Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout34- Planning & Building Services CITY OF SAN BERNA ,LINO - REQUEST FOi COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Subject: Development Code Amendment No. 94-07, Fence Standards Dept: Planning & Building Services Date: October 19, 1995 MCC Date: November 6, 1995 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: On March 6, 1995, the Mayor and Common Council directed staff to initiate an amendment to the Development Code for specified modifications to the fence standards. Recommended Motion: That the Mayor and Common Council discuss each item and direct staff to prepare an ordinance accordingly. t- Al Boughe Contact person: Al Boughey Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: _ Staff Report Ward: All FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) (Acct. Description) Finance: Council Notes: 1114/9s Agenda Item No. s. •�t CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT (DCA) NO. 94-07 MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6, 1995 REQUEST A City initiated proposal to amend the text of Development Code Chapter 19.20, Section 19.20.030(8) "FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES" to add several provisions to the fencing standards. STAFF PROPOSAL 1. Allow low voltage pet fences not accessible to the public in residential designations in side and rear yards, only. 2. Allow six foot high open fencing (not chain link) at the property line for single- family residential uses in single-family designated areas for lots with 100 feet linear street frontage, 50 feet setback area measured from the front property line to the front face of the residential structure and to include three feet of landscaping either in front of or behind the fence and on the property. 3. Allow six foot high open fencing (not chain link) at the property line for multi- family residential uses with five units or more in multi-family designated areas for lots with 100 feet linear street frontage and to include three feet of landscaping either in front of or behind the fence and on the property. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Commission reviewed Development Code Amendment No. 94-07 at two meetings which occurred on August 22, 1995 and September 6, 1995. The following subsections summarize (under issue headings) the Commission's review and recommendations. 1. Low Voltage Pet Fences The Development Code does not permit low voltage pet fences or other types of electrified fences. The amendment would permit low voltage pet fences not accessible Development Code Amendment No. 9407 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of November 6, 1995 Page 2 to the public on side and rear property lines in residential districts. This provision was included in the amendment proposal because the Inspection Services Division and Board of Building Commissioners have received requests from City residents that low voltage pet fences be permitted. The Planning Commission was concerned that this type of fencing could pose a threat to children, domestic pets and small birds. To address this concern, staff contacted the Underwriter's Laboratory (UL)and was informed that electrical fence controllers that are tested and approved by UL are considered to be safe for residential use. Based on this information, staff proposes that only UL approved and listed electrical fence controllers be approved for use by the Director of Planning and Building Services. Following the discussion, the Planning Commission recommended that the Mayor and Common Council allow low voltage pet fences not accessible to the public in residential districts in side and rear yards, only. [The vote was 4 to 3 (4 Ayes - Schuiling, Strimpel, Thrasher and Traver; 3 Nays - Brue, Gonzales and Hamilton; 2 Absent - Cole and Stone; and, 0 Abstentions)] 2. Large Lot Single-Family Residential Fences There were no issues raised during the public hearing about this element of the proposed amendment. Planning Commission recommended that the Mayor and Common Council allow a maximum of six foot high open fencing (not chain link) at the property line for single-family residential uses in single-family residential designations for lots with 100 feet of lineal street frontage, 50 feet of setback area from the front property line to the front face of the residential structure and to include a minimum of three feet of landscaping either in front of or behind the fencing material on the property. [The vote