3A Public Hearing 2012 0221 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Excerpt of the Board of ZoningAdjustrnents Regular Meeting Minutes for• Ianuary 5, 2012 Page 2 of'-1 In response to Chair Daly's question about whether the proposed changes would remove the square footage limitation on accessory structures, Senior Planner Barros confirmed that understanding. She explained that the area of an accessory structure is measured from the outer four walls and does not include eaves. The height as defined in the Zoning Code is an average from the ridge of the roof to the wall plate, so the ridge actually may exceed eight feet. Chair Daly noted that residential fencing is limited to seven feet in height. Chair Daly further pointed out that he'd learned from experience that property lines in San Leandro tend not to be very specifically defined, and it's not uncommon for a fence to be built as much as six inches away from the property line. Although fences are relatively easy to move, he said, structures are not. Accordingly, he said that he believes it would be prudent to require setbacks for any structure of a permanent nature, even if it's only 18 inches — not only as a safeguard against encroachment but also because of drainage issues. An individual could spend thousands of dollars converting a yard to a garden spot, and then have a neighbor install a large accessory structure up against the fence. The City doesn't have a surveyor and isn't equipped to adjudicate property line issues, he stated, and doing so in court is extremely expensive and stressful. Chair Daly also pointed out that if adjacent property owners wanted to install accessory structures back -to -back against a common property line, that would create problems not only with drainage but also with impacts of storage contents and building maintenance. Chair Daly strongly recommended a setback of 18 inches for any structure. Senior Planner Barros said the proposed amendments are designed to clarify current policy and practice and clean up contradictions in the current language. Increasing the setback requirement would mean establishing new policy, she said, which would require discussions with homeowners' associations throughout the City. As a compromise, she suggested adding an area notation into the table. Chair Daly said that would clarify existing policy and be the very minimum. It's also ironic, he pointed out, that a neighbor who doesn't want to look at an accessory structure in the yard next door can only build a seven -foot fence. The result is a potential decline in property value for the neighbor without significantly increasing the value of the adjacent property with the accessory structure. Member Mendieta said that he could understand Chair Daly's issues with having accessory structures abutting property lines, particularly with the issues of drainage and eaves encroaching on neighbor's airspace and asked how issues such as these are dealt with during permitting. Senior Planner Barros explained that California Civil Code does not allow discharge of any type onto another's property, whether it be leaves or water, but it isn't appropriate to assume that accessory structures built on property lines necessarily create drainage issues. In the North Area, for example, she said that 80% of the homes have their garages right on the property lines. Planner Barros related that City staff experience at the permit counter has shown that in many cases, property owners come in for permits to replace garages that were built on the property line. If owners wish to rebuild in order to more efficiently utilize the rear yard, the Zoning Code requires a five -foot setback; this in turn forces them to lose yard space and shift the driveway over creating more impervious surface in the rear yard. That is a reason why