HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 346-07City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MA_NAGER DEPARTM~ENT: PLANNING AND
COMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 CMR: 346:07
APPROVAL OF RECORD OF LAND USE ACTION FOR A VARIANCE
TO ALLOW A FENCE EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT
WITHIN A FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 1456 EDGEWOOD DRI~rE.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that the City
Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s (Director) decision to
approve a variance to allow a fence to exceed the maximum fence height within the front yard
setback of 1456 Edgewood Drive based upon the findings and conditions in the Record of Land
Use Action (Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) provides the opportunity, within 14 days of the
Director’s proposed decision, for the public to request a hearing before the P&TC, followed by
Council reviexv and action.
The City’s streamlined development approval process provides for a Council "call up" review of
variance applications that have been reviewed by the P&TC. Instead of the project automatically
being heard by Council, the recommendation of the P&TC is placed on the consent calendar of
the City Council within 30 days of the P&TC’s review. In the case of variance applications, three
Council Member votes are required to remove the project from the consent calendar and
schedule .it for a subsequent City Council meeting. Otherwise, the Council may adopt the
findings and recommendation of the P&TC on consent and no hearing will be held. If the
Council votes to hear the item, a hearing shall be scheduled as soon as practicable.
On July 11, 2007, the Director of Planning and Community Environment tentatively approved
the request for a variance, based on the required findings criteria pursuant to the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals). Within the prescribed timeframe, on
July 15, 2007, a neighbor requested a hearing which was scheduled for the P&TC.
CMR: 346:07 Page 1 of 2
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On August 8, 2007, the P&TC reviewed the project and unanimously recommended that the City
Council uphold the Director’s decision to approve the variance application pursuant to PAMC
Section 8.76.030 with revised plans presented at the P&TC hearing. These revised plans abide
by the conditions of approval specified in the Director’s approval letter. The revised plans show
a planting plan to soften the look of the fence, and maintain a 10-foot distance be~,een the
proposed fence and the acacia tree at the corner of the lot. The P&TC staff report and the
attachments are included as Attachment 13. P&TC Minutes of August 8, 2007 are included as
Attachment C.
No members of the public submitted letters or spoke on this item at the P&TC hearing. Emails
were received prior to the P&TC hearing and are included as attachments to the P&TC Staff
Report.
EN~qRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proj ect is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
S~’EVE EMSLIE
Director of Planning and Community Environmem
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
A. Record of Land Use Action
B Plarming and Transportation Commission Staff Report, August 8, 2007, with attachments
C. Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes of Auga~st 8, 2007
D. Revised Plans, received August 8, 2007
COURTESY COPIES
Clare Malone Prichard, Stoecker and Northway Architects, Applicant
Phil & Judith Lavery, Owners
Rosine Ferber, Neighbor
Hita P. Ghotbi, Neighbor
CMR: 346:07 Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT A
APPROVAL NO. 2007-
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 1456 EDGEWOOD DRIVE: VARIANCE 07PLN-00192
(Phil & Judith Lavery, OWNERS)
On September 17, 2007, the Council approved the Variance to
al!ow the installation of a fence to exceed the permitted fence
height, making the fol!owing findings, determination and
declarations:
SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto (~City Counci!") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On June 18, 2007, Stoecker and Northway Architects
applied on behalf of Philip & Judith Lavery to al!ow the
installation of a 5-foot tal! fence a!ong the front property line
to exceed the permitted fence height by one foot ("The Project").
B. As a new swimming pool has been approved for the front
yard of this parcel the Building Department requires a 5-foot high
barrier between the poo! and the street, pursuant to Health and
Safety Code Section 115923. The Project fulfills this requirement
and allows for circulation around the swimming poo!.
Co The project was deemed complete in July !!, 2007. A
tentative Director’s Decision was prepared approving the variance
on July !i, 2007. A hearing before the Planning & Transportation
Commission (~The Commission") was requested on July 14, 2007. The
Commission held a public hearing on August 8, 2007 to consider the
appeal. The Commission voted to recommend approval of the variance
and to uphold the Director’s decision.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review.The project is
categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA guidelines Section 15305.
SECTION 3.Variance Findings
i. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply
generally to property in the same district in that:
There are special circumstances applicable to the subject
property in that the house is located irregularly on the
!ot because of past subdivision of the original property.
Because of the location of the house at the rear of the
property and the locations of mature sequoia and coast
redwood trees, the swimming pool is located at the front of
the property, between the house and the street. The
Building Department requires a 5-foot high barrier between
the pool and the street, pursuant to Health and Safety Code
Section 115923. Location of the proposed 5-foot fence at
the 20-foot front setback would !ocate it at the edge of
the pool and would restrict movement and access around the
poo!. The construction of a five-foot-high fence, in the
proposed !ocation will afford the applicant the safety,
privacy and protection from vehicle and pedestrian traffic
not provided by a four-foot-high fence.
2. The granting to the application is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship in that:
The proposed fence is limited to the minimum required to
comply with pool fencing regulations. Additional planting
in front of the fence is planned to soften the streetscape.
3. The granting of the application will not be injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or
convenience in that:
The proposed fence and gates are designed to coordinate
with the historic nature of the property and are consistent
with the neighborhood character. The proposed fence will
comply with requirements for minimum 5-foot high pool
fencing specified by the Building Department, Health and
Safety Code Section 115923.
SECTION 4.Variance Granted. Variance No. -V- is
granted to allow the installation of a 5-foot tall fence a!ong the
front property line to exceed the permitted fence height by one
foot.
SECTION Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning & Community Environment
P1 arming Di vi si on
PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE
i. The fence shall be constructed in substantial conformance with
plans received June 18, 2007 and Chapter 16.24 (Fences) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code, except as modified by this permit.
2
2.To reduce the aesthetic impact of a five-foot tall fence
along the entire length of the street side property line,
the applicant sha!l plant vines and/or tall shrubs to soften
the fence.
3.To preserve the 48-inch black acacia tree at the corner of
the lot and located on 1462 Edgewood Drive, the fence will
be redesigned to maintain a safe distance from the trunk of
the acacia tree so as to avoid damage during construction.
4.Site Plan Requirements. The Site Plans shall denote Type I
fencing around Protected/Designated trees as a bold dashed
line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Detai!
#605, Sheet T-I, and the City Tree Technical Manua!, Section
6.35-Site Plans.
5.The approved plans submitted for building permit shal!
include Sheet T-! Tree Protection-it’s Part of the Plan
(http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/arb/planning_forms.html).
6.All Planning Department conditions of approva! for the
project shal! be printed on the plans submitted for building
permit.
SECTION 6.Term of Approval.
!. Variance. If the Variance granted is not used within
one year of the date of counci! approval, it shal! become null and
void, pursuant to by Palo Alto Municipal Code Section !8.90.080(c).
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
3
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
!. Those plans prepared by Stoecker and Northway Architects, Inc.
titled ~New Fence and Gates at 1456 Edgewood Drive, Palo Alto, CA",
consisting of 2 pages, dated June 15, 2007, and received June 18,
2007.
ATTACHMENT B
PLANNING & TRANSPOR TA TION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
Jemaifer Cutler
Associate Planner
DEPARTMENT:Planning and
Community Environment
August8,2007
1456 Ed.oewood Drive [07PLN-00192]: Request for hearing on the
Director’s decision to approve a Variance requested by Stoecker and
Northway Architects on behalf of Philip & Judith Lavery to allow the
installation of a fence to exceed the permitted fence height.
Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Zone
District: R-1.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that
the City Council (Council) uphold the tentative approval of the variance to allow the installation
of a fence to exceed the permitted fence height at 1456 Edgewood Drive based upon the findings
and conditions contained within the Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A).
SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION:
The variance application was received on June 18, 2007 and approved by the Planning Manager, on
behalf of the Director of Planning and Community Environment, on July 11, 2007. On July 14,
2007, v~dthin the request for hearing period, a request for hearing was made. The notice cards and
newspaper notice stated in error that this request is an appeal, when it is technically a public hearing
requested by a neighbor.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
Project Description
The subject property is a lot located on Edgewood Drive in the middle of the block betaveen
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Island Drive and Newel! Road. The existing lot is developed with an existing two story
residence in the rear half of the yard with a newly approved front yard swimming pool. The lot is
approximately 107 feet wide and 163 feet deep with a total square footage of 17,117 square feet.
The applicant has proposed to build a fence along the front property line and to build fence and
posts to a height of 5 feet. Zoning Ordinance regulations allow a fence along the front property to
be built up to a height of 4 feet. The Building Department requires a 5-foot high barrier between
the pool and the street, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 115923.
Standards of Review
A draft Record of Land Use Action, upholding the Director’s approval is provided as Attachment A.
It includes the determination that the proposed variance meets all requirements of the City’s
Municipal Code, Comprehensive Plan, and the Subdivision Map Act. All of the following findings
must be met to ~ant the variance. Staff believes that all three findings can be made and each is
discussed below:
°
Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not
limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the
requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the
subject property. Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are:
A. The personal circumstances of the property owne~; and
B. Any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property owner or
his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same zoning
desi~zation.
There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property in that the house is located
inegularly on the lot because of past subdivision of the original property. Because of the
location of the house at the rear of the property and the locations of mature sequoia and coast
redwood trees, the swimming pool is located at the front of the property, between the house
and the street. The Building Department requires a 5-foot high barrier between the pool and
the street, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 115923. Location of the proposed 5-
foot fence at the 20-foot front setback would locate it at the edge of the pool and would
restrict movement and access around the pool. The construction of a five-foot-high fence, in
the proposed location will afford the applicant the safety, privacy and protection from vehicle
and pedestrian traffic not provided by a four-foot-high fence.
The ~.anting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations
or constitute a g-rand of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property, and
The proposed fence is limited to the minimum required to comply with pool fencing
regulations. Additional planting in front of the fence is planned to soften the streetscape.
The ~’anting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the
purposed of this title (Zoning), and
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The proposed fence and gates are designed to coordinate with the historic nature of the
property and are consistent with the neighborhood character. The proposed fence will comply
with requirements for minimum 5-foot high pool fencing specified by the Building
Department, Health and Safety Code Section 115923.
o The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience.
The proposed fence is designed to enhance public safety by serving to protect the general
public from accidental injury that could occur in conjunction with the swimming pool.
Neighbor Concerns
The neighbors have raised several concerns about the proposed five-foot fence. The stated
concern is that "a high front wall/fence would be esthetically out of step with the rest of the street
(there are no front walls/fences on the block, only gardens and trees)." The second concern
received from an adjacent neighbor was for the large acacia tree located at the northern comer of
the lot. The proposed plans show the fence extending right up to the trunk of the tree.
Staff has encouraged a meeting with the applicant and the neighbors to resolve their concerns but
they have elected to discuss their concerns at a public meeting with other neighbors.
Existin~ Neighborhood Pattern
The houses along Edgewood Drive make up an eclectic mix of ages and styles. The area is heavily
treed with several nearby homes partially shielded from view by existing vegetation along lot
frontages. The proposed fence does not provide a strong contrast to adjacent properties as it
continues the hedge lines andthe proposal includes planting plant tall shrubs in front of the wall to
minimize its massing.
Existin~ Trees on Project Site
The proposed project lot contains six coast redwoods (ranNng from 10 to 36 inches in diameter) and
one 56-inch sequoia in the vicinity of the proposed fence/wall. Planning arborist Dave Dockter has
approved the tree protection measures for these three trees, with standard conditions.
Neiahbor Tree Protection
In addition to the seven protected trees there is a 48-inch black acacia tree at the northern comer of
the lot that is immediately adjacent to the proposed fence/wall in the plans received June 18, 2007.
Staff has encouraged the applicant to find a way to relocate part of the wall to preserve the tree even
though the tree is not a "heritage" tree, because the existing trees in the vicinity do add to the
neighborhood character. The proximity of the proposed wall to this acacia tree was not commented
upon in the Director’s tentative decision of July 11, 2007. This hearing Nves staff the opportunity to
recommend a new condition that the wall plan be relocated in order to protect the neighbor’s acacia
tree.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Enviromnental Quality
Act (CEQA).
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Division
1.The fence shall be constructed in substantial conformance with plans received June 18, 2007 and
Chapter 16.24 (Fences) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, except as modified by this permit.
o
To reduce the aesthetic impact of a five-foot tall fence along the entire len~h of the street
side property line, the applicant shall plant vines and!or tall shrubs to soften the fence.
To preserve the 48-inch black acacia tree at the corner of the lot and located on 1462
Edgewood Drive, the fence shall be redesigned to maintain a safe distance from the trunk of
the acacia tree so as to avoid damage during construction.
Planning Arborist
PRIOR TO DEMOLITION. BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE
Site Plan Requirements. The Site Plans shall denote Type I fencing
around Protected/Desig-nated trees as a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone
as shown on Detail #605, Sheet T-l, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site
Plans.
o The approved plans submitted for building permit shall include Sheet T-l_Tree Protection-
it’s Part of the Plan (http:i/~¥.citv.palo-alto.ca.us/arb/plmming_forms.html).
All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans
submitted for building pen~t.
TIME LINE:
Application Received:
Application Deemed Complete:
Application Approval:
Hearing Requested:
End of Hearing Request Period:
P&TC Meeting:
Council Meeting (targeted):
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Record of Land Use Action
Date:
June 18, 2007
July 11, 2007
July 11, 2007
July 14, 2007
July 25, 2007
August 8, 2007
September 24, 2007
City of Pa!o Alto Page 4
No
C.
D.
E.
Location Map
Tentative Approval Letter
Request for Hearing Correspondence
Project Plans (Commissioners’ only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Clare Malone Prichard, Stoecker and Northway Architects, Applicant
Phil & Judith Lavery, Owners
Rosine Ferber, Neighbor
Hita P. Ghotbi, Neighbor
Prepared by:Jennifer Cutler, Associate Plalmer
Reviewed by: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning
Department/Division Head Approval: ~ \~.~ ~
Curtis Williams, Assistant Director
City of Palo Alto Page 5
APPROVAL NO. 2007-
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE APPROVAL FOR 1456 EDGEWOOD DRIVE: VARIANCE 07PLN-00192
(Phil & Judith Lavery, OWNERS)
On [Date], the Council approved the Variance to allow the
installation of a fence to exceed the permitted fence height,
making the following findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Counci!") finds, determines, and declares as
fol!ows:
A. On June 18, 2007, Stoecker and Northway Architects
applied on behalf of Philip & Judith Lavery to allow the
installation of a 5-foot tal! fence along the front property line
to exceed the permitted fence height by one foot (~The Project").
B. As a new swimming pool has been approved for the front
yard of this parce! the Building Department requires a 5-foot high
barrier between the pool and the street, pursuant to Health and
Safety Code Section 115923. The Project fulfills this requirement
and al!ows for circulation around the swimming pool.
C. The project was deemed complete in July i!, 2007. A
tentative Director’s Decision was prepared approving the variance
on July i!, 2007. A hearing before the Planning & Transportation
Commission ("The Commission") was requested on July 14, 2007. The
Commission held a public hearing on August 8, 2007 to consider the
appeal. The Commission voted to recommend approva! of the variance
and to uphold the Director’s decision.
SECTION 2. Environmenta! Review.The project is
categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 3.Variance Findings
I. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply
generally to property in the same district in that:
There are special circumstances applicable to the subject
property in that the house is located irregularly on the
lot because of past subdivision of the original property°
Because of the location of the house at the rear of the
property and the locations of mature sequoia and coast
redwood trees, the swimming pool is !ocated at the front of
the property, between the house and the street. The
Building Department requires a 5-foot high barrier between
the poo! and the street, pursuant to Health and Safety Code
Section 115923. Location of the proposed 5-foot fence at
the 20-foot front setback would locate it at the edge of
the pool and would restrict movement and access around the
pool. The construction of a five-foot-high fence, in the
proposed location will afford the applicant the safety,
privacy and protection from vehicle and pedestrian traffic
not provided by a four-foot-high fence.
