1 Planning Commission
staff report March 28, 2023
Subject: MISCELLANEOUS ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
CITY-WIDE
Project Planner : Haley Croffoot, 925-671-5297, [email protected] I. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Description
This is a follow-up study session for the Planning Commission to provide preliminary input and direction to staff on remaining proposed zoning ordinance amendments not discussed at the previous study session, including:
x Fence height regulations on corner lots
x Automobile service uses
B. Background
On January 24, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the potential zoning ordinance amendments and expressed support for a majority of the text changes as proposed. The Commission continued the discussion on a few of the more complex topics to a future study session. A copy of the January 24, 2023 Staff Report is included as Attachment B and the proposed text amendments are included in Attachment A.
This item was scheduled for the March 14, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, however, this meeting was cancelled without discussion and moved to the March 28, 2023 meeting date.
II. ANALYSIS
Staff is seeking to remedy certain sections of the ordinance that are unclear or inconsistent with current practice. The remaining proposed amendments for consideration are summarized below:
Fence Regulations
Section 18.20.040.I, Fences and walls
This amendment is proposed for consideration at the Commission’s request after a recent variance application. Staff seeks the Commission’s input and feedback regarding a potential amendment to allow six-foot tall (maximum) fences within the front yard setback for corner lots.
8.1 Packet Pg. 89
2 Current regulations allow up to a three-foot tall fence within the front yard setback for all lots (including corner lots). Some items to consider regarding this proposal from a design and “neighborhood feel” perspective is that allowing six-foot tall fences parallel to the front property line and within the front yard setback area could disrupt the neighborhood aesthetic pattern and could create an unwelcoming pedestrian environment and neighborhood street presence. In addition, corner lots typically abut non-corner (interior) lots; thus, a corner lot would effectively “wall” itself off from the remainder of the neighborhood, and create visual incongruity with adjacent successive lots held to a three-foot front yard fence height provision.
Other reasons raised during the most recent fence variance request, and through other past fence height deviation requests, are noted below:
x Safety concerns related to nearby vehicle circulation, given lot location on a corner (signalized or unsignalized).
Staff Comments: While an intersection may have more vehicle activity, including turning movements, a reinforced three-foot tall fence would provide the same level of protection as a reinforced six-foot tall fence. Similarly, a six-foot tall, non-reinforced fence would have the same level of protection as a three-foot tall non-reinforced fence. In addition, an interior property along an arterial street would experience much higher levels of vehicle activity than a corner lot that is located along on a quiet residential street.
x Lighting impacts (from traffic signals or streetlights, including those from vehicles).
Staff Comments: It has been noted that corner lots are more likely to be impacted by the lighting associated with signalized intersections compared to interior lots.
However, owners of interior lots located adjacent to streetlights could also claim similar lighting impacts, particularly to interior and corner lots that do not have signalized intersections or abut street lights. In addition, street lights and signals typically exceed six feet in height, such that a six-foot tall fence would appear to have no effect for light blockage.
Staff observes, given the spread design of headlights, that residences are susceptible to vehicle headlights, whether at an intersection, on a bend of a road, or on a straight road. However, vehicles turning at an intersection are more likely to shine onto several nearby properties. A six-foot tall fence might better shield a residence from these intermittent light sources, though blackout shades or other window treatments could be an equally effective means to negate those effects. x Noise impacts from its location near an intersection.
Staff Comments: A six-foot tall fence could certainly reduce noise levels if built appropriately (certain board weight or density, no gaps or openings between boards, etc.); however, as noted previously, there are non-corner lots on busier streets that would experience higher levels of vehicle activity and likely similar, if not higher,
8.1 Packet Pg. 90
3 noise levels. Thus, these lots could also petition for additional noise buffering solutions.
x Providing privacy for the residence.
Staff Comments: A six-foot tall fence will offer more privacy than a three-foot tall fence. However, all residential properties in the City have a three-foot tall maximum height limitation within the front yard setback. Thus, it is not clear to staff why a corner lot should be afforded a six-foot tall fence in the front yard, when corner lots also have a rear or side yard where a six-foot tall fence is allowed, and can provide outdoor privacy areas.
Staff also researched how adjacent jurisdictions regulate fence heights within the front yard setback on corner lots. The findings are summarized below:
A. City of Walnut Creek: The City of Walnut Creek limits fence heights within the front yard setback area and some street side yard setback areas to not exceed three feet in height. There are no separate regulations for corner lots. Fence height regulations can be exceeded through the approval of a minor use permit (at a public hearing) with the following findings:
o The installation or construction of a fence, under the conditions of the particular case, will not:
Infringe upon the visual openness of surrounding
properties;
Detract, impair or destroy the characteristics of the established area,
Be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the area or
neighborhood of such structure.
B. City of Concord: The City of Concord limits fence heights within the front yard setback to three feet in tall. There is no process available to exceed the threefoot height limitation for fences within the front yard setback.
C. City of Martinez: The City of Martinez limits fence heights within the front yard setback to three and one-half feet tall. There are no special considerations for fences within the front setback of a corner lot. Applicants may apply for a variance to increase the fence height. The Zoning Administrator would review the variance request and is required to make the following findings:
o Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Title; o There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zoning district;
o Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district;
8.1 Packet Pg. 91
4 o The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district;
o The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
In summary, Staff does not believe that corner lots are either uniquely or inherently disadvantaged to warrant a set of fence regulations that differ from those applicable to interior lots. Staff is seeking input from the Commission on this potential amendment and will prepare draft language, if directed.
Auto Service Uses
Section 18.15.040, Commercial land use classifications
The City’s current commercial land use classifications for automobile service and repair does not separate less intensive services, such as window tinting, vehicle body film protection, audio system installation, and alarm installation from more intensive automobile services, such as auto body, collision, or brake shops. The existing use classification is included below:
Automobile, vehicle and equipment repair. Repair of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, motor homes or recreational vehicles, or boats, including the sale, installation, and servicing of related equipment and parts. This classification includes auto repair shop, body and fender shop, wheel and brake shop, and tire sales and installation, but excludes vehicle dismantling or salvage and tire retreading or recapping.
Staff recognizes that in some zones, less intensive services may be acceptable, whereas a full service automobile repair shop may not be an appropriate or compatible use. Staff is seeking the Commission’s feedback to introduce a new use classification that includes automotive detailing and equipment installation, such as window tinting, vehicle body film protection, audio system installation, and similar less intensive services, separate and apart from the automobile repair shops and brake shops. Staff will prepare draft language, if directed.
Section 18.25.030, Commercial land use regulations
If a new use classification for automobile detailing and equipment installation is supported, the commercial land use regulation table will require an update accordingly. Staff is seeking the Commission’s direction on the appropriate level of review for the proposed commercial use in all commercial zones. This amendment is proposed to align with other potential amendments and address a current gap in the ordinance. Staff will prepare the amendment, if directed.
III. CONCLUSION
The Commission should review the proposed amendments, and provide input and feedback to staff. Once input is received, staff would return to the Commission subsequently with all proposed amendments through a public hearing to request a formal recommendation to the City Council for its consideration.
8.1 Packet Pg. 92
5 IV. RECOMMENDATION
Conduct the study session and provide feedback to staff on the proposed amendments, as requested.
V. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Marked Up Draft Ordinance (Exhibit A)
Attachment B Planning Commission Staff Report, January 24, 2023 (Staff Report Attachment available in Attachment A, above)
8.1 Packet Pg. 93