed a six
foot fence in just that 12 foot space?
Mr. Greene: Well, the line is as shown. You don’t have any yard at all. We couldn’t even put
a table or chairs there because right where the driveway -- well, may I approach the diagram to
show you?
Chairman Byrd: Yes, but please pick up that mike there and speak into it.
Mr. Greene: Right here there is a gate so that my children, and I of course go through there too,
you can go through this gate and into the side yard. There is an area here, there is an entry. It
is kind of an odd house it has the upstairs, you walk up several feet to the upstairs and then you
walk down a stairwell that goes from here down and then you enter the lower portion which
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
would be like a basement to the house over here. That stairwell has a railing that runs along here.
So there is no usable space here and here where the stairwell has the end of the railing which
comes like that. So although this looks like there may be space there is really no space to put a
table. If we put a table we would be able to put it here and some chairs and then just leave the
bikes here or right up against here. We have one of the bikes right about here at the gate. All
we wanted to do was have a little area where we could sit and put some plants. We haven’t done
anything because we were concerned that obviously if we were going to have to take it out there
wouldn’t be any point in putting it in.
Commissioner Burt: Mr. Greene are you presuming that your option would be to put the six foot
fence diagonally there as opposed to just reducing the height of the fence and leaving it where it
is.
Mr. Greene: Well, I did get the letter from the City that we could lower it to four feet. I would
certainly consider doing that but I thought that if we did that then we didn’t have any privacy
really either because people are looking right in at us. We don’t have a yard. I just want to have
some buffer so I can sit there and enjoy the sun.
Chairman Byrd: Mr. Greene where did you propose mounting the mirror? Can you explain that
solution to us?
Mr. Greene: Yes. On the site elevation, well it’s not on that drawing, there is a site elevation.
I’ll just explain it. I was going to put the mirror up right on the corner of the house because the
house is only six feet back. I looked at it and.decided that the distance that would allow me to
see, from coming out of the garage, would be about 10 feet. The height of the house is about 12
feet and so I angled the mirror down and have a large enough mirror so that you could see all of
the pedestrian traffic here, Here there is no problem in seeing anyone. It would be to allow me
to see people right here. Going out slowly I’d certainly have more than adequate time to see
who’s here. It is interesting that house itself, I thought when I talked to Mr. Stoppel from the
City, the house itself I understand comes out somewhat into that plane, but now I’m not sure.
Maybe with that it is cutting off from the edge of the house but when you are coming out the
garage the edge of the house in fact actually blocks part of that area. I thought that that would
be just the same as what I’d seen on buildings that are on alleyways when cars are coming out of
the alley.
Chairman Byrd: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Please do fill out a card for the
clerk. Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak, to this item?
Mr. Adrian Arima, 1052 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: My name is Adrian Arima. I’m a citizen.
I live at 1052 Bryant Street which is not too far from this location so I am familiar with this
house. I’ve actually also been in it when it was on the market one time. I wasn’t intending to
speak on this but since I am familiar with the property and live in the neighborhood, I just wanted
to mention three things that struck me when I was listening to the discussion here. One is that this
is an extremely small lot and when we looked at the lot it is very difficult to realize the enjoyment
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
of the property. I really sympathize with this homeowner in that that’s the only space I think that
he has available for his privacy and private use of his yard. Basically the rest of this entire yard
is dedicated to public use because of the narrowness of the setback, the location on the corner and
the fact that he has put in fences that allow you to look through them, they are a picket kind of
fence. The second point I’d like to make is that this is a wonderfully restored house. One of the
reasons we did look at it was to get some ideas on how to restore our own house which is a turn
of the century house as well. I think that the homeowners, not only this one but the previous
ones, have maintained that property as a good example of a restored house. It is very nicely
maintained and I think that that should be taken into consideration when considering the problems
of the homeowner. Then finally, I would think that for a site triangle for a driveway that there
could be some more leeway than there would be on the corner because that is a much less
frequently use entrance and exit-way. It is not an alleyway, it is not a public right of way. It is
a small single family home where the homeowner is going to be once or twice or a few times a
day going in and out. I think that some leeway could be given to them in that situation and I
would encourage you to do so if you feel it is appropriate for the public safety.
Chairman Byrd: Thank you very much. Seeing no other members of the public who wish to
address this item I will close the public hearing and return this item to the Commission. Does
anyone have further questions for Staff or opening discussion remarks?
Commissioner Cassel: Lisa, the site triangle is 12 feet, what’s the difference in the picket fence?
It’s more open? You’re drawing this because it is ttiree feet beyond the end of the house. Is the
picket fence open enough in itself?.
Ms. Grote:. Yes.
Commissioner Cassel: If you had to do something in dropping the height can you leave that six
feet height up to the corner of the house?
Ms. Grote: In our review and our discussions, again with transportation planning, no the picket.
fence is not sufficiently open enough to allow that clear site distance that you need. So we would
recommend against a picket fence at six feet high as well.
Commissioner Beecham: I don’t have any questions, I’m ready to jump in. To start of I would
say I feel sorry for you. You’ve got a difficult situation, you’ve got no backyard. I understand
all the reasons you’ve done what you’ve done. I’m sure you’re concerned about your young child
and I would be too. As the I read the report over and over again, and I think more about the 12
foot site distance, I think about the school kitty-corner from your house, I think about my
experience, I live downtown and back out on a street that has lots of pedestrians, one of the
hardest things that I have to do is to watch for kids and dogs and people coming with baby
carriages. It’s very tough and I think that proposed solution of putting a large industrial mirror
will not be adequate. There is just too much chance in this situation of something terrible
happening. So as sympathetic as I am toward all of the reasons that you have, good reasons, for
wanting to have your fence there, when it comes to talking about the f’mdings I am not going to
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
be able to make the finding that there is no detriment to public safety of having certainly a six foot
fence and I think even a four foot fence here. I know that kids and dogs aren’t easy to see. If
they’re skipping or running, things are going to happen fast, and you need every possible chance
you can get to see what’s happening out there. So from my point of view, I wish we had more
options for you, but in the situation you have and especially located near the school as you are I
can’t see how I could support anything but the safest way to go with this.
