CCP 06172024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

35 they realized that the fence permit application should not have been approved. This 36 determination was based on the fact that the fence was being constructed in the ROW, 37 without a ROW permit or an encroachment agreement, and in excess of the submitted site 38 plan. Staff issued a stop work order on April 24, 2024. Attachment 5 shows the fence at the 39 time the stop work order was issued. Despite the stop work order, work continued on the 40 fence, and it was completed the next day. Attachment 6 shows a picture of the fence at the 41 time work was stopped. On April 25, 2024, the City sent a letter to Mr. Carrara ordering that 42 he remove the fence. (Attachment 7). Mr. Carrara submitted an email to the City Manager 43 on May 6, 2024, appealing the revocation of fence permit and order to remove the fence 44 from City ROW (Attachment 8). 45 46 On May 9, 2024, Staff received a complaint about site visibility for trail users. The 47 configuration of the driveway (which slopes down from the street to the lake) and the 48 inability to see through the fence created a safety hazard for trail users because they could 49 not see cars approaching from the driveway, and cars in the driveway did not have a view 50 of trail users. Staff reviewed the complaint and determined the fence was an imminent 51 safety issue to trail users due to lack of visibility. On May 10, 2024, Staff notified Mr. 52 Carrara that the City planned to remove certain fence panels to mitigate the safety issue. 53 Mr. Carrara asked the City to allow the fence panels to remain and, in the alternative, 54 agreed to barricade his driveway. Staff agreed and the driveway was barricaded. On May 55 18, the Property owner removed fence panels addressing the immediate visibility concerns 56 and Staff removed the barricades. 57 58 The fence permit application should have been denied. The fence is in City ROW. Private 59 improvements such as fences are not typically allowed in City ROW since such structures 60 limit the public’s use to the ROW. If Staff had realized that the fence was in the ROW, the 61 City would have required that Mr. Carrara apply for a ROW permit and Encroachment 62 Agreement prior to issuance of a fence permit. 63 64 Secondly, the fence constructed was a six-foot privacy fence. Under the zoning code, six- 65 foot fences are not allowed in the front yard. The maximum height allowed is four feet. 66 Therefore, Mr. Carrara should have been required to obtain a height variance before 67 building a six-foot fence. 68 69 Finally, the fence permit allowed Mr. Carrara to remove the City’s split-rail fence. The split- 70 rail fence that the City installed along numerous segments of the McCarrons pathway 71 serves multiple purposes. It acts as a visual and physical barrier while not obstructing the 72 view of the lake or, more importantly in this instance, the view from the Property’s driveway 73 of pedestrians and others using the trail. The split-rail fence also allowed for storage of 74 snow to ensure snow could be cleared from the path so it could be used all year. 75 76 In addition to the permit being issued in error, the fence as-built greatly exceeds what was 77 shown in the fence permit application. While the site plan does not contain any 78 measurements of the proposed fence, the fence that was built is objectively larger. The 79 larger fence, in addition to exceeding what was permitted, created a safety hazard at the 80 driveway because the fence obstructed the view from the driveway of people on the 81 pathway and vice versa. Finally, part of the larger fence (located east of Mr. Carrara’s 82 driveway) enters into property not owned by Mr. Carrara nor is considered ROW. 83 Page 2 of 4 Qbhf!9!pg!331