2. The granting to the application is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship in that :
The proposed fence is limited to the minimum required to
comply with pool fencing regulations. Additional planting
in front of the fence is planned to soften the streetscape.
3. The granting of the application will not be injurious
to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, or
convenience in that :
The proposed fence and gates are designed to coordinate
with the historic nature of the property and are consistent
with the neighborhood character. The proposed fence wil!
comply with requirements for minimum 5-foot high poo!
fencing specified by the Building Department, Health and
Safety Code Section 115923.
SECTION 4.Variance Granted. Variance No. -V- is
granted to allow the installation of a 5-foot tal! fence along the
front property line to exceed the permitted fence height by one
foot.
SECTION 5.Conditions of Approval.
Department of Planning & Community Enviror~ment
Planning Division
PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE
!.The fence shall be constructed in substantial conformance with
plans received June 18, 2007 and Chapter 16.24 (Fences) of the
Pa!o Alto Municipal Code, except as modified by this permit.
2
2.To reduce the aesthetic impact of a five-foot tall fence
along the entire length of the street side property line,
the applicant shall plant vines and/or tal! shrubs to soften
the fence.
3.To preserve the 48-inch black acacia tree at the corner of
the !ot and !ocated on 1462 Edgewood Drive, the fence will
be redesigned to maintain a safe distance from the trunk of
the acacia tree so as to avoid damage during construction.
4.Site Plan Requirements. The Site Plans shall denote Type I
fencing around Protected/Designated trees as a bold dashed
line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Detai!
#605, Sheet T-I, and the City Tree Technical Manua!, Section
6.35-Site Plans.
5.The approved plans submitted for building permit shall
include Sheet T-I Tree Protection-it’s Part of the Plan
(http://www.city.pa!o-alto.ca.us/arb/planning_forms.html).
6.All Planning Department conditions of approval for the
project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building
permit.
SECTION 6.Term of Approval.
i. Variance. If the Variance granted is not used within
one year of the date of council approva!, it sha!l become null and
void, pursuant to by Palo Alto Municipa! Code Section 18.90.080(c).
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
i. Those plans prepared by Stoecker and Northway Architects, Inc.
titled "New Fence and Gates at 1456 Edgewood Drive, Palo Alto, CA",
consisting of 2 pages, dated June 15, 2007, and received June 18,
2007.
4
1468
i 1437~i
11443 ~444
1475
1468~
_1479
14.49
1455: "
’,,--’1491
July 11, 2007
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
Philip & Judith Lavery
951 BD’ant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject: 1456 Edgewood Drive; Variance 07PLN-00192
Dar M_r. and Mrs. Lavery:
On July 11, 2007 the Director of Plarmmg and Con~nunity Environment
conditionally approved variance application 07PLN-00192 for 1456 Edgewood
Drive, pursuant to the ~AMC) Section 18.76.030, and based on the findings
listed below. This determination is based upon the review of information
contained within the project file, public comments received, and ci~, records,
upon the proposa! in comparison to all applicable zoning and municipal code
requirements.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request by Stoecker and Northway Architects (applicant) on behalf of Philip &
Judith Lavery (o~ner) for a Variance to allow the installation of a fence to exceed
the permitted fence height. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303.
Zone District: R-1
VARIANCE FINDINGS
Variance approval is based on the findings indicated under P~d~(C Section
18.76.030(c) and is subject to the Conditions of Approval listed below:
Yecause of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including
(but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the
strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title
substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in
the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Special
circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are:
.4. The personal circumstances of the property owner, and
i?. Any changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the
property owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was
subject to the same zoning designation.
There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property- in that the
house is located irregularly on the lot because of past subdivision of the
250 Han~ton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154
1456 Edgewood Drive;
07PLN-00192
July 11, 2007
Page 2 of 3
original property. Because of the location of the house at the rear of the
property and the locations of mature sequoia and coast redwood trees, the
swimming pool is located at the front of the property, between the house and
the street. The Bnilding Department requires a 5-foot high barrier between the
pool and the street, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 115923.
Location of the proposed 5-foot fence at the 20-foot front setback would
locate it at the edge of the pool and would restrict movement and access
around the pool. The construction of a five-foot-high fence, in the proposed
location will afford the applicant the safety, privacy and protection from
vehicle and pedestrian traffic not provided by a four-foot-high fence.
The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with
the regulations or constitute a grand of special privileges inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning
district as the subject property, and
The proposed fence is limited to the minimum required to comply with pool
fencing regulations. Additional planting in front of the fence is planned to
soften the streetscape.
3. The granting of rhe application is consistent with the _Palo Alto
Comprehensive _Plan and the purposed of this title (Zoning), and
The proposed fence and gates are designed to coordinate with the historic
nature of the property and are consistent with the neighborhood character. The
proposed fence will comply with requirements for minimum 5-foot high pool
fencing specified by the Building Department, Health and Safety Code Section
115923.
The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public
health, safe&, general welfare, or convenience.
The proposed fence is desigr~ed to enhance public safety by serving to protect
the general public from accidental injury that could occur in conjunction with
the swimming pool.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Division
1456 Edgewood Drive;
07PLN-00192
July 11,200"7
Page 3 of 3
The fence shall be constructed in substantial conformance with plans received
June 18, 2007 and Chapter 16.24 (Fences) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
except as modified by this permit.
To reduce the aesthetic impact of a five-foot tall fence along the entire length
of the street side property line, the applicant shall plant vines and/or
groundcover to soften the fence.
Planning Arborist
PP,.IOR TO DEMOLITION. BUILDING OR GP,_hD]NG PER~MIT IS SUANCE
Site Plan Requirements. The Site Plans shall denote T}>e I fencing
around Protected/Designated trees as a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree
Protection Zone as shown on Detail #605, Sheet T-l, and the
City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans.
The approved plans submitted for building permit shall include Sheet T-
1_Tree Protection-it’s Part of the Plan ((http//www.citv.palo-
alto. ca.us/arb/pla~min~ forms.htm.1).
5..All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be
printed on the plans submitted for building permit.
DIRECTOR’S DECISION
In accordance with the provisions of PAMC Chapter 18, any appeal of this decision
must be submitted prior to the close of the business day" on July 17, 2007. A
Variance which has not been used for any period of one (1) year or more shall
become null and void (PAMC 18.77.090).
Should you have any questions regarding the Director’s Hearing determination,
please do not hesitate to contact the Project Manager, Jennifer Cutler, at (650) 329-
2149 or me at (650) 329o2441.
Sig_cerely,
Amy French
Manager of Current Plarmmg
cc: Jenmfer Curler, Project Manager
Page 1 of 1
Cutler, Jennifer
From:RFerber@aol.com
Sent:Saturday, July 14, 2007 11:36 AM
To:Cutler, Jennifer
Subject:variance at 1456 Edgewood
Sorry, Jennifer... this is my e-mail address - here is the message again
(please reply at this address)
Dear Jennifer.
I received the notice of proposed director’s decision and I have some
questions/concerns about the variance requested. I live directly accross
the street, at 1455 Edgewood, and I am concerned that a high front
wall/fence would be esthetically out of step with the rest of the street
(there are no front walls/frences on the block, only gardens and trees)-
certainly unappealing from my perspective. I would therefore like to
request a hearing in this regard. Please let me know what I need to do
going forward.