was 7 to 0 (7 Ayes - Brue, Gonzales, Hamilton, Schuiling, Strimpel, Thrasher and Traver; 0 Nays; 2 Abstentions - Cole and Stone; 0 Abstain)] 3. Large Lot Multi-family Residential Fences As noted, this provision is for six foot high (maximum) fencing at the property line for large lot multi-family developments of 5 or more units with 100 feet of lineal street frontage. During the public hearings at the Planning Commission meetings, property owners and tenants from the Sunrise Village (Arden-Guthrie) area voiced their concern Development Code Amendment No. 94-07 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of November 6, 1995 Page 3 regarding the exclusion of four-plexes from the amendment proposal. Those who testified felt that 4 foot high fences do not provide adequate security for property and tenants. Based on these concerns, Planning staff requested that the Economic Development Agency (EDA) review the proposal and comment on its appropriateness in the Sunrise Village. The EDA responded to the effect that a 6 foot high fence would be appropriate around the perimeter of the Sunrise Village project area. However, they felt that six foot fencing at the property line of each four-plex unit would isolate residents, segment properties and undermine efforts to promote a sense of community in the area. This would project a negative image of the area that would be difficult to overcome. For the reasons stated, the existing standard of four feet is more appropriate for individual properties in the Sunrise Village project area. (See Attachment 3) Based on the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission recommended that the Mayor and Common Council: a. Allow a maximum of six foot high open fencing (not chain link) at the property line in multi-family designated areas for multi-family developments with five or more units and having a linear street frontage of 100 feet minimum and to include a minimum of three feet of landscaping either in front of or behind the fencing material on the property; and, [The vote was 7 to 0 (7 Ayes - Brue, Gonzales, Hamilton, Schuiling, Strimpel, Thrasher and Traver; 0 Nays; 2 Absent - Cole and Stone; 0 Abstentions) b. Allow a maximum of six foot high open fencing (not chain link) at the property line in the Sunrise Village project area for multi-family developments with four or more units and to include a minimum of three feet of landscaping either in front of or behind the fencing material on the property. [The vote was 7 to 0 (7 Ayes - Brue, Gonzales, Hamilton, Schuiling, Strimpel, Thrasher and Traver; 0 Nays; 2 Absent - Cole and Stone; 0 Abstentions)] 4. Chain Link Fences The issue of chain link fences was discussed during the Planning Commission public hearings. A west San Bernardino resident, Mr. Chris Byrd, spoke in favor of the City permitting chain link fencing in the front yard. The Commission discussed Mr. Byrd's Development Code Amendment No. 94-07 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of November 6, 1995 Page 4 request which he also submitted in writing to the Department. A letter from the City's Board of Building Commissioners (BBC) to Mayor and Common Council the was also discussed. (See Attachment 1 and Attachment 4, respectively) At the August 22, 1995 public hearing, the Planning Commission requested that staff conduct a survey of nearby cities to determine if chain link fencing and other types of fencing materials are permitted. The Commission was also interested in the height and location standards. The survey results are included in Attachment 2. Based on the public testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission recommended that the Mayor and Common Council allow chain link fencing (at a maximum height of four feet) at the front property line in all residentially designated areas. [The vote was 7 to 0 (7 Ayes - Brue, Gonzales, Hamilton, Schuiling, Strimpel, Thrasher and Traver; 0 Nays; 2 Absent - Cole and Stone; 0 Abstentions)] 5. Barbed, Razor and Concertina Wire Fences It was discussed that the Development Code does not allow the use of barbed, razor or concertina wire for fencing material. Generally, these types of materials are used as an extension material that is placed on top of walls or fences. At various times, the City has had requests to use all three items in conjunction with commercial and industrial uses. Staff acknowledged that for some very intensive industrial uses, the use of barbed wire may be appropriate as an aid to site security