PROJECT NO. 2005-63 � ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT

PURPOSE:

 

To consider proposed modifications to the City�s standards for fences, walls, and hedges in residential zones. The proposed ordinance also addresses other features that are commonly installed within front yards such as arbors.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

Over the years, it has become clear that a number of residential properties within the City of Burbank, particularly within single family neighborhoods, have been improved with fences with heights that are in excess of current City standards. In August 2004, the Planning Division prepared a report to the City Council summarizing the situation the City is facing regarding fence and hedge height violations and proposing options for amending the Municipal Code in an effort to address the issues.

 

While the City Council did not provide specific direction on the manner in which the City�s fence regulations could be modified, individual Council members expressed opinions on a variety of elements of fence height and design. The Council directed staff to conduct a study session with the Planning Board addressing potential changes to the City�s fence regulations and proceed with the development of a new ordinance.

 

Based upon the comments received by the City Council in August 2004, the Community Development Department established a Fence Task Force consisting of six (6) staff members: two (2) each from the Planning, Building, and License and Code Services Division. The task force was developed to make recommendations on changes to the existing ordinance based upon the professional experience of the members.

 

On February 28, 2005, the Planning Board held a study session on residential fence regulations. As part of the study session, staff presented the recommendations developed from the Fence Task Force to facilitate discussion on the topic. This report also included a background on the history of fence regulations in Burbank and the standards of a number of other cities.

 

Purpose of Fence Regulations

The regulation of fence and wall heights is a common zoning practice. The manner in which an individual community regulates fences is, in many ways, a reflection of the character of that community. Fence and wall standards are influenced by a community�s cultural character, historical development patterns and architectural styles, and overall community values regarding the interplay between community values and private property rights. However, regardless of the influences, communities regulate the height of fences and walls in order to create a consistent development pattern and improve the aesthetic quality of the streetscape.

 

Current Requirements

Heights of fences and walls in Burbank are regulated in Section 31-1302 of the Burbank Municipal Code. The Code limits the height of fences, walls, and hedges to a maximum of three (3) feet within a required front or street-facing side yard and eight (8) feet elsewhere. These standards are applicable to all development in the City. (Exhibit A-1)

 

Several other Municipal Code sections are also applicable to the heights and placements of fences, walls, and hedges. Section 31-1303 establishes corner cutoff requirements for structures to maintain adequate visibility at intersections between public rights-of-way. Section 31-1304 establishes an exemption to height requirements for security fencing maintained by public agencies. Sections 31-1417.1 and 31-1417.2 establish requirements for fences and walls surrounding surface parking lots.

 

Basis for Proposed Changes

There are presently a substantial number of fences, walls, and hedges that have been installed in the City that are inconsistent with current requirements. This situation can be tied directly to two factors: the age of the housing stock and the manner in which enforcement is conducted. This inconsistency between the actual development patterns and current standards is one of the main reasons for the proposed revisions to the Municipal Code.

 

Prior to 1967, the City permitted fences within front yards to have a maximum height of four (4) feet and allowed fences within street-facing side yards to be constructed to the property line. (Exhibit A-2) The majority of the housing stock, particularly in single family areas, predates this ordinance. As such, there are many properties that have been improved with fences and walls that are inconsistent with current standards but were legal when originally constructed.

 

The City does not generally require permits for fences and walls. As such, there is no formal review, approval, and inspection process for the construction of fences and walls. Enforcement of the provisions is conducted in accordance with established City policy which establishes a code enforcement program which, for the most part, is reactive, relying on citizen complaints to initiate enforcement activities. As such, there are undoubtedly cases where fences were constructed in excess of City height limitations but no complaints have been received.

 

Another item which triggered the review of existing standards was the increased availability and use of prefabricated fence and wall materials. A large number of these prefabricated products are constructed with heights that are in excess of the current City standards. As a result, the current City standards, in some ways, limit the availability of different design options for fences and walls in the City.

 

The current ordinance also does not address items such as ornamentation or other common features, such as arbors or pergolas, which are commonly utilized by property owners as improvements to yards.