Regards,
Rosine Ferber, Ph.D., MFT, ATR-BC
Community Health Awareness Council
711 Church Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
(650) 965-2020
Private voice mail: (650) 799-0120
Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at http:lldiscover.aol.comlmemedlaolcom3Otour
7/31/2007
Cutler, Jennifer
From:Cutler, Jennifer
Sent:Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:56 AM
To:’RFerber@aol.com’
Cc:French, Amy
Subject:RE: variance at 1456 Edgewood
Rosine Ferber,
We are in the process of scheduling this project for a public hearing based on your request, and will notify you
once a date has been set. Before that date we would like to meet with you to discuss your concerns.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
Jennifer T. Cutler
Associate Planner
City of Palo Alto
(650) 329-2149
From: RFerber@aol.com [mailto:RFerber@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 11:36 AM
To; Cutler, Jennifer
Subject: variance at 1456 Edgewood
Sorry, Jennifer... this is my e-mail address - here is the message again
(please reply at this address)
Dear Jennifer.
I received the notice of proposed director’s decision and I have some
questions/concerns about the variance requested. I live directly accross
the street, at 1455 Edgewood, and Tam concerned that a high front
wall/fence would be esthetically out of step with the rest of the street
(there are no front walls/frences on the block, only gardens and trees)-
certainly unappealing from my perspective. I would therefore like to
request a hearing in this regard. Please let me know what ]: need to do
going forward.
Regards,
Rosine Ferber, Ph.D., MFT, ATR-BC
Cutler, Jennifer
From:Rosine Ferber [RFerber@aol.com]
Sent:Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:08 PM
To:Cutler, Jennifer
Subject:Re: variance at 1456 Edgewood
Dear Jennifer. My concerns are only those I have stated in my e-mail to you dated July 14th. I have
since gone to the city and looked at the plans and felt relatively reassured that the elevated fence might
look ok. Regards, Rosine Ferber
On Jul 18, 2007, at 8:55 AM, Cutler, Jennifer wrote:
Rosine Ferber,
We are in the process of scheduling this project for a public hearing based on your request, and will
notify you once a date has been set. Before that date we would like to meet with you to discuss your
concerns.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
Jennifer T. Curler
Associate Planner
Ciw of Palo Alto
(650) 329o21Z~9
From: RFerber@aol.com [mailto:RFerber@aol.com]
Sent; Saturday, July 14, 2007 11:36 AM
To; Cutler, Jennifer
Subje~; variance at 1456 Edgewood
Page 1 of 2
Cutler, Jennifer
From:Cutler, Jennifer
Sent:Monday, July 23, 2007 8:04 AM
To:’Rosine Ferber’
Subject:RE: variance at 1456 Edgewood
Rosine Ferber,
I am glad to hear that you were able to review the plans and that they concerns have been reduced. Does this
mean that you are withdrawing you request for a hearing? If so please let me know as soon as possible so that
we can modify our schedule accordingly.
Thank you,
Jennifer
Jennifer T. Curler
Associate Planner
City, of Palo Alto
(650) 329-2149
From: Rosine Ferber [mailto:RFerber@aol.com]
Sent-’ Thursday, .July :[9, 2007 :[0:08 PM
To: Cutler, 3ennifer
Subject: Re: variance at 1456 Edgewood
Dear Jennifer. My concerns are only those I have stated in my e-mail to you dated July 14th. I have
since gone to the city and looked at the plans and felt relatively reassured that the elevated fence might
look ok. Regards, Rosine Ferber
On Jul 18, 2007, at 8:55 AM, Cutler, Jennifer wrote:
Rosine Ferber,
We are in the process of scheduling this project for a public hearing based on your request, and will notify you
once a date has been set. Before that date we would like to meet with you to discuss your concerns.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
Associate Planner
(650) 329-2149
From: RFerber@aol.com [mailto:RFerber@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, .July :[4, 2007 :[:[:36 AN
To; Cutler, 3ennifer
Subject: variance at :[456 Edgewood
7/31/2007
Page 1 of 3
Cutler, Jennifer
From:Rosine Ferber [RFerber@aol.com]
Sent:Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:50 PM
To:Cutler, Jennifer
Subject:Re: variance at 1456 Edgewood
Hi Jennier. Thanks for your e-mail and phone call. I do think this hearing is a good opportunity for the
neighborhood to come together and address any issue they might have. I have heard of several issues
having to do with this project as well. Thanks, Rosine Ferber
On Jul 23, 2007, at 8:04 AM, Cutler, Jennifer wrote:
Rosine Ferber,
I am glad to hear that you were able to review the plans and that they concerns have been reduced.
Does this mean that you are withdrawing you request for a hearing? If so please let me know as soon
as possible so that we can modify our schedule accordingly.
Thank you,
Jenni~r
Jennifer T. Cutler
Associate Planner
City, of Pato Alto
(650) 329-2149
From; Rosine Ferber [mailto:RFerber@aol.com]
Sent; Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:08 PM
To; Cutler, Jennifer
Subject; Re: variance at 1456 Edgewood
7/3 !/2007
Page ! of 2
Cutler, Jennifer
From:Cutler, Jennifer
Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:53 AM
To:’Rosine Ferber’
Subject:RE: variance at 1456 Edgewood
Rosine,
Would you be able to come in to meet with us and the applicant to discuss your concerns? We would like to see
if there is a way that the proposal could be modified to address any neighborhood concerns so that we might
have a possible solution to bring to the Planning and Transportation Commission. If possible I would like to set up
a meeting next week.
Thank you,
Jennifer
Jennifer T. Cutler
Associate Planner
Ciw Of" Palo Alto
(650) 329-2149
From: Rosine Ferber [mailto:RFerber@aol.com]
Sent; Wednesday, 3uly 25, 2007 3:50 PM
To; Cutler, Jennifer
Subject: Re: variance at 1456 Edgewood
Hi Jennier. Thanks for your e-mail and phone call. I do think this hearing is a good opportunity for the
neighborhood to come together and address any issue they might have. I have heard of several issues
having to do with this project as well. Thanks, Rosine Ferber
On Jul 23, 2007, at 8:04 AM, Cutler, Jennifer wrote:
Rosine Ferber,
1 am glad to hear that you were able to review the plans and that they concerns have been reduced. Does this
mean that you are withdrawing you request for a hearing? If so please let me know as soon as possible so that
we can modify our schedule accordingly.
Thankyou.
Jennifer
Associate Planner
(650) 329-2149
From: Rosine Ferber [mailto:RFerber@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:08 PM
To; Cutler, Jennifer
7/31/2007
Page 1 of 1
Cutler, Jennifer
From:RFerber@aol.com
Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:39 PM
To:Cutler, Jennifer
Subject:IRe: variance at 1456 Edgewood
Dear Jennifer.
I prefer to come in during the meeting on August 8th, together with
neighbors, to see if this is an issue for others. For me, the issue is an
esthetic one - as I have written before, the thought of seeing a wall in
front of my house (and one that might be higher than the permitted
height) when i have always seen trees and organic forms accross the
street, is not pleasing to me. Again, none of the homes on the street
have high walls surrounding them, which would make this property
unique in an unfriendly type of way with a concrete boundary. This is a
particularly beautiful street and when people walk or jog along, they can
enjoy all the inviting open gardens and trees in all the front properties -
this is a special and lovely characteristic of the 1400 block of Edgewood.
A 5 foot high wall may be OK if it was surrounded or covered by
greenery and trees to soften its appearance. Perhaps that could be an
idea - :I know that the owners must prevent entry to ensure safety
because of the pool in the front yard, and a 5-foot wall may be more
effective in doing so.
Does that make sense? I certainly hope for a good relationship with my
new neighboors and do not want to give them a hard time by confronting
them personally with this issue. I hope that the owners of the property
will take this into consideration, and make some adjustments to address
these concerns.
I thank you for your understanding.
Eosine Ferber
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http:lldiscover.aol.comlmemedlaolcom3Otour
7/31/2007
Cutler, Jennifer
From:Hita P. Ghotbi [hitapartovi@gmail.com]
Sent:Thursday, July 19. 2007 11:21 AM
To:Cutler, Jennifer
Subject:Privacy wall
Dear .Jennifer,
My name is Hita Ghotbi and ]~ live on 1462 Edgewood Drive.
