CC MIN 06-08- to 12-21-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

AGENDA (continued) ACTION TAKEN (continued) PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) 2. Public Hearing - Appeal from denial of Planning Department record transmitted application for Variance to allow a 7/21/81 six-foot fence with a one-foot setback Appeal letters 7/6 and 7/7/81 where a 15-foot setback is required, Letter from Iris and Volker Weise 7/22/81 292 Edgewood Road - Daniel B. and Juliette A. Beugelmans Mayor Biagi declared open at 7:35 p.m. Affidavits of Publication of Notice of Hearing and of Mailing reported on file. Daniel B. and Juliette A. Beugelmans, 292 Edgewood Road, appellants, introduced themselves. Dr. Beugelmans referred to his letter of July 7 and read portions of his responses to the findings of the Zoning Administrator and suggested he was denied due process with regard to the, Variance hearing. In response to questions of City Attorney Schricker, Dr. Beugelmans said that he made the same arguments before the Zoning Administrator as are presented in his appeal letter and that a former fence was set back about 17-18 feet from the sidewalk. Discussion followed and Dr. Beugelmans, Mr. Schricker, and Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Schroeter commented and replied to questions regarding the responsibility of Mr. Schroeter to apply the requirements of the fence ordinance; the suggestion that security is necessary because of experience with gunshots and rocks through windows on the property; the suggestion that many existing fences violate the sideyard setback requirements; Mr. Schroeter's determination that some rte. 4.3% of the 600 parcels in the neighborhood have nonconforming fences; whether it would be possible to amend the ordinance to permit the kind of fence the appellant wishes to construct; the reasons for the sideyard ___ fence setback requirement; the responsibilities of the fence contractor who did not seek a permit on behalf of his client; the usual knowledge of fence contractors concerning the necessity of investigating local fence requirements; the report of the fence contractor that a building inspector had stopped construction of the fence; the fact that the present fence is in the public right-of-way; and the desire of property owners to enjoy full use of their home by fencing a private area. Councilman Bury inquired for the record whether the present public hearing by the City Council satisfied Dr. Beugelmans that he was not being deprived of due process, regardless of the outcome of the hearing. Dr. Beugelmans stated that he was satisfied. In response to questions, Mr. Schroeter said that a three-foot fence can be constructed at the lot line without a variance; that in a recent case when a six-foot lot line fence was rejected, the property owners obtained a variance to construct such a fence as an extension of the house line, some eight or ten feet from the sidewalk; that the fact that the present fence is in the public right-of-way is not significant; that he was unable to find any special circumstances to warrant granting the variance; that new fences must be constructed within the requirements of the fence ordinance and staff is attempting to get compliance from property owners with nonconforming fences; the fact that considerable staff time is required to do so; that priorities must dictate which fences get attention from staff; and he commented concerning the history of the ordinance adopted in 1964 and amended in 1975. Paul Sapsin, 195 Alameda, said he had intended to apply for a variance to construct a similar fence because of the dangerous nature of the corner where he lives. Mr. Sapsin described fences which he does not believe comply; suggested protection of property is important; and - r." recommended the ordinance be amended to allow individual evaluation of each proposed fence. IMO Reg.Mtg. 7/27/81 Page 2 4