 

Other Municipalities

The majority of cities have adopted standards for the construction of fences and walls. However, these standards are as varied as the cities themselves. The manner in which fences are regulated is often reflective of the overall development pattern of an individual city and the preferences of the residents. Nevertheless, front yard fence heights are typically restricted within a range of three (3) to four (4) feet in a majority of cities.[1]

 

City of Glendale

Glendale is an exception to the general consensus on the regulation of front yard fences. In 2001, Glendale upheld a 1922 law prohibiting fences within the front yard setback. The genesis for this standard was a master plan from 1922 which envisioned broad tree-shaded streets, numerous public parks, and open space areas in residential neighborhoods. The only types of fencing permitted in the front yard are retaining walls and planter curbs up to eighteen (18) inches in height. Retaining walls are also further restricted as they may not exceed five (5) feet with a stair step requirement before another wall can be installed. Fences within the Rancho area of Glendale are exempted from this standard provided that they receive Design Review Board approval. This allowance was made in order to maintain the character of the Rancho community, within which the use of split rail and other traditional ranch styles of fencing is common. (Exhibit B-1)

 

City of Pasadena

The structure of Pasadena�s fence regulations is similar to Burbank�s with the exception that it addresses only fences and walls and excludes hedges. Pasadena limits fence heights to four (4) feet in front and street side yards, which is defined to be within five (5) feet of the property line along a street. The maximum height permitted elsewhere on the lot is six (6) feet. (Exhibit B-2)

 

City of Santa Monica

Santa Monica�s ordinance is intended to address fences, walls, and hedges. The ordinance limits the height of these features to forty-two (42) inches in the front yard and eight (8) feet elsewhere. Height is measured from existing grade with no portion of the structure being permitted to exceed the maximum height. (Exhibit B-3)

 

City of Culver City

Culver City limits the height of fences in the front yard to four (4) feet. Fences elsewhere are limited to a maximum height of eight (8) feet. Unlike in Burbank, the regulations in Culver City require fences in the front setback to be of an open design if they exceed thirty (30) inches. Culver City also provides a mechanism by which the City Planner can approve administrative exceptions to the height standards. (Exhibit B-4)

 

City of Thousand Oaks

Unlike the previous cities, the fence ordinance in Thousand Oaks is highly focused on design issues. Thousand Oaks restricts the height of fences to not more than three (3) feet if the fence is located within ten (10) feet of the front and side yard areas abutting streets. The maximum height is six (6) feet elsewhere. The ordinance addresses a variety of design elements including the size of pilasters, ornamentation, and colors and materials. (Exhibit B-5)

 

City of Brea

The City of Brea generally limits the height of fences, walls, and solid hedges to a maximum of seven (7) feet.  However, the maximum height is reduced to thirty (30) inches for solid fences and four and a half (4�) feet for open work fences located in front yards. Brea also requires that all fences and walls be set back at least six (6) inches from any public right-of-way. (Exhibit B-6)

 

City of Los Angeles

The City of Los Angeles generally limits the height of fences in residential zones to three and a half (3�) feet within the front yard and eight (8) feet in other areas. However, due to the size of Los Angeles, the City has also established exceptions to these standards based upon topography. Los Angeles has also developed a process by which areas can be designated Fence Height Districts. This designation would allow properties within a specified area to exceed typical fence height limitations based upon high rates of burglary and community character. In these districts, the maximum height of fences in front yards is six (6) feet and the fences must be of an open design. (Exhibits B-7 and B-8)

 

City of Anaheim

Anaheim limits the height of fences within the front and street side setback areas to three (3) feet. However, the ordinance allows for exceptions for properties fronting on major roads. The same standards apply to fences located within the street side setback area. Fences elsewhere are limited to six (6) feet in height unless the property abuts a non-residential use, in which case the height limit is eight (8) feet. The ordinance prohibits the use of chain link or barbed wire in locations visible from public rights-of-way. (Exhibit B-9)

 

Table 1: Summary of Fence Height Standards

 

City	Front Yard	Street Side	Overall	Exceptions
Glendale	Planter curbs up to 18�	Planter curbs up to 18� (within 6� of street)	No limit �subject to architectural review	Rancho area subject to design review approval
Pasadena	4�	4� (within 5� of street)	6�	None
Santa Monica	42�	8�	8�	None
Culver City	4� (open work above 30�)	8�	8�	Administrative exception to permit solid 4� fence along primary arteries
Thousand Oaks	3�	3� (typically within 5� of street)	6�	Fences in street side may exceed 3� in height if approved by Traffic Engineer. Administrative exceptions for topography
Brea	30� (solid), 4.5� (open)	7�	7�	None
Los Angeles	42�	8�	8�	Topography, fence height districts based on crime and community character
Anaheim	3�	3�	6� (8� if abutting non-residential use)	Exceptions along major roads

 

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

Based upon the work of the Fence Task Force and comments made by the City Council and Planning Board, staff has proposed a number of modifications to the fence regulations within residential zones.