I am writing to express my concerns about a poot that is being built in the front yard of property
next to us - 1456 Edgewood Dr., and of certain design issues that is naturally created by this
decision, meaning creating a "privacy wall", play structures and cutting trees to have access to
sunlight.
I hope that Architectural Review Board has taken all those factors into considerations.
Setting aside the front yard’s design approach, the compatibility with the rest of the front yards on
this block and the unique welcoming characteristics of some of the properties, my concern is the
Acacia tree on the left side of the wall.
By looking at the drawings of the proposed "privacy wall", submitted to the city, I have noticed
that the footing of this 5’ wall is right next to this very old Acacia tree, located on that corner of the
two properties, the location is clearly indicated on the plan.
I am not an arborist and would like to be sure that this tree stays safe for as long as its natural life
permits.
Regards,
Hita Ghotbi
650 323 2537
Page 1 of 2
Cutler, Jennifer
From:Cutler. Jennifer
Sent:Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:30 PM
To:’Hita P. Ghotbi’
Subject:RE: Privacy wall
Dear Hita Ghotbi,
The project plans were reviewed by our City Arborist. The approval of the variance included conditions provided
by our City Arborist for protection of the protected trees onsite. A hearing has been requested on this project and
is currently scheduled for the Planning and Transportation Committee meeting on August 8th at 7pm at City Hall.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Cutler
Jennifer T. Cuder
Associate Planner
City of Palo Alto
(650) 329o2149
From: Hita P. Ghotbi [mailto:hitapartovi@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:21 AM
To: Cutler, Jennifer
Subject: Privacy wall
Dear Jennifer,
My name is Hita Ghotbi and I live on :1462 Edgewood Drive.
I am writing to express my concerns about a pool that is being built in the front yard of property
next to us - :1.456 Edgewood Dr., and of certain design issues that is naturally created by this
decision, meaning creating a "privacy wall", play structures and cutting trees to have access to
sunlight.
I hope that Architectural Review Board has taken all those factors into considerations.
Setting aside the front yard’s design approach, the compatibility with the rest of the front yards on
this block and the unique welcoming characteristics of some of the properties, my concern is the
Acacia tree on the left side of the wall.
By looking at the drawings of the proposed "privacy wall", submitted to the city, I have noticed
that the footing of this 5’ wall is right next to this very old Acacia tree, located on that corner of the
two properties, the location is clearly_ indicated on the plan.
I am not an arborist and would like to be sure that this tree stays safe for as long as its natural life
permits.
Regards,
Hita Ghotbi
7/31/2007
Page 1 of 2
Cutler, Jennifer
From:Hita P. Ghotbi [hitapartovi@gmail.com]
Sent:Friday, July 20, 2007 11:07 AM
To:Cutler, Jennifer
Subject:Re: Privacy wall
Dear .Jennifer,
Thank you for your much appreciated response.
I am happy to hear that your City Arborist’s report on the state of the trees located on 1456
Edgewood, has certain conditions attached to it.
We were told by the City a few years back that the old Acacia tree is located in our property and
that we are responsible for its care and condition.
Does the City Arborist’s report also include this particular Acacia tree that will be effected by the
footing of this masonry wall?
Sincerely,
Hita Ghotbi
..... Original Message .....
From: Cutler, Jennifer
To: Hita P. Ghotbi
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:29 PM
Subject: RE: Privacy wall
Dear Hita Ghotbi,
The project plans were reviewed by our City Arborist.The approval of the variance included conditions provided
by our City Arborist for protection of the protected trees onsite. A hearing has been requested on this project
and is currently scheduled for the Planning and Transportation Committee meeting on August 8th at 7pm at City
Hall.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Cutler
Jennifer T. Cutler
Associate Planner
Ciw of Palo Alto
(650) 329-2149
From: Hita P. Ghotbi [mailto:hitapartovi@gmail.com]
Sent’- Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:21 AM
To; Cutler, Jennifer
Subject: Privacy wall
Dear .Jennifer,
7/3112007
Cutler, Jennifer
From:Cutler. Jennifer
Sent:Thursday, July 26, 2007 3:03 PM
To:’Hita P. Ghotbi’
Subject:RE: Privacy wall
Hita Ghotbi,
Though our city arborist reviewed the plans and included conditions for the protection of protected trees, the
acacia tree of which you speak does not fall under the city’s definition of a protected tree. However it is important
to us that such large valuable trees not be damaged and we have asked the applicant to prepare a revised plan
that moves the wall away from your acacia tree. We expect that these plans will be available for review at the
Planning and Transportation Committee meeting on Wednesday August 8th.
Jennifer
Jennifer T. Cuder
Associate Planner
Cit3, of Palo Alto
(650) 329-2149
From: Hita P. Ghotbi [mailto:hitapartovi@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 1!:07 AM
To: Cutler, Jennifer
Subject: Re: Privacy wall
Dear 3ennifer,
Thank you for your much appreciated response.
I am happy to hear that your City Arborist’s report on the state of the trees located on 1456
Edgewood, has certain conditions attached to it.
We were told by the City a few years back that the old Acacia tree is located in our property and
that we are responsible for its care and condition.
Does the City Arborist’s report also include this particular Acacia tree that will be effected by the
footing of this masonry wall?
Sincerely,
Hita Ghotbi
.... Original Message .....
From: Cutler, Jennifer
To" Hita P. Ghotbi
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 2:29 PM
Subject: RE: Privacy wall
Dear Hita Ghotbi,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
August 8, 2007
DRAFT EXCERPT
Attachment C
1456 Ed~oewood Drive [07PLN-001921: Request for Planning and Transportation Colrmaission
review of a Variance requested by Stoecker and Northway Architects (applicant) on behalf of
Philip & Judith Lavery (owner) to allow the installation of a fence to exceed the permitted fence
height. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act, Section 15303. Zone District: R-1.
Ms. Amy French. Current Planning Manager: Yes we do, thank you Chair Holman and
Commissioners. The project before you began with a submittal in September 2006 of a building
penNt for a pool and fence in the front yard of a Category 2 historic home. It was built around
1905. The front yard of the house was once the rear of the house, which had its front yard on
Hamilton Avenue. The parcel was subdivided and the rear yard became the front yard. The
resulting rear yard is minimal.
The pool permit including a complying four-foot tall fence along the front property line was
issued in October 2006 prior to modifications in early 2007 to state re~o~ulations requiting a five-
foot high fence or other specified methods designed for drowning prevention. The pen~t was
revised in March 2007 to reorient the pool perpendicular to the front property line rather than
parallel but the fence height was unchanged. That was approved. The applicant had not
specified which drowning prevention method would be used in that permit. The pool has been
constructed.
In June 2007 the variance application was submitted to request one foot of additional fence
height on top of the oriNnal four-foot fence along the property line. Staff considered the special
circumstances on the site, viewed several neighboring homes with heavily vegetated front
property lines. Some of them have four-foot tall ivy covered chain link fences setback around 10
feet from the sidewalk. Staff reviewed the Comprehensive Plan, there is Progam L-52, ~vhich
discourages the use of fences that obscure the view of houses and encourages hedges and walls
that permit views of the house from the street. Now having received no comments from
neighbors Staff was able to make all required variance findings as set forth in the Record of Land
Use Action. The approval was issued for a five foot tall solid brick wall fence located along the
property line which is approximately 10 feet from the back of the sidewalk.
After issuing the tentative approval Requests for Hearings were received. Staff attempted in vain
to hold a meeting with the applicant and neighbor requesting the hearing to resolve the issue.
The applicant has prepared a revised plan to adjust the fence to provide a 10-foot setback from
the acacia tree and add more landscaping in front and behind the wall to soften the affect of the
wall. The landscaping is significant and the applicant can show you the proposal.