and/or public safety. In such instances, a 2 or 3 feet extension of barbed wire on top of a fence with a combined overall height of 8 feet could be considered. Staff did not feel that it would be appropriate or desirable to allow razor or concertina wire in the same situations. The Planning Commission did not recommend changing the Code to allow barbed, razor or concertina wire and no vote was taken. ENVIRONMENTAL Staff has evaluated the proposed Development Code Amendment and determined that it is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3) which states that CEQA only applies to projects and/or activities which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendment does not have the potential to result in any significant effects on the environment. Development Code Amendment No. 9407 Mayor and Common Council Meeting of November 6, 1995 Page 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council discuss each item and direct staff to prepare an ordinance accordingly. Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner Prepared for: Al Boughey, AICP, Director of Planning and Building Services ATTACHMENTS 1. Board of Building Commissioners Memorandum (August 10, 1995) 2. Survey On Chain Link Fencing And Other Fencing Materials (September 6, 1995) 3. Economic Development Agency Memorandum (September 6, 1995) 4. Mr. Christopher Byrd Letter (September 5, 1995) ATTACHMENT 1 August 10, 1995 Mayor and Common Council AUG 14 1995 Re • Chain Link Fencing ITY OF SAN SzR4Dlilo g V1 DEPAR T IVIZNT Cr FLANN!!tiG & BUILM.NG SERViC:S Dear Mayor and Council members : The Board of Building Commissioners (BBC) ha$ had the opportunity to hear numerous appeals relative to the illegality of the use of chain link fencing. After hearing these appeals it has become apparent that the issue of the use of chain link fencing must be revisited. It is our understanding that issues relative to the use of chain link fencing will be considered by the Planning Commission, the Legislative Review Committee, and the Mayor and Common Council . The purpose of this letter is to voice our opinion regarding the chain link fence issues . The BBC has the following- concerns : 1 . Aesthetics - The elimination of chain link fencing has been promoted as a method of creating a more aesthetically pleasing environment . To accept this point of view must in turn mean acceptance of the fact that chain link fencing has a blighting influence on this city. It is our opinion that there is absolutely no basis for such a position. Chain link fencing can be as visually appealing as other types of fencing such as block wall, ornamental wrought iron, and the like. It is the view of the BBC that the City of San Bernardino, being an older city, can not be expected to "appear" , for example, as a newer South Orange County city. It is our opinion that chain link fencing does not detrimentally affect the appearance of the city' but in fact lends itself to the character and uniqueness that is the City of San Bernardino. 2 . Security - Unfortunately, the City of San Bernardino has a crime problem. Again unlike, for example, some of the newer South Orange County cities, San Bernardino is home to numerous criminal elements . The citizens of this city must be afforded an opportunity to protect their property from these criminal elements . The use of chain link fencing is an effective yet affordable means of providing a first line of defense. 3 . Cost - Unfortunately, a good portion of the residents of the city are on some type of welfare and many others are on a fixed income . Though many of the property owners and managers have the desire to improve their property, their budget just cannot afford the alternative fencing being suggested (block wall, ornamental wrought iron, etc) . Chain link fencing is less expensive and therefore more readily affordable . The lower cost provides property owners the ability to install fencing and thereby providing a level of security for their property. 4 . Unfair Application - It is generally accepted that a use which has been in existence prior to a legislative change which outlaws such use is deemed to be "grand fathered in" . Thus a property owner wishing to install new fencing for his/her house, even though located adjacent to a house with existing chain link fencing, will be required to put in a block wall or wrought iron fence. Such application is patently unfair and constitutes unequal treatment of similarly situated properties . This is not to say that as part of the development agreement for new housing tracts, a requirement for the use of block wall (or something similar) may be included. However, to require that all new fences be other than chain link in existing neighborhoods which already have chain link fences in existence would be unfair. 