Commissioner Burt: I concur with Bern. The adjacency to the school is probably paramount in
my considerations and something I think we need to bear in mind is that we are not only talking
about kids who are often under four feet tall in elementary school, but the kids who also ride bikes
on sidewalks. It is a fairly frequent occurrence, it may not be the recommended practice but when
you come out of a driveway there and are blocked you can come out at a very slow pace and still
hit someone barreling down the sidewalk. I can personally attest to that having run into a car in
my younger days in an identical circumstance. So I just think that the child safety issue if the
overriding concern.
Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate the privacy need and the enjoyment of your property. I’ve
tried to look at the site in every way possible to try to get around this 12 foot triangle. I was at
your home this afternoon as a matter of fact. I’m the person who drove into your driveway and
drove out_ a couple of times. I couldn’t come up with any way around it. While I don’t like
having to restrict your use of the property I just f’md that the safety issue, especially with children,
overrides all these other concerns. I’m sorry that we can’t come up with something. I tried
thinking of a picket fence that was a little wider and would still give you the sense of privacy but
as I was in your driveway perhapg the second time I didn’t think that would work eiflaer. I am
going to have to join Bern and Patrick with regard to voting against this measure.
Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with all the statements that have been made by my colleagues.
Commissioner Cassel: Do all of you feel that no fence is the option here or is a three foot fence
an option? That provides, at least a measure against children running out in the street from that
yard.
Commissioner Bialson: I think the three foot fence would be acceptable. That’s part of why I
kept going back and forth. I have a very high car that might be part of what makes me think that
the three foot fence would be acceptable. I don’t know who else went in and out of the driveway
with perhaps a lower car.
Commissioner Cassel: I wasn’t driving, I was walking. So I was trying to walk down that and
see what it felt like as the pedestrian. Unfortunately you can’t see the driveway until you are right
upon it when you are the pedestrian. My concern with the mirror is that the kids aren’t looking
at the mirror, the kids aren’t looking at the car. That’s my concern. I think what Commissioner
Burt said was that he ran into the car, not the car ran into him. It seems unreasonable not to allow
a three foot fence at this location. That would at least allow the children that are in the yard to
not run out into the street, being so close to the street. It doesn’t give the visual protection but
City of Palo Alto Page 24
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
it does give a physical protection for the yard, the children that are there and so the same thing
occurs. People aren’t running into the yard and right up to the house. So I thought I could make
the findings if we allowed a three foot fence in that position.
Commissioner Beecham: In the report we have a copy of Carl Stoppel’s memo referencing three
feet. The Staff report however does not seem to recommend a three feet fence. Is that correct?
Ms. Grote: Currently our recommendation is for the fence to be moved completely out of the site
distance triangle. In our conversations with Carl Stoppel it hasn’t reflected in the memo, three
feet is an acceptable alternative to our recommendation.
Chairman Byrd: Doesn’t that put the appellant in kind of a tough spot? If he hadn’t appealed he
would be living with Staff’s original recommendation of four _feet and now in the wake of the
appeal process Staff has changed its recommendation from four feet to no fence at all.
Ms. Grote: Or as an alternative three feet. But yes, as part of the appeal process and part of the
additional review that an appeal generates there was a closer look at the situation and it was
determined that three feet is the maximum rather than the four feet that we sometimes use in other
circumstances, such as along University Avenue.
Commissioner Schink: So if the appellant withdrew his appeal would he have the four feet now
or has he lost it?
Ms. Furth: It is regrettable when the City fn’st makes an error when it first looks at an application
but it has now been brought to your attention and corrected. Or at least correction has been
suggested.
Chairman Byrd: Jon’s question is a good one because we merely advise the City Council and so
regardless of our recommendation, if the appeal was withdrawn before it goes to the Council he
would still retain a four foot height, wouldn’t he?
Ms. Furth: Unless somebody else appealed it.
Chairman Byrd: That’s true. Jon.
Commissioner Schink: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council that we deny the appeal and uphold the original variance conditions amended to say that
the fence shall be three feet within the vision triangle.
Commissioner Cassel: Second.
Chairman Byrd: Discussion on the motion, Bern.
Commissioner Beecham: I would vote against the motion.Let’s talk about how Palo Alto is a
City of Palo Alto Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
City of process and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t work. In this case I would not
want process to get in the way of the right solution. The right solution is a maximum three foot
fence and I think it is clear that that’s required for public safety. You said three feet? In that case
I mis-heard. In that case I would support it.
Chairman Byrd: Any other comments on the motion? I think it’s unfair to the applicant given
the unique circumstances of this property to reduce that fence height from the original Staff
recommendation. Frankly, if there had been the votes for it I probably could have made the
findings. You can dearly make fmding one on the extraordinary circumstances and finding two
on preservation of a substantial property right. The issue is finding three about public safety.
Clearly there is no interest in a six foot fence but it seems to me that the original Staff finding of
four feet, given the unique characteristics of this property, is probably reasonable.
Commissioner Schink: I disagree. I lived on a street where my neighbor had a four foot fence
right next to my driveway and it scared the hell out of me everyday when I would back out of that
driveway. Three feet is the right number. It is not a safe situation.
Commissioner Burt: I agree it’s very regrettable that the applicant originally may have had the
prerogative of the four foot fence but I also agree with those young school children there, many
of them are four feet at best.