Page 1
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
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
Staff is satisfied with the improvement shown on the plan. Staff or the applicant can distribute
the revised plans if desired by the Commission. At places also is the fence code handout, which
has a gaphic on page nine showing the permitted fence heights of an interior lot. Just for your
information the Building Division also has a handout that indicates a requirement for a safety
barrier with the option for a fence or a pool cover. Staff is available to describe other methods
safety barriers approved by the state if you would like.
The Commission may wish to ask the applicant whether a more delicate or less solid five-foot
wall could be considered. The Commission may also wish to see the safety fence located farther
back on the property. If that is the case it is Staff’s opinion that it should be placed at least 10
feet from the pool edge, at least three feet from the walkway around the pool, however, such
placement would run into the tree protection zone of the mature protected redwood tree on the
site. So at that point the fence would need to jog forward on the site about two feet to avoid the
tree protection zone.
With that I also wanted to introduce Jennifer Cutler who is the project planner for this project.
She is newly arrived with the City in our Planning Department. I believe the applicant is here for
a presentation.
Chair Holman: I believe the appellant would be going first.
Ms. French: Actually, this is not an appeal. This is a Request for a Hearing.
Chair Holman: That’s right, it is different. Okay. So the applicant goes first and you will have
15 minutes.
Ms. Clare Malone Pritchard: Applicant: I do not intend to take that full 15 minutes. Thank you
Commissioners for having this hearing to discuss the higher fence. I am with Stoecker and
Northway Architects and I am here representing the clients, the Lavery’s who are currently on
the east coast.
As Amy had mentioned this is really a unique property. She mentioned that the house was
constructed in 1905. Actually portions of the house were constructed in 1866. Many people
consider this to be the oldest house in the residential core of Pa!o Alto.
My clients purchased this house just a few years ago, many, many years after the subdivision
happened. It was approximately 1939 when this large property was broken into six pieces and
another house was built in front of it in what used to be the front yard of this house. So what we
are looking at is a house that sits very far back on the property and actually turns its back to the
street, which is Edgewood Drive.
Because of the location of the house on the property the only place that the pool could be located
is where you see it in the front. This area will actually be used as the backyard fimctionally even
though it is technically the front yard of the house. Before construction began on the remodel
there was a four-foot high chain link fence along the front property line. I do have photogaphs
here illustrating what that looked like. It was covered in ivy. I would be happy to distribute that
Page 2
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
if you like. It shows the property in question and in addition the properties on either side.
property to the right also currently has the chain link fence, which is four feet high and is
covered in ivy.
The
All of the fences on those three properties are setback approximately 10 feet from the street and
we are asking to build this brick fence at that same location. We are proposing a very lush,
dense planting in front of it, which we hope will be more attractive than the ivy that used to be
there. As you will see in the sense ordinance the posts of a fence in this location are allowed to
be five feet high so really the variance we are asking for is for the panels in between the posts to
be raised from four feet to five feet. The reason for this is for the pool protection.
There is an existing black acacia tree at the left hand side of the property. That is actually on
City property so we have been told that we need to provide a ! 0-foot setback of the fence from
that tree. You will see this revised plan does show a notch that keeps 10 feet away from that
tree. There is also a matching notch on the other side, on the riNat side of the fence, to allow
room for an existing pepper tree.
The planting that is proposed in front of the wall, I will translate a little bit for you because it is
all in Latin there. The prunus are actually English laurels, those are evergreen of very lush,
green plants and they will eventually get to be 30 feet high. In front of that camellias to provide
some beautiful white and pink flowers, in front of that hydrangeas, and then another layer of
prunus which is a smaller English laurel which will get to be approximately six feet higla, and
then at the very front a ground cover which is a campanula with a white small flower. So we are
really looking at five layers of planting.
The intent here was to put up a fence which looks permanent, which ties to the existing historic
structure that currently has a lot of brick veneer on it at the entryways and at the stairs, and to
provide privacy but also continue the lush planting that is currently on the street. That concludes
my comments and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Chair Holman: Commissioner, are there any questions for the applicant at this time?
Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: I just want to clarify that the drawing that we were given by Staff has
been since modified to the drawing that you have given us today in respect to the avoiding the
black acacia tree?
Ms. Malone Pritchard: That is correct. The first page you see is marked ’origflaal submittal,’ and
I believe the third page you have is labeled ’proposed modifications,’ and it is on that third page
where you see the 10 foot setback away from the black acacia at the coruer.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Thank you. Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: Just to clarify, the fence is setback 10 feet from the sidewalk?
Page 3
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
44
45
46
Ms. Malone Pritchard: It is 10 feet from the sidewalk, which coincides with the property line.
Commissioner Sandas: Thanks.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Did you look at any other materials other than brick? Did you look at brick
posts say with something that was a little more transparent or something that was woven like
maybe a brick pattern that was staggered?
Ms. Malone Pritchard: We did look at various different brick patterns. We spoke briefly with
the owner about using a wooden fence in between brick posts but the owners felt it was better to
use brick all the way across partially because it is going to be obscured when all the planting is
put in place, but from their side they would prefer to see the brick on the inside of the fence
because it ties to the existing house.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: Could you explain why the pool is oriented perpendicular to the street
rather than parallel to it and, if it were parallel up closer to the house and thereby avoiding the
necessity for the five-foot fence at that location?
Ms. Malone Pritchard: Yes. If you look at the site plan you will see that there is a 56-inch
sequoia, a very large circle there, which is a protected tree and also a very lovely tree. To turn
the pool 90 degrees and avoid being under that sequoia the pool would end up being much closer
to the house than it currently is. I believe ri~t now the pool is approximately 20 feet from the
house and we felt that brinNng it closer to the house was going to be a little bit of a hazard as far
as people being able to get in the back door of the house.
Chair Holman: Any other questions of the applicant? Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Could you explain your position on whether the fence should have an
alignment along the property line and these two curve ins on either side or whether there should
be something that is more straight connecting all the way across? What are the pros and cons of
that from your perspective?
Ms. Malone Pritchard: First of all, the aligmnent is right on the property line and we wanted to
push it out to that point for two reasons. One is because there is an existing line of fences on
either side of the property at that location so we wanted to continue that. Then second is that
functionally this is the backyard so the more we bring the fence towards the house the less usable
backyard space is left for the owners to enjoy.
Chair Holman: Any other questions for the applicant? I have just one about the size of the pool.
Commissioner Burt asked about the orientation and I ask about the size of the pool. If it had just
been a little smaller so what was the driving force behind this size that then requires a variance?
Page 4
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
44
45
Ms. Malone Pritchard: The driving force behind the size is actually the size of the family. This
is a family of four children who are very active and have a lot of friends who come over. So the
owners really wanted to have this size pool in order to have plenty of play space for their
children.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: The pool currently exists, correct?
Ms. Malone Pritchard: Correct.
Commissioner Garber: Was your finn the firm of record for when that pool was actually
submitted for permit?
Ms. Malone Pritchard: We were not the ones that submitted it for permit but we were aware of it
happening at the time.
Commissioner Garber: At that time where you aware of how that pool designer had expected to
put up a fence around that pool?
Ms. Malone Pritchard: Yes we were. At the time it was discussed that it would be a four-foot
fence. It was only later that it was discovered that five feet is the new re~o~ulation for pool fencing
in this location.
Commissioner Garber: Was it put up in the same location as it is shown now?
Ms. Malone Pritchard: Yes.
Commissioner Garber: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Seeing no other questions for the applicant, thank you very much. This was a
Request for a Hearing but I see no cards from members of the public. Okay, we have no cards
from members of the public so I will leave the public comment period open so if we have more
questions for the architect we can do that. Are there questions for Staff, Commissioners?
Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: Amy, did you say in the introduction that the reason that the fence could
not be further back from the street was because of intrusion over the redwood roots?
