Loading...
101-Fence ordinance - electronic gates.pdf COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: September 7, 2010 Subject Discussion of possible removal of the reference to “electronic gates” in Municipal Code Section 16.28 - Fences Recommended Action Provide direction to staff Description Applicant Name: City of Cupertino Location: City-wide Background On August 3, 2010, the Council asked staff to agendize the topic of electronic gates for discussion. The issue of electronic gates came up due to comments at the August 3, 2010, Council meeting from a resident on a code enforcement action related to a tall fence and electronic gates in his front driveway. He questioned why he was the only property owner who was the subject of code enforcement when he had identified others with similar fences and electronic gates. Staff has been following up on all of those complaints (see Attachment A for staff’s response letter to Mr. Jiang). Discussion Section 16.28.040 of the Municipal Code prescribes residential fencing standards. Generally, these requirements reflect the community’s goals in preserving neighborhood identity and aesthetics, ensuring neighborhood safety, and improving connectivity and social interaction (see Attachment B, General Plan Policy 2-22, Strategy 4). The regulations discourage isolation of developments from the community since tall fences and gates do not allow residents to keep an eye on their neighborhood and streets (which is important for the effectiveness of the Neighborhood Watch Program) and ensuring a safe neighborhood environment. Consequently, fences taller than three feet and driveway gates are not permitted in the front yards. The Fire Department also has concerns related to unpermitted gates which may not meet their requirements for emergency access. Taller fences are allowed at side and rear property lines behind the front yard setback to maintain the privacy and security of a property (see Attachment C, Fence Ordinance). Gates on single-family lots are allowed in certain cases by exception as long as: • There are demonstrated safety and security reasons (for example, when garages are located in the rear yard area); • The gates are at least 30 feet back from the front property line; and • They meet Fire Department requirements for emergency access. Setting gates back allows for guest parking in the front driveway (two open driveway spaces are required per the Parking Ordinance for each single-family home) and avoids queuing and parking impacts on neighborhood streets. In the interests of maintaining safety and security of neighborhoods, and ensuring emergency access to homes, staff is not recommending significant amendments to the Fence Ordinance. However, staff recommends removing the reference to electronic gates in the ordinance as follows: 16.28.045 Roadway and Driveway Gates. Roadway and driveway gates may be approved through a fence exception if the development meets any one of the following conditions: is a mixed-use development, where the parking for different uses needs to be separated to assure availability of parking for each use; if a development includes a below-grade parking structure, where the gates are required to secure the below grade parking; if gates are required for a development to obtain federal or state funding; if the development is secluded; if the electronic gates are needed for demonstrated security and/or demonstrated safety reasons; or if the electronic gates were in existence prior to September 20, 1999. It should be noted that the above amendment will not remove the requirement for code enforcement action in cases involving front yard fences and gates that do not conform to the Fence Ordinance. Ordinance Amendment Process If Council finds merit in the change recommended above, it should provide staff with direction to initiate the ordinance amendment process accordingly. A draft ordinance will then be presented for Planning Commission review and forwarded to the Council for final consideration. Timing Staff will be able to begin work on the amendments suggested above in September 2010. However, due to reduced staffing levels and some large projects currently in the work program (i.e., Green Building Ordinance, Development Permit Process - Matrix and Residential lots with slopes of 15% to 30%), any major amendments to the Fence Ordinance may have to be deferred until projects currently in progress are completed. ____________________________________ Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner and Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: A. Letter to Mr. Jiang dated September 1, 2010 B. General Plan Policy 2-22 C. Fence Ordinance