Chairman Byrd: If there is no further discussion why don’t we have a vote on the motion. All
in favor? (ayes) Opposed? Motion carries 7-0. Does Staff have a date when this item will be
heard by Council?
Ms. Grote: This is scheduled to be heard on November 16th.
Chairman Byrd: Very good. Thank you very much.
"~0~xt item on our agenda is a variance application for a property in the foothills. Would Staff
_mti~du~ please.
4020 Pa_~e Mill Ro"ad4File Nos.: 98-V-10, 98-EIA-9): Application of Scott Selover and Kathleen
Roskos for Variance appr~o construct an addition to an existing single family residence that
is setback 70 feet from Page l~ad where 200 feet is required and covers 11.7 % of the site
with impervious surfaces where 3."5--~s the maximum coverage allowed. Environmental
Assessment: An Initial_Stu.dy ha.s been om-’pte~d and a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
Zoning District: OS. This item is tentatively sche-’6ul~d for a public hearing with the City Council
on November 16, 1998. ~
Mr. George White, Ply0 c_larify" ...... the app~n of Scott Selover is for
site and design appro~ddi~i;n to~ting single-family
dwelling and related site~tive declaratio’b’n~ the project.
Staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Counc approve
s mat me Planning (2omrmssion recommend to the City Counc~.~
City of Palo Alto Page 26
Attachment B
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
Carolynn Bissett, Associate Planner
October 28, 1998
Department: Planning
SUBJECT:581 Addison Street (File No. 98-V-13): Appeal by Victor Greene of
the Zoning Administrator’s approval of a Fence Variance condition
limiting the height of a six foot fence that is currently located in a sight
distance triangle. The condition allows the fence to be located in the
sight distance triangle only if it is four feet or less in height.
Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act. Zone District: R-1.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend _that the City Council deny the appeal
and amend the original Variance Condition No.2 to state that no fence at all shall be allowed in the
sight distance triangle.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant desires to keep an existing six foot high fence located the street side yard setback and
in a sight distance lriangle, adjacent to an existing driveway that provides access to a detached
garage. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (R-l), and is located across the street from
Addison Elementary School. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 16.24.060 states:
"...no fence may be constructed for a clear distance of twelve feet from the point of intersection of
driveway and property lines." This triangular area is referred to as a "sight distance triangle". In the
City of Palo Alto fences booklet, which is a guideline for implementing the fence ordinance, a site
distance triangle is shown as a graphic under "Back-To-Back" comer lots and refers to a triangular
S:/Plan!Pladiv I PCSR/58 laddis.sr Page 1
area twelve feet back from the edge of the driveway and twelve feet back from the property
line.
Existing Site Characteristics
The site is a corner lot in an established residential neighborhood measuring approximately
37.5 by 100 feet and totaling 3,750 square feet in area. Based on the lot size and width, the
lot is determined to be substandard. In addition, the location of the existing detached garage
limits the functioning portion of the rear yard. Under current zoning regulations this type of
detached structure would be required to meet setbacks or be at least 75 feet back from both
street property lines. The garage structure is considered legal noncomplying and can remain
in its existing location because it was built prior to the 75 foot distance requirement being
incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC).
PROJECT INFORMATION
Appellant/Owner:
Assessor’s Parcel Number:
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Zoning District:
Existing Use:
Surrounding Land Use:
BACKGROUND
Victor Greene .
120-05-063
Residential
R-1
Single Family Residential
North: Multi Family Residential
East: Public Facility - School
South: Single Family Residential
West: Single Family Residential
On December 26, !997, a complaint was filed with the Building Inspection Division’s Code
Enforcement Officer regarding the height and location of a newly constructed fence on the
subject site. -The Code Enforcement. Officer conducted a site visit and confn’med that the
fence violated height and location requirements (Section 16.24.020 of the PAMC). The six
foot high fence had been constructed within the 16 foot street side setback and in the sight
distance triangle adj~icent-to the driveway. The PAMC permits fences up to four feet in
height in the street side setback and does not permit fences the sight distance triangle.
The property owner met with the Zoning Administrator on Monday, February 2, 1998, to
discuss a possible application for a fence variance. He was informed that there did not
appear to be grounds for a variance to allow a portion of the fence to be located in the sight
distance triangle since the fence would create a safety hazard by obstructing the view of
pedestrians on the sidewalk and bicyclists and vehicles in the street. The. property owner was
informed that if a variance were to be considered and approved, a condition would be
attached requiring the portion of the fence in the sight distance triangle adjacent to the
driveway to be removed from the triangle completely or reduced in height to four feet.
S:/Plan/Pladiv [ PCSR/581addis.sr Page 2
The above information was provided only as guidance and staff indicated to the applicant
that final determination as to the outcome of the decision and any conditions would require
a formal application and subsequent evaluation based upon the facts presented.
The applicant filed for a fence variance on June 2, 1998. The Zoning Administrator
conducted a public hearing to consider the application on July 16, 1998 (see Attachment B -
minutes of the 7/16/98 Zoning Administrator hearing). The neighbor at 1022 Webster Street,
two sites south of the subject site, wrote a letter in support of the existing fence as long as
concerns for public safety were addressed (see Attachment C).
On July 27, 1998 the Zoning Administrator approved the fence Variance application with
a condition to lower the fence to four feet in height within the sight distance triangle adjacent
to the driveway or to move the six foot fence completely out of the sight distance triangle
(see attachment D).
On August 5, 1998, the applicant appealed Condition No. 2 of the Zoning Administrator’s
approval (see Attachment E).