5 . Amortization - If the city does wish to outlaw chain link fencing, the enabling ordinance should establish a date by which all chain link fencing must be removed. This would insure that this regulation would be fairly applied to all and further generate a uniform and symmetrical appearance within the city. The BBC, having heard the appeals of numerous individuals, feels it must voice what it believes are the legitimate concerns (which the BBC shares) of these citizens. We appreciate the opportunity to present these concerns to you. Sincerely, enja in Gonzal s Vice Chairman, Board of Building Commissioners ATTACHMENT "2N SEPTEMBER 6, 1995 SURVEY ON CHAIN LINK FENCING AND OTHER FENCING MATERIALS (DCA NO. 94-07) The following cities were surveyed to find out if chain link fencing and other fencing materials are permitted. Colton Ontario Fontana Rancho Cucamonga Grand Terrace Redlands Highland Rialto Loma Linda Yucaipa 1. Is chain link fencing permitted? rjy Residential Commercial Industrial Colton No, Yes Yes Fontana No Noe No, Grand Terrace Yes No No Highland Yes Yes, Yes. Loma Linda Yes Yes Yes Ontario Yes Yes Yes Rancho Cucamonga Yes Yes. No, Redlands Yes, Yes Yes Rialto Yes Yes Yes Yucaipa Yes Yes Yes Notes: , Can submit application/$25 fee for design review;only permitted in areas having existing chain link fencing or on side and rear propertylines not visible from public view. 2 In commercial areas, chain link fencing is only permitted to secure vacant or abandoned properties/buildings. 3 In industrial areas, chain link fencing is permitted in interior side or rear yard areas or to secure vacant or abandoned properties/buildings. 4 New development requires design fencing; however, existing development could use chain link. 5 Chain link is not permitted in light industrial areas; however, it is permitted in heavy industrial areas. 6 New multi-family developments conditioned for design fencing. 2. Height Standards for Chain Link Fences in Residential, Commercial and Industrial Districts. Residential Commercial Industrial Colton Front: 4' 8' 8' Interior Side: 6' 8' 8' Street Side: 4' 8' 8' Rear: 6' 8' 8' INCA No. 94-07 - Chain Link Fencing Survey Planning Commission Meeting of September 6, 1995 Page 2 Residential Commercial Industrial Fontana Front: N/A N/A N/A Interior Side: N/A N/A 8' Street Side: N/A N/A N/A Rear: N/A N/A 8' Grand Terrace Front: 6' 6'min/8'max 6'min/8'max Interior Side: 6'min 6'min/8'max 6'min/8'max Street Side: 6' 6'min/8'max 6'min/8'max Rear: 6'min 6'min/8'max 6'min/8'max Highlan Front: 4' 49, 49, Interior Side: 6' 69, 69, Street Side: 4' 49, 49, Rear: 69 6', 691 Loma Linda Front: 4' 89 8' Interior Side: 6' 81 8' Street Side: 4' 89 8' Rear: 6' 8' 8' Ontario Front: 3.5' 3.5' 8' Interior Side: 6' 89 8' Street Side: 3.5' 3.5' 8' Rear: 6' 8' 8' Rancho Cucamonga Front: 6' 6', 892 Interior Side: 6' 69, 892 Street Side: 6' 69, 892 Rear: 6' 61, 892 'ACA No. 94-07 - Chain Link Fencing Survey Planning Commission Meeting of September 6, 1995 Page 3 Residential Commercial Industrial Redlands Front: 4' 4' 4' Interior Side: 6' 6' 6' Street Side: 4' 4' 4' Rear: 6' 6' 6' Rialto Front: 3.5' 6-8' 6-8' Interior Side: 6' 6-8' 6-8' Street Side: 3.5' 6-8' 6-8' Rear: 6' 6-8' 6-8' Yucaipa Front: 4' 4' 6' Interior Side: 6' 10' 10' Street Side: 4' 4' 6' Rear: 6' 10' 10' Notes: 1 Design fences required by condition for new commercial developments; existing commercial can use chain link fencing. 2 Chain link fencing not permitted in public view in light industrial areas; permitted in heavy industrial areas. 3. Are top rails and/or fence post caps required? Most cities indicate that top rails and fence post caps are not specifically required by ordinance but encouraged through the review process or Building Permits for fencing are conditioned. 4. Are low voltage pet fences permitted? The majority of cities surveyed do not have provisions for low voltage pet fences and applications for this type of fencing are considered on a case by case basis. A few cities such as Colton, Ontario and Rialto do not permit electric fences of any kind. UCA No. 94-07 - Chain Link Fencing Survey Planning Commission Meeting of September 6, 1995 Page 4 5. Is barbed wire permitted? CY Residential Commercial Industrial Colton No No Yes Fontana No No, No, Grand Terrace No No No Highland No No, No, Loma Linda No Yes, YeS2 Ontario No No No Rancho Cucamonga No No No Redlands No No No Rialto No No, No, Yucaipa Yes2 YeS2 Yes2 Notes: 1 Generally, not permitted but may be considered on a case by case basis. 