HomeMy WebLinkAbout704 Vernon Way - Staff Report/ , �
P.C. 6/27/88
Item #
MEMO T0: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT: FENCE EXCEPTION FOR AN OVER HEIGHT FENCE IN THE FRONT
SETBACK AT 704 VERNON WAY ZONED R-1
Jose and Kathy Leon, property owners, are requesting a fence
exception for a 7'-4" fence in their front setback where a 5' fence
is permitted at 704 Vernon Way, zoned R-1 (Code Sec. 25.78.030).
The fence replaced an existing 6' fence and was installed by a
contractor who did not get a building permit. There is no record
of when the original 6' fence was installed. A number of homes on
this block have fences or walls in their front setbacks.
Staff Review
City staff have reviewed this request. The City Engineer (June 6,
1988 memo) and the Fire Marshal (June 7, 1988 memo) had no
comments. The Chief Building Inspector (June 6, 1988 memo) notes
that if approved a retroactive building permit would be required
with a penalty for failing to get a building permit before
construction. Planning staff would note that an encroachment
permit is also required for this fence. The property owners would
have to apply to the City Council for that permit.
Applicants' Letter
The applicants, Jose and Kathy Leon, the property owners have
submitted two letters addressing the fence (March 25, 1988 and May
27, 1988). They explain that they became aware that the fence was
built without a permit when they received a letter from the City
Attorney. The City Attorney, they note, stated he was pursuing the
Durham Fence Company, and advised that the Leons apply for a fence
exception. They state the City Attorney told them the fence came
to his attention on a complaint.
The Leons note that the new fence had been placed at the same
location as the old fence. They said the fence contractor stated
he thought a building permit was not required when a fence was
being replaced. The Leons were not aware of his negligence. Mr.
Durham is a licensed contractor.
The neighbors, the Leons note, have complimented them on the
appearance of the new fence. They would like to keep it and do
what is necessary to comply with the city ordinances.
In their second letter they review their reasons for building a
higher than permitted fence. There was previously a fence at the
same location which provided privacy; it blew over. There is not
much room in the rear yard so their child and dog play in the front
E
yard and need to be kept out of the street. They are close to the
park and passing people throw litter into the yard when there is no
fence. They have glass doors on the front of the house which are
visible from the street without a fence and inviting to intruders.
The fence provides privacy to them and their neighbors. It does
not block views, it is attractive and does not affect the
neighbors' properties. They conclude noting that they have a
petition signed by the immediate neighbors supporting retention of
the fence.
Fence Exception
In order to grant a fence exception the Planning Commission must
find that the following circumstances exist on the property (Code
Sec. 25.78.050, 1-4):
l. that there are exceptional circumstances;
2. that there is no public hazard;
3. that neighboring properties will not be materially
damaged; and
4. that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the
petitioner.
Study Questions
At their study meeting on June 13, 1988 the Planning Commission
asked several questions regarding the fence exception request at
704 Vernon Way (Planning Commission Minutes, June 13, 1988).
There is no record of a fence exception for the previous 6'
fence at this location. However, it was old enough to be blown
over so it could have been in place for many years.
The fence was installed by the Durham Fence Company. The City
Attorney recently took Mr. Durham to court on this case. The
court determined Mr. Durham guilty in the case of the Leons�
fence on three counts: failure to get a building permit, failure
to get an encroachment permit and construction of an over height
fence. The court levied a financial penalty of over $300.
PlanninQ Commission Action
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing.
Affirmative action should be taken by resolution. The reason
for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing
the following conditions should be considered:
1. that the 7�-4" section of the fence shall be limited to
the area shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped April 5, 1988;
�
3
2. that application be made for an encroachment permit and
approved by the City Council; and
3. that a retroactive building permit shall be applied for
and obtained including final inspection of the fence and
a penalty fee charged according to the requirements of
the Uniform Building Code for failure to obtain a
building permit.
�� ���2� ����
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
cc: Jose and Kathy Leon