The four foot height alternative was based on PAMC Section 16.24.020(c)(5) which permits
fences at that height in the sight distance triangle on University Avenue. However, more
extensive review, after the appeal was filed; indicated that the four foot fence height is
inadvisable in this location due to the close proximity of the school and the recommendation
of the Transportation Division.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposal is in conflict with Poiicy L-12 of the Land Use and Community Design
Element of the Comprehensive Plan which seeks to "Preserve the character of residential
neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the
neighborhood and adjacent structures." The proposal does not preserve the ’character of
the existing neighborhood’ because it creates an unsafe condition next to a public sidewalk
and street. In addition, the proposal is in conflict with Policy T-40 of the Transportation
Element of the Comprehensive Plan which seeks to "’Continue to prioritize the safety and
comfort of school children in street modification projects that affect travel routes." This
allowance of a fence in a sight distance triangle could result in negative impacts to
pedestrians using the sidewalk adjacent to the driveway, by decreasing the ability to safely
see school children and other people on .the sidewalk, and vehicles and bicyclists in the street.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Required Variance Findings:
S:/Plan!Pladiv I PCSR/58 laddis.sr
There are three required findings that must be made to approve a Variance (PAMC Sec.
18.90.020). The analysis below states each of the required findings for the Variance, the
Zoning Administrator’s rationale in making the findings and conditions for approval and a
discussion of the appellant’s objections and staff’s response to these objections.
Variance Finding #1: "There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to
properties in the same district."
Staff examined the subject site and other available parcel information and determined that
this 3,750 square foot, rectangular parcel is substantially smaller, in size, overall shape and
existing development patterns than other lots in the vicinity. The Zoning Administrator
therefore found that an unusual or unique circumstance existed.
Staff acknowledges that this lot is substantially smaller than other corner lots in the
immediate vicinity and the location of the existing house limits the amount of usable
outdoor private space. The fence in the street side setback enables the small corner lot to
have additional outdoor private space.
Although the unusual circumstances, including lot size, configuration and house location,
substantiates the reason for a six foot high fence in the street side setback, the construction
of the. six foot high fence in a s!ght distance triangle adjacent to a driveway causes obstructed
views for pedestrians; bicyclists and drivers. The high fence in the sight distance triangle
severely obscures the view between the driver in the driveway and that of oncoming
pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles.
The appellant agrees that there:are unusual circumstances On the site and does not dispute the
first variance finding. He offers an alternative to moving or lowering the fence, which
involves placing a convex industrial safety mirror at the end of the driveway to assist drivers
in seeing pedestrians, bicyclists and other vehicles. This alternative is discussed in detail
under variance finding #3 below.
Variance Finding #2: "The granting of the application is necessary for the
preservation or enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to
prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship."
The Zoning Administrator determined that a fence, which meets street side yard setbacks,
could not be located on the property and still provide a usable outdoor yard comparable to
other houses in the area, due to the location of the existing house and detached garage. In
order to prevent an unreasonable property loss and to provide privacy and security, the street
side yard setback variance was granted, with the condition to lower the portion of the fence
S:/Plaa/Pladiv ] PCSR/581 atktis.sr
Page 4
in the sight distance triangle to four feet or less, or to move the six foot high fence
completely out of the sight distance triangle.
The appellant asserts that Condition No.2 has improperly limited his property rights because
he has such a small backyard that he needs to have the fence in the sight distance triangle to
obtain a reasonably sized private outdoor area. He also contends that a substantial property
right is lost because the house was built only six feet from the Webster Street sidewalk and
that there is no buffer zone between the sidewalk and the house (see Attachment E).
Staff agrees with the Zoning Administrator’s decision that variance findings can be made to
allow the portion of the nonconforming fence in the street side setback for the reasons stated
in the variance findings. Staff could not, however, support a fence location in a sight
distance triangle that potentially endangers anyone using the public sidewalk or street. No
unreasonable loss of property results from a variance condition that protects public safety.
As previously noted, the appellant offers an altemative solution for the safety concem and
suggests the use of a convex industrial safety mirror placed at the end of the driveway so that
drivers and pedestrians can be seen from the driveway.
Variance Finding #3: "The granting of the variance will be not detrimental to
property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, general .welfare or convenience."
In its present location, staff has determined the nonconforming, fence is a detriment to the
adjacent properties and to the surrounding neighborhood. The existing six. foot fence is
located within the sight distance triangle and obscures the clear vision of Vehicles exiting the
driveway. The potential exists for increased accidents and.the endangerment of people
walking on the sidewalk or vehicles and bicyclists using the street. The public health, safety,
and welfare is compromised by a fence in the sight distance Mangle.
Upon receiving the appeal to the approved fence variance condition, the Transportation
Division of the Planning Department reevaluated the height of a fence inthe sight distance
triangle at this location (see Attachment F). Research provided by the Transportation
Division indicates that the view from the detached garage’s driveway is impeded by a fence
located in the sight distance triangle and presents a potential public safety issue due to the
high volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
The Transportation Division recommendsthat the portion of the fence located in the sight
distance triangle be removed completely or an acceptable alternative would be to reduce the
height to three feet or less. Based on Transportation Division’s recommendation, staff
recommends modifying the original Variance Condition No.2 to remove the fence in the
S:/Plan/Pladiv [ PCSR/58 laddis.sr Page 5
si~,ht distance triangle.
The appellant recommends that an industrial security mirror (see Attachment E) be installed
about ten feet above the ground, and angled downward to provide a solution to the sight
distance problem. He .believes the mirror is as safe as a clear line of sight. Planning and
Transportation Division staffdo not recommend the installation of a mirror as an acceptable
substitute for a clear line of sight. Safety mirrors are only considered when there are no
other possible alternatives available. These mirrors should only be utilized under extreme
circumstances, i.e. narrow or winding roads, where additional right of way can not be
obtained to straighten curves or widen roadways. In those instances, safety mirrors provide
some relief from hazardous conditions. When there are available alternatives to solving
safety problems, such as lowering or moving a fence, those alternatives are recommended.