Ms. French: Yes, I had received an email question from Commissioner Keller today and in
exploring that, he said, what is the least amount of setback from the pool? That is where I said in
my presentation at least 10 feet back from the pool edge but then yes, at that point it would run
into the tree protection zone of that redwood tree. So it would then have to job forward two feet.
I suppose the alternative is to say well, if you want a straight fence it would have to be at least
Page 5
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
12 feet from the pool edge to satisfy that condition. Of course it would again trina their rear yard
usability as the applicant said.
Commissioner Butt: So perhaps I am not following the dra~ving on the applicant’s page L-3.
Ms. French: Yes, 56 inch sequoia, which is also known as redwood.
Commissioner Burt: It says on there 56 cedar.
Ms. French: Which drawing are you looking at?
Commissioner Burt: I was saying L-3.
Ms. French: L-3, okay. Yes, it says 56-inch cedar. Perhaps that is an error as it is not a cedar it
is a sequoia. That is the same tree but it is labeled as a cedar in one drawing and as a sequoia in
another.
Chair Holman: Are you referring to the drawing L-3 or page A-1 the proposed?
Ms. French: L-3 is what Commissioner Burr was referring to and on L-3 it says 56 inch cedar
and the other sheet that shows it is A-l, which shows it as a 56 inch sequoia.
Commissioner Burt: So I presume this is a coast redwood, which is protected, which is sequoia
sempelwirens not sequoia gigantea, which is not protected.
Ms. French: Yes the coast redwoods are all along there. It is not labeled a coast redwood so it
must be a different form of sequoia.
Commissioner Burt: Perhaps or maybe it is even a cedar. So whether it is on our Tree
Protection Ordinance I don’t know whether that is going to have any kind of bearing. What I am
still a little confused about is that if you look at L-3 and they show what appears to be the fence
ziNng in around the base of the cedar/sequoia, is that correct? Am I reading that correctly?
Ms. French: Let’s see. On L-3 the fence has near the wa ~lking path with the gate there is a little
ziging and that is the 50 or 30 pepper tree. It looks as if it is a pepper tree. Then the fence
continues along the property line mad it comes to the vehicle gate. Actually I think this drawing
is not consistent with the curvilinear treatment, on the bottom end of the sheet is where the acacia
tree is, the street tree, where we have asked them to pull it back and they have responded with a
CUladlinear circle around that acacia tree. You can see that shape on the drawing that is proved
as A-1.
Chair Holman: Is it possible to put this up on the overhead so we all know we are talking about
the same thing?
Ms. French: Sure. So this is sheet A-1 and you can see where my finger is is where the acacia
tree that is in the City right-of-way. Sheet A-1 says ’proposed modifications.’
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
Commissioner Keller: This is the revised A-1.
Ms. French: Yes. So you can see here the acacia tree and there is a curvilinear, this is the
response to the request for a 10-foot setback from that street tree that is the acacia tree. That is
the curve.
Then when you flip to sheet L-3 which has the approved landscape plans again at the bottom of
the page the acacia tree is not shown, it is a street tree not on the property, and that little bit of
fence there continues to be a straight line. I believe that would need to be adjusted to reflect a
curvilinear distance from the sequoia tree. So that is perhaps one of the questions. Is there
another?
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 Commissioner Burt: That wasn’t mine. So if you go to the top of the drawing that you there. Is
15 that the-fence that loops underneath?
16
17 Ms. French: This is the fence right here. This is the fence that goes here and then it jogs this
18 way around this pepper tree, and then there is a gate here.
19
20 Commissioner Burt: Okay.
21
22 Ms. French: So this is simply lawn and probably bender board and then some shrubs and
23 goundcover.
24
25 Commissioner Burt: Okay, it is clear now.
26
27 Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
28
29 Commissioner Sandas: Actually nay question has been answered. Thank you.
3O
31 Chair Holman: Other questions of Staff, Commissioners? Commissioner Tuma.
32
33 Commissioner Tuma: I am just trying to understand the sequence of events here. They were
34 issued a permit to build the pool with a four-foot fence?
35
36 Ms. French: Yes, the plans in both occasions showed a four foot fence, both in September when
37 submitted the first time and issued in October, and then in March when the pool was adjusted.
38 Both showed a four-foot fence. So building permit was actually required for a four-foot fence
39 and no zoning exceptions. They came back in June of 2007 requesting a five-foot fence in the
40 same location. That was subject to the variance.
41
42 Commissioner Tuma: Okay, so the pool was approved with a four-foot fence?
43
44 Ms. French: Yes. It was approved with a four-foot fence but because of state regulations that
45 were enacted in January they would have to provide - there are several methods of safety
46 including covers.
Page 7
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Tuma: So what was enacted in January is that retroactive to existing applications
by definition? Was it codified that way?
Mr. Larkin: Also recently adopted in state taw are provisions that require any time a new
application for an existing pool comes in that it has to be brought up to current safety codes. So
in effect it is retroactive.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: I’m sorry, it is retroactive because they were doing work on the house
that the pool was pulled into that?
Mr. Larkin: Because they needed to get a building permit or any time there is an inspection done
on the property that involves in this case the front yard it would be required to be brought up to
current safety standards for pools.
Commissioner Garber: They can’t get a final until? Thank you.
Chair Holman: Other questions of Staff?. Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: So since we have this new re~lation that we have to abide by and it can be
made retroactive on existing pools in the community are we facing the prospect of now a series
of variance requests for five foot fences where we have front pools and any time they need a
building permit we are going to run into this? We don’t have a policy framework other than go
through this variance process that is expensive for Staff and applicants and potentially
contentious for the community because we don’t have a policy framework. Is that correct, and it
has been driven by this change in state law that changes circumstances upon us?
Mr. Williams: That may be the case for a certain number of pools that are out there if
subsequent work is done or someone wants to just upgrade to the current five foot standard.
Then the variance may in some cases be necessary and in some cases the pool may be far enou-~h
back that they can fit a five-foot fence back at the setback line and still provide that it doesn’t
have to be up at the property line necessarily. But that is correct it is a possibility. We will
amend our handouts and such to indicate that five-foot fencing is required for new applications
and new pools that it will be necessary to have that back past the setback, which is necessary.
But for those that are existing now if they need to be brou~dht up to code then it is possible that
we could have a number of these at some point come forward.
Commissioner Burt: Well, does it also mean that for circumstances where historically people
would have been allowed to put a pool in in what is defined as a front yard depending on the
circumstance that today they would have to seek a fence variance in many circumstances because
the setback wouldn’t allow them to have four foot front fence suffice for the five foot pool
protection? So now we might be saying they need two fences one four foot and then behind that
perhaps some short distance a foot fence?
Page 8
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Williams: That would be the option. In most cases it probably wouldn’t take much of a
change in the pool design to keep it a few feet back of that setback but yes, it would then take a
second fence 20 feet from the property line or 16 feet on a street side yard to accommodate the
five-foot height limit. So we haven’t had a lot of chance to talk about how to handle these but
we need to look at it procedurally as to whether there is a more systematic way.
Comrnissioner Burt: I will just give one final cormnent on that and I won’t attempt to try and
resolve this tonight, although it seems like we should perhaps look at this systematically given
that we have a new state regulation that is affecting essentially creating a degee of contradiction
between our front fence regulation and the state regulation on pool safety.
It also seems that we are going to potentially be driving the five foot fence close to the edge of
the pool which may be something we choose to do but it impacts the utilization of that yard
space and it just seems like we should Nve thoughtful consideration on how to resolve this and
not have to go through expensive processes, and uncertainty for the applicants, and expense to
the City, expense to the applicant, and maybe a final outcome that is not geat for anybody.
Chair Holman: I have just a clarifying question here quickly. Are there options to the five-foot
fence? Amy, I think you said that there was a pool cover that could be an option. What options
are there to the five-foot fence?