 

Changes Applicable to All Residential Zones

The current fence ordinance is applicable to both single family and multifamily residential zones. The majority of the changes proposed will be applicable to all residential zones.

 

Front Yard Fences

As noted previously, there are a number of fences and walls in the City that exceed the current maximum height of three (3) feet. While these walls come in a variety of sizes and styles, most of the walls are six (6) feet or less in height. Many of the non-conforming fences are four (4) feet or less in height, consistent with earlier standards.

 

Fences and walls in the front yard are often used by homeowners to demarcate property boundaries and increase the privacy of a residence. The additional privacy created by taller walls is often desirable to people who wish to utilize front yard areas as play areas, dog yards, and other uses more typically associated with rear yards. Many people see the front yard as an extension of the home and wish to utilize that space accordingly. Others feel that increasing the height of fences and walls in the front yard improves the overall security of the property.

 

There are a number of safety issues that result from taller front yard fences. The Police and Fire Departments have expressed concerns that taller fences may negatively affect response times, particularly when gates are impassable. Taller fences can also provide hiding places for criminals, resulting in an increased safety hazard to residents. Also, there are concerns about the impact of taller fences and walls on driver and pedestrian safety, particularly near intersections and driveways. 

 

Unlike most other yard areas, front yards are exposed to the street. As such, the activities that occur in front yards have a greater impact on the neighborhood. The City�s existing height limitations reflect that by insuring that front yards remain generally open and unobstructed. Taller fences along the sidewalk also impact the continuity of the streetscape.

 

While a variety of fence height limitations were considered by the Fence Task Force, the discussion focused predominantly on heights ranging between three (3) feet and four (4). Three heights within this range are typically utilized for fences and walls, three (3) feet, forty-two (42) inches (3��), and four (4) feet.

 

The three (3) foot height limitation is consistent with current City regulations. This height limit provides the most visibility into the front yard and creates the least impact on neighboring properties. A three (3) foot height limit also decreases the likelihood that dogs, equipment, and other items will be kept in front yard areas.

 

When the topic of fence regulation was last presented to the City Council, Council members noted that many of the prefabricated fences that are sold at home improvement stores are in excess of the City�s three (3) foot limitation.

 

Forty-two (42) inches is the standard the City applies to private open space areas within multifamily projects. The additional six (6) inches makes it more difficult to reach or climb over the fence. Likewise, many of the prefabricated fence designs are sold at this height.

 

A four (4) foot height limitation also provides additional privacy. The additional height further increases the variety of fences that can be utilized by residents. Furthermore, the four (4) foot height allows for greater variety in designs (such as scooping or arching designs).

 

As a result of the previous fence regulations, the use of a four (4) foot fence is a relatively common development pattern in Burbank. As such, changing the height limit to four (4) feet is likely to capture a large number of the existing non-conforming fences.

 

When compared to a three (3) foot fence, a four (4) foot solid fence or wall substantially reduces the visibility. Likewise, the massing of a four (4) foot solid fence or wall could have aesthetic impacts on the streetscape. These impacts are substantially reduced if open designs, such as pickets or wrought iron, are utilized.

 

Recommendation: Increase the maximum height of fences and walls within front yards to four (4) feet. Any portion of a fence or wall in excess of three (3) feet in height shall utilize an open design (e.g. wrought iron or picket). This allows for additional flexibility in the design of fences and gives residents more options when utilizing prefabricated fences. The requirement that four (4) foot fences utilize an open design provides additional security while insuring that front yard areas remain predominantly open. Furthermore, it is staff�s belief that a four (4) foot height limit is in line with the current development patterns within the City and will ultimately result in the least amount of future enforcement.

 

Retaining Walls

The Municipal Code does not currently limit the height of retaining walls located within front yard areas. As a result, it is entirely possible that properties could be improved with retaining walls with a height well in excess of current front yard height limitations.