General Comments:
It should be noted that the findings for the original variance approval were inadvertently
omitted from the letter mailed to the applicant on July 28, 1998. This omission does not
invalidate the original approval, with conditions, but may explain why the appellant states
that the Zoning Administrator’s condition requiring the fence to be lowered in height or
moved out of the sight distance triangle appeared arbitrary and capricious. The appellant has
been contacted about the omission and has been provided a copy of the amended variance
with the. findings (see Attachment G). After reviewing the findings, the appellant has
decided to continuehis appeal of Condition No.2.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public Notice of this Planning Commission appeal hearing was provided by publication of
the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and
utility customers within "300 feet of the project site were mailed a public notice card.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The original proposal was determined to be categorically exempt from further environmental
review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the appeal is tentatively scheduled to
be considered by the City Council on November 16, 1998.
S:/Plan/Pladiv I PCSR/58 laddis.sr Page 6
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachment B: Minutes of the July 16, 1998 Zoning Administrator hearing
Attachment C: Letter of Support for variance
Attachment D: Original decision letter from the Zoning Administrator dated 7/27/98
Attachment E: Letter of Appeal dated 8/5/98 (with attached advertisement for an industrial
safety mirror)
Attachment F: Transportation Memo dated 9/17/98
Attachment G: Amended Decision Letter from the Zoning Administrator date 9/30/98
Plans (Planning Commission members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Victor Greene, 581 Addison Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Carolyrm Bissett, Associate Planner
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Division Head Approval:Eric Pdel Jr., Chief Planning Official
Attachment A
Graphic Attachment
to Staff Report
Date: 10-14-98 File #: 98-V-13 Scale: 1" = 400’
EXCERPT MINUTES
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING
Attachment B
July 16, 1998
581 Addison Avenue (98-V-13): Application by Victor and Janna Greene for Variance approval
to construct a six foot high fence where otherwise only on four foot high fence is allowed.
Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act. Zone District: R-1.
Victor Greene, 581 Addition, Palo Alto, Owner: I have submitted a letter dated May 17, 1998
along with two dia~ams, one being an elevation and the other being site plans of the residence
and the property. We’ve asked that we would be given a variance to allow us to consmact a six
foot tall fence along Webster Street. The property that we live in is a very historic property. It
was built in 1905 and does not conform to today’s Zoning regulations. The lot itself is very
narrow, it is only 37 ½ feet wide by 100 feet long. Due to the extreme narrowness of the lot the
house itself is located in a non-conforming manner. The house is only six feet from the sidewalk
and as a result of that we have a downstairs window that is very close to the public sidewalk.
Several years ago we converted the basement to two bedrooms. One of the bedrooms is occupied
by oneof our children who is five years of age. Considering his exixeme youth, I felt that the
height of the fencewas ah important matter.
Instead of complying with the current.city code which is four foot high in a street side setback,
we constructed the fence to be six foot high for two reasons: 1) as a matter of security because he
¯ is so small and we don’t want pebple to walk up to the window and look into his bedroom. 2)
Just to get some privacy there so we can have little side yard withplants, without people just
stepping off the sidewalk and being in our yard. Originally, there was a small fence that was
about three foot high in that location. We used that original fence and connected to the front of
the property and tied that in so we can use the original fence which was a picket fence with white
pickets and carried the same theme of the white pickets on to the side on Webster. Keeping the
same distance between the pickets and the same color. All it does is increase the height of the
pickets. They are three inches apart, so, it allows a lot of light to come through. The fence also
frames the house in a very nice manner and we think the fence allows the property to be shown
better.
In essence, we have difficulty making the fence any shorter without sacrificing some safety as
well as some privacy. We don’t think the fence would have any negative impact on our
neighbors or the community.
Ms. Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator: Did anyone discuss the sight distance Mangle issues with
you prior to the application for a variance?
Mr. Greene: Yes. In terms of the sight distance triangle, I had a discussion both with yourself
and Mr. White and a gentlemen by the name of Carl Stoffel. Mr. Stoffel said that he had not
come out to the property. He was just talking in theory over the phone. I asked him if he would
like to come out to the p~:operty. He said he didn’t think that was necessary. He said that the
back of the house, being so close to the garage, the house itself impacted on the vision triangle.
This is a matter I should discuss further with someone. I also spoke with Dorothy Miner and her
concern was the height of the fence. She instructed me to apply for a variance on the height of
the fence. Concurrent with that would be getting a setback variance for the portion of the fence
that is right up along the sidewalk. Therefore, I am Wing to do everything that I been asked to
do.
.Ms. Grote: Does a portion of the fence intrude on the sight distance triangle at the comer or is it
just intruding on the sight distance triangle adjacent to the driveway?
.Mr Greene: The fence does not go all the way back. The fence, as I indicated on the diagram,
becomes a three-foot fence and there is no impact at all on the comer sight distance triangle. We
dropped down to the three foot, in fact, the fence is well out of the vision triangle at the comer.
When Dorothy Miner came out, she said that everything was free.
Ms. Grote: So the only encroachment is on the driveway sight distance triangle?
Mr. Greene: Yes, that’s correct. I showed plans to Dorothy Miner and she said that the primary
concern was getting the variance and subsequent to that is the encroachment.
Ms. Grot¢; Can you explain your concept of the industrial safety mirror and how you think it
Will work?
~ I proposed to Mr.Stoffel tO put either a mirror that would allow drivers to see or
some sort of a camera.. Mr. Stoffel said that he really would not be involved in that decision. He
does not know what to pursue further than that. We are very careful when we back up.
Ms. Grote: Please explain what you think will happen if the fence now located in the sight
distance triangle were moved to a conforming location?
Mr. Greene: In terms of the backyard, we would not have any real access. There is a gate close
to where the garage is located where you would go from the end of the driveway into the garage..