2 When used to enclose livestock, barbed wire is permitted as a cap for a 6' wall or fence; not permitted below 6'. 6. Is razor wire or concertina wire permitted? Six Residential Commercial Industrial Colton No No Yes Fontana No No, No, Grand Terrace No No No Highland No No, No, Loma Linda No, Noz Noe Ontario No No No Rancho Cucamonga No No No Redlands No No No Rialto No No, No, Yucaipa Yes Yes Yes Notes: 1 Generally, not Permitted but may be considered on a case by case basis. 2 Special fencing material such as razor wire or concertina wire is considered on a case by case basis. ATTACEmNT "3n ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MEMORANDUM TO: Al Boughey, Director Planning and Building Services FROM: ` Timothy C. Steinhaus, Agency Administrator Economic Development Agency SUBJECT: FENCING STANDARD AMENDMENT IN THE ARDEN-GUTTHUE AREA DATE: September 6, 1995 We have reviewed the proposed amendment to the Development Code to allow six foot fencing at the front property line for large lot, multi-family developments of five units or more. Expanding the amendment to include four unit properties such as those in the Arden-Guthrie area would not be appropriate. The placement of six foot fencing in the front yard of individual four unit properties would isolate residents, segment properties and undermine efforts to promote a sense of community. In short, six foot fencing would result in a negative image which would be difficult to overcome. The existing standard which allows a maximum height of four feet for open work fences in front yards is more appropriate for the individual properties. However, six foot fencing placed at the perimeter of the Arden-Guthrie area would not result in a negative impact and would allow for a safer, unified tenant opportunity. The perimeter fencing would enhance the project area and eliminate any need for front yard fencing in excess of four feet in height. Let me emphasize that in all instances, open fencing such as a combination of wrought iron and brick or slumpstone should be used - not chain link. T SEe 1, --j ATTACHMENT non //'.., m G Li�c.'.t /•%s/f uh� 1'A, at/fit r r,u r�i�c -+et f�s.r";rw 11.4 Guru /ic �cfCd i^ rcf/c%..f/�+r/ dl?",&fio.. �o /4,e eXC/�esive usc- 9PI4 kV-O.l uhd /rOH Wi1A &P 4,4 AAA O�J�/my dl G�ra .%1 /�i,/f �CSiGG Tier SB�+.aC ar�caf {.t/rsuclls7�_ /Itch Grua/ i�esde�• l-araGG _ yr:ar7�cric[�S -�1� I�L�/ -- _ . par /'c&C /ar i+cfielc.sc� , /�/ •s••.�r...g/C 7� i.�e rr/ VV L•% v'c:�y a/c c or cr f i✓c/ �c.,1 t fo 6 c w1.�Gl. t".vee fHPocr� fv t4c a�dKH/ of/«Lot h ccdLd }o tom,s1�a/� �!t�. c:c...%cnIt 6 c-c.0"e .d/.c/rs u.t d 04 A� vVr'v.�c'�,/ i•on 5 0..., cs PC .�c 5 S c.v71�0.,3" «y h e�/ 6.-- a s f/«�/� .r.z� y.-►ay 6 c p K/lz< dv�,r�., 6�. hoc.�,1«lS . /'7y a�w.-. �ic.ccfltd cori,� /it •...1 /f �eura�c_ra�a/ . mom _PWA Pao. - G.4 ocih - //h/�' f a..ct K/e...y fs►c p�^//ci'7'jr //.,G/ h�16��s f/.r- - yri.t/ / /it c_cC &I.1 ftcG� u cer.� r c /if W S-4/l app c qi` sit 0&1 ac Ir W«/'d /ii 7 ih 9 h cX f Ao a c4ar/y //i, K rrcr- c Se-Giho/ �y/hc oje 'tet sCcus/L/c �cCcC&45C- v7` /;�f rag//icy of Gop r-�fscre� N9i ��C 4c S ^ch9 �, d fe cc ca- ANA". {sr1 hs A Tie Ce7/ a..1 Crtu�c cc A//:L1 Gsrhtif. �i i'f Gt7e/dah {c.�Ga Yvi44�1 a/f0 /S'r- ai. /h tr fe+c o / / � h 1to Nu I�a/ix if 7�m Spray pa�n � d^ eve.1 hhec /T o%wn •C� �cre� . Tie G�{LGJf's B7c �a�'S/i wt.a �J.e•- «re yr.•r� i7e�i`eq./s/c. i�.s oc 40®e��y� �'�.,ca .cam. I"o//.ita «rid ditty%o.�uf�B�, . Kvs Vcole-C, /S /f�v c4w6q �ara6/y �+vrt tXP�.Tf/✓t I-A //'07 A- c r L 6c //'CV'C 'Ac, AP,,tA s?G fl.cSG c/S ctrC- gg aP/e«r><,--cn7' eo►mr/c� 7o- cerr f/r 44 c?.'e„ S/71c/ LroX7 le Alco- Aq C- icr tviea - on•r Wrdu�ssr� /%�► e:-� 9o�.c/d b� .cO/►rsPr.u�G _ /:. .-�j�- -S�ilua.�ier. -- a/KC _gym ,L +,,+ f,•us� a,.�1 ri er jilt ,f/z, ant S)<k6i %i/y of G �aiAlt /%h fT /f t✓•e�Ln� /" f4 o71 l+oHfcri 144etyl liuvc fliif Jfy�c ecl/cr/cc 74it A-Iwff . IC/,.r 6/c- BYr P".e/ar i'u�5 Go-., e L� C-01 c 415,0'41.0? T f+Ph"e-y /it i.,.r acr�u f�(a� �avt GL.ain /ir►I�' �GKGGf c►ha� �%aft Ce�rfid�:• «//e�i:•�, �l,ij fj�Pc vrC I+-.•r�erru/ �'or fl,ose VVl4o/ /ifJc iyty fay-.i /y� I�c�wirt cc 1Ca�,cc Aso- ScGUr.`r�r ocr,d S«� ji /^c« fihs.