 

The construction of a retaining wall in the front yard provides the property owner with a flat front yard area that is more functional and easier to maintain. As such, the Fence Task Force recognized the importance of allowing the construction of retaining walls in front yard areas.

 

However, the impact to the streetscape is similar whether the wall in question is retaining or not. As such, it was felt that retaining walls should be limited to a height consistent with other fences and walls. In the event that additional retaining walls would be required, the additional walls would be required to be setback a distance equivalent to the height of the wall. For example, for a property that has an eight foot grade difference that is proposed to be leveled through the use of a retaining wall, the retaining wall at the front property line would be limited to four (4) feet in height and a second retaining wall would then be installed at a setback of four (4) feet to get to the finished grade. (Exhibit C-1)

 

Recommendation: Limit the height of retaining walls in front yards to four (4) feet per wall. Subsequent retaining walls may be installed within the front yard provided that they are setback a distance equivalent to the height of the retaining wall. A fence or wall with a maximum height of three (3) feet may be constructed on top of a retaining wall provided that it is of an open design. Solid or opaque walls must be setback in a manner similar to retaining walls. Staff feels that it is important for property owners to create a level yard in front of their houses. However, the impact of retaining wall height from the street perspective is indistinguishable from a regular wall. The setback for additional retaining walls is consistent with Building Code requirements and softens the massing impact from the sidewalk.

 

Hedges

Under the current Municipal Code requirements, hedges are treated in the same manner as fences and walls. However the current Municipal Code does not address what type of landscaping constitutes a hedge.

 

Hedges are installed for many of the same purposes as fences and walls. They provide screening and demarcate boundaries. They also create many of the same impacts as fences and walls, interrupting the streetscape and interfering with pedestrian and driver visibility.

 

Unlike fences and walls, hedges are not structures but rather landscaping. Hedges can be �constructed� out of trees and shrubs. They may include flowering plants. Likewise, while fences and walls are generally utilized on the perimeter of properties, hedges are often used within a yard area. For example, hedge lines are often used to screen porches or windows along the front of a house or to outline pedestrian paths.

 

As part of this process, the Fence Task Force met with representatives from the Forestry Division of the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department for technical assistance. Among the concerns raised was the effect of tree roots on sidewalks and utility connections. As such, it was recommended that trees not be utilized as hedges adjacent to the public right-of-way and that City establish a minimum separation requirement between trees installed near the public right-of-way.

 

Recommendation:  Staff recommends the following standards be incorporated regarding hedges:

• A hedge will be defined as landscaping resulting in solid vegetation at maturity which functions in a manner consistent with a fence/wall.

• Hedges located within ten (10) feet of a public right-of-way shall be subject to all standards applicable to fences and walls.

• Trees planted within ten (10) feet of a public right-of-way shall be planted a minimum of eight (8) feet apart on center.

Hedges can be utilized to function in place of fences and walls. However, hedges are landscaping features which are also used to line pathways, provide screening, or accentuate architectural elements within front yards. Staff is concerned about the use of hedges along the front property line which is reflected in the height limitation along the property line. This height limitation insures that hedges do not create massing impacts or disrupt visibility near the front of the property but allows for the use of hedges as decorative landscaping elements.

 

The limitations on planting trees are recommended to alleviate the potential impacts of tree roots on sidewalks. Additionally, it eliminates the ability to utilize trees to form hedges near the public right-of-way, preventing the negative aesthetic impact that can result from the trimming of trees to hedge height limits. Staff does not propose to retroactively enforce these requirements on mature trees.

 

Arbors and Pergolas

There are presently no provisions to permit these types of structures within front or street side yard areas. These types of features are often utilized to delineate features within the front yard area and generally improve the appearance of yard areas. These items are generally smaller in scale, often marking pedestrian paths or entrances.

 

While these types of structures are typically considered an aesthetic enhancement, the size and quantity of these features should be considered. Overly large structures could negatively detract from the aesthetic quality of the streetscape. Likewise, over utilization of these items negatively impacts a neighborhood.

 

Recommendation: Staff suggests that these types of features be exempted from height limitation provided that they meet the following criteria:

�         Maximum height - 8 feet

�         Maximum width - 5 feet

�         Maximum depth � 2 feet

�         Not more than one per street frontage

Arbors and pergolas are aesthetic enhancements to an overall landscape design and should be permitted within reasonable constraints. The recommended limitations insure that yards do not become overdeveloped with these features while insuring that the dimensions of these features are adequate to serve their intended purpose.