There is a gate there. The problem is that it would cut offmost of the side yard. What we are
Wing to do is just to have some sort of minor yard there. The area between the house and the
garage is really big on the-diagram, but it is a really small area because there is a stairway which
comes up in that 9-foot side yard. So, there are only a very few feet there andthere is no place to
put a table or anything. Actually, bicycles and little tables and chairs are in that little area
between the driveway and the house. It just unbelievably small. It actually looks bigger on
paper than in reality. It is just space of two people standing side by side. "There are plants on the
side of the house, e.g. rosebush. They are planted along there and there is no side yard.
Ms. Grote: Do you understand that the code does not allow fences at all in a sight distance
triangle, but that sometimes we have allowed them to be 4 feet high if there are grounds for a
variance.
Mr. Greene: Yes, I understand that.
Ms. Grote: Do you also understand that I cannot approve anything as tall as 6 feet in a sight
distance triangle if I believe it would reduce visibility and reduce public safety.
Mr. Greene: I also understand that. IfI have a four-foot tall fence in that area, can I have lattice
work on the top of the four feet?
Ms. Grote: No, you can’t. It is a four-foot maximum including any lattice work.
Mr. Greene: Is there a way for me to use the industrial safety mirror as a substitute for lowering
or moving the fence?
Ms. Grote: I do not think the safety mirror is an acceptable substitute. Mirrors are typically
only used when no other physical solutions are possible. In this case; lowering or moving the
fence is a physical solution that provides better, safer results than a safety mirror.
Questions be.ing taken care of, I will now open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak
to this issue? OK seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Mr. Crreenee, do you have any
questions or anything further to add?
Mr. Greene: Have you considered that even if the fence is moved out of the sight distance
lriangle or lowered, that the house itself obscures some of the sight clearance of the driveway?
Ms. Grote: That may, in fact, be true, but the house itself is not in the sight distance triangle and
the topic at hand here is whether or not a fence should be allowed in the sight distance triangle
that would further reduce visibility.
Seeing no further questions or comments, I will issue a written determination on this item in 10
working days. Thank you for coming today.
Attachment C
Cityof Palo Alto
~rfvnent cy"P lannin g and
unity Environment
Attachment D
ApplicationNo. 98-V-13 581 Addison Avenue
Variance 98-V-13 is hereby issued for the location and construction of a six-foot-high
fence on the street side prope.rty line, where a four-foot-high fence is normally
maximum allowed, as per attached plans, at 581 Addison Avenue, Zone DisWict R-l,
Palo Alto, California. Project approval is based on the following findings and is
subject to the conditions listed below.
.CONDITIONS
The existing fence shall be lowered to a maximum height of six feet.
The portion of the fence that is currently located in the vision Mangle shall
be either relocated so that it is entirely out of the vision Mangle or lowered
so that it does not exceed four feet in height for any portion in the vision
triangle.
=
A Code Enforcement Officer shall be notified upon completion of the above
referenced conditions and shall conduct a site inspection to verify
compliance with these conditions.
Lisa Grote
Zoning Administrator
July 27, 1998
This Variance is granted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Chapter
18.90 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. This permit will become effective ten
days following the date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed as provided by Chapter
18.92 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. A copy of this letter shall accompany all
future requests for City permits relating to this approval.
250 Hamill~nAwmue
P.O.Box10250
Palo Alto, CA94303
415.329.2441
4.15.329.2240Fax
In the event that this approval is appealed, an additional letter will be mailed with
information regarding the scheduled hearing dates before the Planning Commission
and the City Council.
In any case in which the conditions to the granting of aVariance have not been
complied with, the Zoning Administrator shall give notice to the permittee of
intention to revoke such permit at least ten (10) days prior to a hearing thereon.
Following such hearing and if good cause exists therefore, the Zoning AdministratOr
may revoke the Variance.
A Variance which has not been used within one (1) year after the date of granting
becomes void, although the Zoning Administrator may, without a hearing, extend the
time for an additional year if an application to this effect is filed with him before the
expiration of the first year.
Applicant:Victor And Janna Greene
581 Addison Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Property Owner: same
cc. Dorothy Miner, Cityof Palo Alto Code Enforcement
a:kggv 13.fin.cb
Attachment E
Victor and Janna Greene
581 Addison. Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (650) 326-7734
August 5, 1998
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re:Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision
Application No. 98-V-13 581 Addison Avenue
Dear Sir or Madam Clerk:
This letter accompanies the form submitted in the appeal of the zoning administrator’s
decision on Application No. 98-V-13. The undersigned applicant hereby appeals from Zoning
Administrator Lisa Grote’s findings as contained in Condition No. 2 of the July 27, 1998
decision in this matter. In Condition No. 2, administrator Grote makes the. following findings:
"The portion of the fence that is currently located in the vision triangle shall be either
relocated so that it is entirely outofthe vision triangle or lowered so that it does not
exceed four feet in height for any portion in the vision triangle."
Administrator Grote does not refer to any particular section of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code in support of these findings. It would appear, however, that in making these findings
.administrator Grote relies upon Section 16.24.020 (c)(5) of Chapter 16.24 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code. This code section states, in pertinent part, as follows:
"Fences exceeding four feet in height shall not be located within a triangular area (’a
sight distance triangle’) measured from a driveway .... "
Applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Commission and City Council grant
applicant a variance from the restrictions contained in said section. In support of the _granting of
said variance, applicant points out that there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and
conditions applicable to the subject property that do not apply generally to other property
situated in the city_.