Ms. French: I would be happy to recite those. The first obviously is the enclosure, the five-foot
enclosure. Then there could be a removable mesh pool fencing, and there is some jargon there,
in conjunction with a gate that is self-closing and self-latching, and can accommodate a key
lockable device. You may have seen one of those I know I have. Another one, and just one of
these would suffice, the pool can be equipped with an approved safety pool cover. Another one
is the residence will be equipped with exit alarms on all doors providing direct access to the pool.
So I guess that is for a more particular circumstance. Then all doors providing direct access from
the home to the swimming pool shall be equipped with a self-closing, self-latching device with a
release mechanism, etc. Then swimming pool alarms that when placed in pools will sound upon
detection of accidental or unauthorized entry.
Chair Holman: Thank you that is very helpful. Commissioner Tuma and then Commissioner
Lippert.
Commissioner Tuma: I noticed in your memo there is some discussion about an attempt to get
the neighbors and the applicant together and that didn’t happen. Have you had any more
feedback from the neighbors? There doesn’t appear to be anybody here tonight from the
neighborhood. Is there any more feedback from the neighbors as to with the redesign kind of
where they are on this?
Ms. Jermifer Cutler, Associate Plarmer: Yes we actually did receive positive feedback from the
neighbors. The neighbor who requested this hearing did respond that once she had looked at the
plans she was feeling better about them. The other neighbor who was concerned about the
acacia tree was pleased to hear that we were going to be protecting it and requiring the 10-foot
setback. That seemed to be her only concern. So they seemed to be feeling better about the
Page 9
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
44
45
46
situation but just wanted to have the opportunity for any other neighbors who might have had
conlnlents.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Was one of the options to have a pool cover?
Ms. French: Yes.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So that would also suffice in terms of the necessary protection there as well.
Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Tuma, and we are hopefully
getting close to a motion.
Comrnissioner Keller: So first let me make a couple of observations that I think might be of
interest. One is if it were a four foot fence we wouldn’t be here today and we would have not
had even insured the protection of the acacia tree. Secondly, I notice that the acacia tree isn’t on
L-3 precisely because L-3 ends at the property line and the acacia tree appears to be in the street
portion or the City portion adjacent to the property line, sort of just over the edge if you will. So
I am wondering if that means that when people apply for things like this if it might be
worthwhile having some context so that if there are street trees at the property line, adjacent to
the property line, just over the property line if you will, that those be identified on plans so that
we don’t have that kind of problem in the furore. Othelavise you wouldn’t know that that tree is
supposed to be protected and it wouldn’t have been protected. So I think that assuming that that
is a process thing that might be worthwhile fixing in the future. Thank you.
Chair Hotman: Commissioner Tuma, Garber, and then Sandas.
Cormnissioner Tuma: I am fine for now.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: I was going to make a motion. I will relinquish my motion to yours.
Chair Holman: He is acquiescing to your motion, Commissioner Sandas.
MOTION
Commissioner Sandas: Since you are the new Vice-Chair I will accept your relinquishing the
motion. I move that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend to the City
Council to uphold the tentative approval of the variance to allow the installation of a fence to
exceed the permitted fence height at 1456 Edgewood Drive based upon the findings and
conditions contained with~ the Draft Record of Land Use Action.
Chair Holman: Is there a second?
Page 10
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
SECOND
Commissioner Garber: There is, I will make it.
Chair Holman: Seconded by Conmlissioner Garber.
speak to your motion?
Commissioner Sandas, would you like to
Commissioner Sandas: I would indeed. This is a fence and it caused me to percolate quite a bit.
I thought about it for awhile and I was thinking about it from sort of a practical point of view.
The first thing I want to say is I appreciate the modifications that were made from the oriNnal
plan to this. The second thing is that if I were a neighbor on Edgewood Drive and the only place
my neighbor could put a swimming pool was in their front yard I would appreciate a little bit of a
higher fence around it because I would like not to be a part of a swimming pool community
rather than my neighborhood. So I think that the five-foot fence makes for more privacy for the
homeowners and the neighbors. Also, from a safety standpoint I gew up with a swimming pool
in my backyard and we had a six-foot cyclone fence practically with barbwire around it to make
sure that the neighbor kids didn’t come crawling in and drowning. So I feel like unfortunately
they don’t have options to have a swimming pool other than in their front yard, which is a huge
attractive nuisance and a huge safety hazard. I think it is harder for a toddler or a five or six year
old child wanting to go for a swim to scale a five foot fence than a four foot fence. So having
said all those things I am still backing up my motion.
Chair Hotman: Commissioner Garber, would you care to speak to your second?
Commissioner Garber: I think Paula covered it, thank you.
Connnissioner Sandas:
Ms. French:
Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma.
Commissioner Tuma: The only thing I would say is with respect to the alternatives here that
were listed we several years back went through a process of building a pool and looking at these
various options. I have to tell you most of them are not very effective in keeping kids out of
pools. Most of them are optional, in other words you can turn the alarm on or off, you can have
the cover on or off. With a permanent fence there I think it is a much better barrier. So I think it
is a better solution and I think that is part of why they have now required the five-foot fence so I
would be very in favor of the motion.
Chair Holman: Other comments? I guess I have a little different perspective on this. This is a
difficult one because the rule changed. I guess my concern is that if we gant this variance it sets
a precedent for the very thing that Commissioner Butt brought earlier. As a matter of fact, I
think it might even drive homeowners to come in requesting new fences because they would then
be able to expect to get a variance. You have to make the findings but I am concerned about the
precedent since there are options.
Page 11
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
44
45
46
The other fences in the neighborhood are either lower and if there are shrubs in front they are
visually permeable so you still see the residence through and what is being proposed here is very
dense shrubbery, not that we have any control over that but the wall certainly provides no sight
lines. So this is a tough one, it is really a tough one. I am prone to oppose the motion. Curtis,
you look like you have something to say, perhaps?
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to mention that I think your concern about people coming in and
requesting it is a good point. I think we need to go back and regroup and fig-ure out how to
devise a policy or an ordinance change or whatever it is going to take to be sure that it is not
abused and that we come up with something that is reasonable and the Commission is
comfortable with.
Ms. French: I would like to add that I think the incidents of pools in front yards are more rare
than frequent.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, you had comments?
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes, I just have one other comment. It does add a level of complexity
because I believe our ordinance allows people to build fences without permits as long as they
follow the regulations. However, any new fences that are built because somebody has a
swimming pool will be permitted fences because they do have to follow the current building
code standards. So in that case they won’t be able to sort of slip under the radar. When
somebody goes and applies for a permit for a swimming pool the Building Department will
require that they put in one of those protection measures.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: Just one other thing to make sure we consider when we look at the policy
framework, and that is what would occur with corner lots which are many, and where what we
think of as the backyard is a street facing. So it is covered by the restriction on the fence height
that anybody with a pool in their backyard then would be affected in the same way, I think.
Ms. French: I guess the difference in a street side yard is you could put a fence closer. It is not a
20 foot front yard setback it is often a 16 foot so it is at least saying you could put a six foot
fence or five foot fence at 16 feet rather than having to put it back at 20 feet.
Commissioner Burt: Yes, but if you think about the practicality of that on say a 50 foot wide lot
and a pool in the back and a 16 foot setback for a fence you are somewhere in the middle of the
pool.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: Briefly, in fo!low up to what Commissioner Burr said, I have noticed that
sometimes on corner lots what the homeowner thinks of as the front of the lot and what the City
thinks of as the front of the lot are at odds with each other. I think the City usually thinks of the
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
me. On the one hand we are talking about how this land is beh~g used and while I think it would
be nice not to have a fence at all, and it is landscaped beautifully, the real issue for me is the
safety of other kids.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Chair Holman: Okay, I guess I should close the public comment since there are no more
questions for the applicant and no members of the public. So we will close the public comment
and the question has been called. So all those in favor? (ayes) That passes on a seven to zero
vote. It is a hard one. I was on the fence about it, let’s say.
So that concludes item number one. Thank you to the applicant for coming and thank you Staff
for your presentation.
Page 14