 

Fence and Wall Ornamentation

Many fence and wall styles utilize ornamental features to enhance the overall appearance.  Currently there is no provision in the Municipal Code to allow for ornamentation (e.g. light fixtures, statues, etc.) to exceed height limitation. While ornamentation is typically used to enhance the appearance of a fence or wall, the size and number of these features ultimately affect the appearance of the fence and wall and the overall aesthetic quality of the neighborhood.

 

Recommendation: Staff recommends that ornamentation be permitted on fences subject to the following limitations:

�         Maximum height - 1 foot from its base (maximum of 5 feet from grade)

�         Maximum width � 1 foot

�         Must be separated by 8 feet on center

Ornamentation, if limited in size, does not impact the overall massing of a fence and can contribute to improving the overall fence design. The dimensions suggested allow for a variety of ornamentation but are intended to alleviate the potential misuse of ornamentation to exceed height limitations.

 

Materials

Currently, the City does not regulate the types of materials that can be used for fencing. As with any aesthetic issue, there are proponents and detractors of nearly all types of fencing. The type of materials utilized is generally a matter of personal preference.

 

Since the issue of aesthetics is somewhat difficult to narrow down, the Task Force examined the issue on whether or not materials should be regulated based upon the overall character of the community and issues of general public safety. For example, most fences and walls in the City are constructed of concrete block, wood, or wrought iron. As such, those are materials that should be retained. Chain link and wire fences are less common and less in character with the prevalent urban design of the community. Furthermore, wire fences, particularly barbed wire, present a potential safety hazard, especially adjacent to public rights-of-way.

 

Recommendation: Staff recommends the prohibition of chain link, wire, and similar materials within front and street-facing yard areas. These types of materials are inconsistent with the general character of the community and, in some cases, may be dangerous.

 

Stand-Alone Ornamentation

The newly adopted single family development standards prohibit any objects or structures within front yards with the exception of permitted encroachments and landscaping, which includes fountains and art pieces. Prior to the adoption of the new single family development standards, there was no provision in the Code that explicitly permitted or prohibited the installation of these types of objects within front yard areas.

 

Recommendation: Staff recommends that stand-alone ornamentation be permitted subject to the following limitations:

• Maximum height � 8 feet

• Maximum width/depth � 5 feet

• Maximum of two per frontage (features under 2 feet do not count towards the maximum)

Changes Applicable to Single Family Zones

Some changes are proposed to the fence standards within single family zones that are not generally applicable to all residential properties. This is primarily due to the prevailing development patterns within single family zones and the manner in which yards are utilized.

 

Street-Facing Side Yards

Prior to 1967, the City permitted fences within street side yards to be constructed to a height of eight (8) feet. As a result, a number of corner lots are currently improved with non-conforming fences in the street side yard.

 

The current ordinance limits the height of fences within street side yards to three (3) feet. Since these fences are typically surrounding rear yards, the ordinance effectively decreases the width of rear yards on corner lots by ten (10) feet. In some cases, the impact of the street setback is lessened due to increased lot width. For example, some corner lots are five (5) to ten (10) feet wider than interior lots on the same block. However, the majority of corner lots in Burbank are not provided with additional width. As such, the current standard significantly reduces the back yard area.

 

One of the reasons for reducing the height within street side yards is to enhance the streetscape. The lower height restriction along the street creates a more pedestrian oriented environment and improves overall visibility for drivers and pedestrians. However, one of the results of this standard is that owners of corner lots are left with a ten (10) foot wide area that is neither functional nor accessible. As a result, these areas are often not as well landscaped as other areas and are more likely to fall into disrepair.

 

The Fence Task Force analyzed several alternatives to the existing approach regarding street side yards. One strategy discussed involved the averaging of the setback. In this scenario, a certain percentage of the fence length would be permitted to exceed the three (3) foot maximum. While this type of standard would provide additional flexibility to the owners of corner lots while protecting the open streetscape character, the Task Force believed that this type of method might be overly complex and might result in inconsistent development patterns.

 

The second alternative considered involved reducing the street side setback for fences. This strategy would allow for some open area along the street while providing additional back yard area for corner lots. However, there was concern that a smaller open area would be even less likely to be properly maintained.