Applicant’s home, located in the Professorville district, was built in 1905. Applicant’s
home rests on an unusually narrow, nonconforming lot. The lot is only thirty-seven and one half
feet wide by one hundred feet long. The lot dimensions are inconsistent with present zoning
Zoriing Appeal Letter
August 5, 1998
Page 2
standards which prescribe a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. The site plans accompanying
this appeal, marked as Exhibits A and B, respectively, show that applicant’s home sits only six
feet back from the Webster Street property line.
The grantin~ of this appeal is necessary for the preservation and eniovment of a
substantial property right and to prevent unreasonable property loss and unnecessary hardship to
applicant. The house, resting only six feet back from the Webster Street sidewalk, affords to
applicant no privacy or buffer zone from the street and sidewalk passers-by. The site plan shows
there is only a thin nine-foot strip of property separating the rear of applicant’s home from
applicant’s garage and driveway. Applicant erected the six-foot high fence which encloses the
curtilage to create a small rear yard affording applicant security and safety and to permit
applicant to enjoy a substantial right to privacy on applicant’s nonconforming lot.
Applicant is mindful of the City’s interest to ensur~ for the safety of pedestrians and
motorists approaching applicant’s driveway in a ngrtherly direction on Webster Street.
Accordingly, applicant offered to remedy this perceived problem by installing a simple and
effective safety device--to witman industrial security mirror. A representative advertisement for
such a mirror accompanies this letter and has been marked as Exhibit C.
The mirror would be mounted on the rear comer of applicant’s home nearest the Webster
Street driveway. The mirror would be mounted about ten feet above the ground and be angled
downward to afford a vantage of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The driver of an automobile in
applicant’s driveway would see in the mirror pedestrians and automobiles approaching the
driveway. Thereby alerted, the driver could exercise due caution and deliberation in pulling out -
of the driveway. Applicant made a good faith offer to ensure for the public’s safety.
Administrator Grote dismissed thisoffer in what appears to be an arbitrary and capricious
manner and without due deliberation or reasonable cause.
Applicant contends the mirror is a reasonable and just compromise, balancing the City’s
public safety interest against applicant’s substantial right to the enjoyment of the full and best
use of applicant’s nonconforming lot. Accordingly, applicant requests that this appeal be granted
and that Condition No. 2 be modified to permit applicant to install the mirror and to retain the
fence at its present height of six feet.
Respectfully submitted,
Victor Greene
Applicant
Our Vehicle Alert Is Used
By the Border Patrol
The Vehicle Alert tells you when guests, delivery men or
"unexpected" visitors enter your driveway. This vehicledetection system is similar to those used by the U.S. Border
Patrol aod commercial drive-thru operations. When anautomobile passes by the drive~*~y probe a sophisticated
sensor detects subt e changes in the earth’s magnetic fieldand activates the alarm bu=er on the indoor control panel.
The walbmounted control panel features audible andvisual alarms, "test" and exit delay buttons, as well as aprobe sensitiviry adjustment. 115 volts; 6~/:’w x 4’/,"h.
Installation is easy. Simply bury the weatherproof probe
alongside driveway and run the cable to your house (wesuggest using a lawn edger to make a shallow trench)While I~-D ft. of cable is included, up to 1900 ft. of
additional cable may be used. A wide range of accessories
permits customi:ed installations, including additionaldrive**~,; probes, remote chimes and automat c activationof flood lights, doorbells, surveillance cameras etc. We
installed and tested this system here at Sporty’s’ it’s farsuperior to all others, blade in USA.
6043L Vehicle Alert ~ $225.00
60991. Optional Remote Chime ~ $25.00
60921. Optional 1.ight Switching
Module ~ $99.75
60961. Additional Probe Module ~ $85.00
11651. Additional Cable ~ 40¢ per foot
6102L Splice Kit for Additional Cable (required
when additional cable is.used) ~ $21.95
Chemical Mace
The Top Choice of
La w Enforcement
Agencies
Protect yourself and your family fromcriminal attack with legendary blace.
Just one shot causes a severe burningsensation to the eyes, involunmr,/
tears, breathing difficulty andstinging skin. Cannot permanently
harm. Gun-grip design allows you todraw, aim and spray in one easy motion.Fires 18 to 20 half-second bursts, up to 10 ft.
away’. Ideal for glovebox, purse, coat pocket,etc. (47,"1 x 1’/:" dia.; 3 o:.). blade in USA. -
4351 k Chemical Mace ~ $14.00
(three or more) ~ $12.75 ca.
43491_ Belt Holster for Mace ~ S8.00
Pepper Spray
From the makers of btace, this genuinepolice-strength pepper formula is designed
to stop attackers by causing intense painclosing of the eyes and shortness of
breath. Fires 18 to 20 half-secondbursts, up to 12 ft. away (4’/,’1 x I’/:" dia.;
1’/: o:.). Made in USA.
63021 PepperGard ~ $13.00
(three or more) ~ $11.75 ea.
Our Shatter-Resistant Security Mirrors
Help You See Around Blind’Corners
~EuVe, ryone h, as at !east pne.blind s~.~t that is a potential safety ~r security ha:ard, blaybe tall shrubs ors.nes at me ena ot me drive~*.’ay don’t allow you to see oncoming traffic, or an entry door m ght bepositioned where you can’t :ee who is knocking on your.door. Some concerns are for safety, others are for
security--either sva~; our security mirrors willhelp end these concerns. Both of theseconvex mirrors feature shatter-resistant
Plexiglas* lenses artd high impact construction.The large mirror measures 18" dia. and
includes swi,.el bracket for mounting to walls,poles, fence posts, trees, etc. It is ideal for
viewing large areas of hwn, mad or driveway.
Small 7" alia. mirror features a flexible neckand a dip-on mount. Ideal for installation
under house eaves, windmv trim, or whereverthe viewing area is confined. Made in USA.
85541. large Securlty Mirror ~ $75,00
65331 Small Security Mirror ~ $22.00
Large Security Mirror is ideal for large viewing areas
such as drivetrays, roads or lawns.
