My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
3A Public Hearing 2012 0221
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2012
>
Packet 2012 0221
>
3A Public Hearing 2012 0221
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2012 3:27:13 PM
Creation date
2/15/2012 5:44:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Staff Report
Document Date (6)
2/21/2012
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2012 0221 CD+RG
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2012\Packet 2012 0221
10A Action 2012 0305
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2012\Packet 2012 0305
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Excerpt of Draft Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of .fanuary 19, 2012 Page 3 (?/'6 <br />Commissioner Rennie said that he's very appreciative of the way the proposal has <br />been set up, for staff and residents alike, and noted that sometimes tables are a better <br />way to present information than text alone. <br />In response to Commissioner Fitzsimons, Senior Planner Barros said that setbacks for <br />a primary structure are 20 feet in the front, 15 feet in the rear and 5 feet on each side. <br />Chair Collier suggested that the section on height and setbacks for accessory <br />structures specify where the height is to be measured — at the midpoint between the <br />ridge and the eave. She said that the Uniform Building Code and the International <br />Building Code no longer provide that information. Senior Planner Barros said that <br />because there are so many styles of roof, including some with no ridges, the proposed <br />language refers to another section of the Zoning Code. She said that roof heights are <br />very explicitly defined, along with graphic depictions of four different types. She said that <br />at the permit counter, staff routinely flip to those definitions when working with residents. <br />Chair Collier said it was not her experience at the Building Permit counter, where she <br />spent nearly 30 minutes waiting for four employees to find the appropriate section of the <br />Code. Noting that Building staff even sent her to the library, which doesn't have an <br />updated version of the Building Code, she said the information about roofs should be <br />readily available, perhaps as a handout. Senior Planner Barros said that the planning <br />department has an accessory structure handout, and can add the appropriate section of <br />the Code regarding height to that handout. <br />3) Fences in the Residential Single- Family View Preservation Overlay District (RS- <br />VP): Senior Planner Barros noted that the Bay -O -Vista view preservation district <br />overlay was created in Zoning Code amendments in 2001. She pointed out the area on <br />a map, indicating that it encompasses the area south of Lake Chabot Road, Estudillo <br />Avenue and north of the unincorporated area that is included in the View Preservation <br />Overlay District. She noted that the residential single - family neighborhoods in the flat <br />area north of Estudillo Avenue around Chabot Park are not part of it. In the RS -VP <br />District, all additions are subject to design review. In 2007, a change in fencing <br />regulations in Bay -O -Vista required any fencing above three feet to be made of glass. <br />The proposed change would make that regulation more flexible because certain fencing <br />proposals in some RS -VP areas — particularly around Benedict Drive and in the hills <br />where homes on a ridge are all side -by -side — have no view implications at all. <br />Rather than requiring homeowners in this situation to go through the time, expense and <br />hearing involved in obtaining a fence - modification permit, she said the proposed change <br />would enable the ZEO to look at the context of the home, and if there are no view <br />issues, authorize solid fencing without glass at the top. <br />Commissioner Dlugosh asked how the situation would be handled in homes that might <br />have views on the sides rather than straight out from the property. Senior Planner Barros <br />said that all of those views would be considered viewshed. Commissioner Dlugosh said <br />that when the glass fencing issue in Bay -O -Vista was under consideration, the Planning <br />Commission was not addressing side -yard fences, but only view fences. Senior Planner <br />Barros suggested that the side -fence application was an unintended consequence, but <br />the change now proposed would make it less problematic. <br />Commissioner Fitzsimons asked about the test for whether a view is involved — a <br />neighbor complaining or a staff decision? Senior Planner Barros said that the City <br />generally would learn about the problem if someone puts up a fence and a neighbor <br />complains about it, but sometimes people come to the permit counter saying they want <br />to build a fence. She added that a Benedict Drive resident is holding off on fencing plans <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.