 

A third alternative was to return to the pre-1967 standards and allow fences up to eight (8) feet in height to be constructed at the property line. This strategy would eliminate all concerns about maintenance of street side yards and eliminate any inequities that might exist between rear yards of corner and interior lots. However, the construction of taller fences, particularly those up to eight (8) feet in height, and walls along sidewalks could negatively impact the streetscape aesthetic.

 

Another alternative is a combination of the first and third alternatives. In this concept, the length or starting point of a taller fence could be limited to insure that the streetscape of the corner is not impacted and the maximum height of fences and walls in the street side yard could be raised to a height that is less than eight (8) feet. For example, fences within the street side yard could be permitted to have a maximum height of six (6) feet beginning at the rear of the house and four (4) feet elsewhere.

 

Recommendation: Increase the maximum height of fences and walls within street side yards to six (6) feet beginning at the rear of the house and extending to the rear property line. (Exhibit C-2) Existing restriction regarding reversed corner lots would be retained. While staff would prefer a minimal setback, three (3) feet for example, along street sides, the proposed standard is consistent with past regulations and the current development pattern. Limiting the length of the walls as proposed will insure that the open streetscape will continue around the corner and improve the overall aesthetics while allowing property owners additional rear yard area.

 

Measurement of Height

In single family zones, the height of fences, walls, and hedges is currently measured from finished grade. As a result, under the current standards, a three (3) foot high wall could be installed on the top of a retaining wall. This has created situations where the apparent height of a wall from the street is substantially higher than three (3) feet.

 

Additionally, the current standards limit design flexibility on properties that slope. Under the current standard, no part of the wall can exceed the maximum height. Thus, in order to construct with a maximum height at all locations, the wall must be constructed parallel to the grade. In order to achieve a maximum amount of wall height utilizing a stairstep design, the horizontal run of the wall becomes shorter, with each stairstep occurring with each eight (8) inches of elevation change (the height of a typical block). The shortened period of time between transitions can affect the overall look of the wall.

 

Under the current system the height of a stairstep wall is measured at the furthest downslope portion of the wall. Alternatives to this include measuring at the middle of each horizontal run or at the high point of the run.  (Exhibit C-3)

 

Recommendation: In single family zones, the height of a fence, wall, or hedge is measured at the center point of a horizontal run with no portion of the fence exceeding the maximum height by more than eight (8) inches as measured from the abutting natural grade of the lot.

 

Changes Applicable to Multifamily Zones

The City is in the process of establishing new multifamily development standards which are geared toward improving the overall architecture and neighborhood compatibility of multifamily projects. In the spirit of the proposed ordinance, staff has proposed revisions to the City�s fence and wall standards which will be specifically applied to multifamily zones in order to improve the overall design of multifamily projects.

 

Street-Facing Side Yards

Under the current standards, fences and walls located within street-facing side yards are subject to the same restrictions as fences and walls located within front yard areas. Unlike typical single family development, where the street-facing side yard area can be used as an extension to the rear yard, multifamily developments do not typically have a large rear yard behind the structures. Furthermore, the proposed multifamily development standards are intended to insure that new multifamily developments are focused toward the street. Development of a six (6) foot fence or wall within the street-facing side yard, as proposed in single family zones, would be inconsistent with the intent of the multifamily development standards and typical development patterns.

 

Recommendation: Staff recommends that, in multifamily zones, fences and walls within street-facing side yards should be subject to the same limitations as fences and walls located within front yard areas.

 

Measurement of Height

The current fence standards base maximum fence heights from finished grade. In contrast, structure height in multifamily zones is based on average grade. Multifamily projects with semi-subterranean garages often backfill to the level of the semi-subterranean deck, which, under current Code requirements can be five (5) feet above average grade and as much as eight (8) feet above abutting grade. As such, on the downslope side of multifamily projects, it is conceivable that a fence or wall could be as high as sixteen (16) feet above abutting grade.

 

Under the proposed multifamily development standards, the height of semi-subterranean garages would be reduced to a maximum of five (5) feet above abutting grade. However, under the current fence standards, a fence or wall that was thirteen (13) feet above abutting grade could still be built.