.
Small Security Mirror
48
To Order, Call 1-800-543-8633
or Fa~ 1-513-735-9200
Wall.MountPustPButton
Key Box
Spare Key Box
Is Used by Real
Estate Agents
Nationwide
This spare key box is reed widelyby real estate agents but is idealfor any homenwner~much
safer and more secure than
under a rock or doormat.
[~etrvices, house guests, etc. Set the three-combination oruttons of your choice and lock a spare key in the box. When
the key is needed, simply dial in the ,’ombination or pushbuttons, open the box and retrieve it. Constructed of hen*3,
duty cast steel with a durable weather-resistant finish. Threestyles available~portable dial (which can be hung from any
doorknob, railing or gate) or *tall-mount dial or wall.mountpush-button lock. Made in USA.
6237L Portable Spare Key Box ~ $29.95
6238L Wall-Mount Spare Key Box ~ $26.75
12241. Wall-Mount Push-Button Key Box ~ $29.75
Port~bleCombination
MEM
Attachment F
ORANDUM
September 17, 1998
TO:Carolyn Bissett/Planning Division
FROM:Carl Stoffel/Transportation Division
SUBJECT: Fence Variance for 581 Addison Avenue
This is a previous application that I had approved. I may have thought that the fence was a picket
fence-(due to the elevation accompanying the application), and that therefore a six-foot high fence
would not present a serious sight distance problem. Apparently, however, the portion of the fence
next to the driveway is solid.
A solid fence six feet high alongside the driveway blocks visibility between pedestrians and
drivers. A solid fence four feet high(has been permitted in some situations)blocks driver visibility
of pedestrians, but allows taller pedestrians (not small children) to see cars. A solid fence three
feet or less in height allows full visibility between pedestrians and drivers. The driver should have
full visibilj.’ty because it is the driver’s responsibility to yield to pedestrians. This location is across
the street fi’om an elementary school. All these factors lead to-the conelusi0n that a sight distance
triangle needs to be preserved, within which a fence could be no higher than three feet. The
easiest sight distance triangle to apply is the 12’ x 12’ triangle in the fence ordinance for back-to-
back comer lots where a six foot fence could otherwise be constructed. A more restrictive
requirement would be to not allow any fence in this triangle (which is what the .ordinance
requires).
Depending on the design, picket fences over three feet high can present sight distance problems. It
depends on how much space is between the pickets, how wide the pickets are, and whether there
are two fences overlapping in the sight line. It is very difficult to determine fi’om a plan on paper
whether picket fences over three feet high preserve acceptable sight distance. In the case of 581
Addison, it the applicant were to propose that both sections offence be picket and over three feet
high, I would consider the resulting sight distance to be impaired due to the overlap of two fences
in the sight line.
CS
Attachment G
Cityof Palo Alto
Application No. 98-V-13 581 Addison Avenue - AMENDED
Variance 98-V-13 is hereby issued for the location and construction of a six-foot-high
fence on the street side property line, where a four-foot-high fence is normally
maximum allowed, as per attached plans, at 581 Addison Avenue, Zone District R-l,
Palo Alto, California. Project approval is based on the following findings and is
subject to the conditions listed below.
F~INGS
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the
property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same
district in that the property is located on a comer lot and is substandard in
terms of size; shape, area and development pattern when compared to other
comer lots in the immediate vicinity;
The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial properiy fight of the applicant, and to prevent
unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that there is minimal
open spaQe at the rear of the parcel for a private backyard area. A six foot
high fence could not be located on the street side of the house at the
required 16 foot setback due to the location of the existing house. In
addition, the fence, as conditioned, would result in an improved private yard
area along the street side of the house. The variance, as conditioned, results
in a larger private and secure rear yard area than would otherwise be
available on the site; and
o The granting of the application will notbe detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity in that the proposed fence, as
conditioned, to be lowered to four feet in height or removed from the vision
triangle, complies with all other applicable development regulations and
therefore will not have a negative impact on safety, privacy, or views.
2S0 I-Imml~Avmm
P.O.Boxlfl~3
PaloAlto, CA94383
415.329.2441
415.329.2240Fax
CONDITIONS,
1.The existing fence shall be lowered to a maximum height of six feet.
The portion of the fence that is currently located in the vision triangle shall
be either relocated so that it is entirely out of the vision triangle or lowered
so that it does not exceed four feet in height for any portion in the vision
triangle.
o An encroachment permit is to be applied for and granted from the
Department of Public Works for the portion of the fence located inside the
right of way.
A Code Enforcement Officer shall be notified upon completion of the above
referenced conditions and shall conduct a site inspection to verify
compliance with these conditions.
Lisa Grote .
Zoning Administrator
September 30, 1998
This ~rariance is granted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Chapter
18.90 of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. This permit will become effective ten
days following the date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed as provided by Chapter
18.92 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. A copy of this letter shall accompany all
future requests for City permits relating to this approval.
In the event that this approval is appealed, an additional letter will be mailed with
information regarding the scheduled hearing dates before the Planning Commisgion
and the City Council.
In any case in which the conditions to the granting of a Variance have not been
complied with, the Zoning Administrator shall give notice to the permittee of
intention to revoke such permi~ at least ten (10) days prior to a hearing thereon.
Following such hearing and if good cause exists therefore, the Zoning Administrator
may revoke the Variance.
A Variance whi’ch has not been used within one(l) year after the date of granting
becomes void, although the Zoning Administrator may, without a hearing, extend the
time for an additional year if an application to this effect is filed with him before the
expiration of the first year.
Applicant:Victor And Janna Greene
581 Addison Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Property Owner: same
cc.Dorothy Miner, City of Palo Alto Code Enforcement
aA98v13.fin.cb