 

As a result of the massing concerns, the Planning Division developed a policy stating that the total height of the garage and wall could not exceed eight (8) feet above average grade. This was based on the fact that, while wall height is typically measured from finished grade, the height of structures in multifamily zones is measured from average grade. While this policy has been effective, staff would prefer the issue be addressed more clearly in the Zoning Ordinance.

 

Multifamily projects often utilize several adjacent lots. As such, on sloped properties, the potential exists for the average grade of a property to be considerable higher than the abutting grade. Measurement of fence and wall height from average grade does not fully address potential massing impacts on downhill properties.

 

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the height of fences and walls be measured in relationship to both average and abutting grade. In front yards and street-facing side yards, the maximum height of a fence or wall is proposed to be four (4) feet from average grade with no portion of the fence or wall exceeding five (5) feet above abutting natural grade. Within interior side and rear yard areas, the maximum height of a fence or wall is proposed to be eight (8) feet with no portion of the fence or wall exceeding ten (10) feet above abutting natural grade. These limitations insure that height is measured from a consistent baseline while protecting abutting properties and the public right-of-way from massing impacts.

 

Changes to Corner Cutoff Requirements

Corner cutoffs are areas that are precluded from development at intersections between streets and between streets and alleys. These areas are established in order to maintain adequate line of site to enhance the safety of drivers and pedestrians. The City currently establishes corner cutoffs at intersections of streets and alleys. These standards are applicable to residential, commercial, and industrial development and are based, in part, on the height restrictions currently imposed on fences and walls.

 

The Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department has expressed concerns about the safety of installing walls adjacent to driveway entrances and recommends that the corner cutoff provisions be extended to those areas as well.

 

Recommendation: Staff recommends that a five (5) foot corner cutoff be established for the intersection of driveways and public rights-of-way. This requirement is particularly important as a follow up to the recommendation regarding fences within street side yards as it provides assurance that six (6) foot high fences will not unduly impact safe ingress and egress into driveways. Staff also recommends raising the maximum height within the corner cut-off from three (3) feet to four (4) feet to correspond with the proposed fence height provisions.

 

Amnesty/Amortization

When the Fence Study Session was presented to the Planning Board, staff included a recommendation to establish an amnesty program for existing front yard fences that are between four (4) and six (6) feet in height. Under this proposal, amnesty would be granted on condition that the non-conforming fence or wall would be brought into conformance with current requirements as a condition of property sale. This would permit homeowners who had invested resources into fences and walls to have the ability to keep these features until they left the property.

 

This approach was considered favorable by the Fence Task Force only if legal and enforcement issues could be adequately addressed. As this concept has been further reviewed, a number of issues have come up which, in the opinion of staff, make such a strategy infeasible. One of the primary concerns is that this type of program would grant a form of legal status to fences and walls that were never legal under the Municipal Code. Additionally, short-term implementation and long-term enforcement of such a provision would be a substantial burden on staff resources.

 

In lieu of this provision, staff has proposed a tiered enforcement process. In this proposal, all fences and walls that are located within front yards that are in excess of six (6) feet would be required to be brought into compliance within one (1) year of the adoption of new ordinance. Fences in front yards that are between four (4) and six (6) feet in height would have three (3) years to comply. Staff has also proposed to include a statement regarding fence heights in the City�s required real estate disclosures. In these cases, heights would be measured using the same methodology as the proposed ordinance.

 

Formatting Changes

The City�s fence standards are currently located within Section 31-1302 of the Municipal Code. However, the newly adopted single family development standards and proposed multifamily development standards have been written to consolidate the majority of development standards within the zones in an attempt to make the Code easier to understand and enforce. Staff�s proposal would delete Section 31-1302 of the Municipal Code. The single family and multifamily fence standards would be placed within their respective zones. A new section would be added to Section 31-1113.1 of the Municipal Code (Commercial and Industrial Design Standards) which would incorporate the current commercial and industrial fence standards as well as Section 31-1304 of the Municipal Code, which grants an exception to security fences maintained by the government agencies. A number of other minor changes are proposed to match the current Code format and replace confusing language (e.g. the replacement of shall, which has multiple meanings).

 

Real Estate Disclosures

In many cases, illegal fences are located on properties that have had one or more changes in property owner since the fences were constructed. The City does not have a mandatory inspection requirement prior to the transfer of property. Typical building inspections that are conducted during escrow focus on building and life safety issues and do not address zoning compliance. As such, it is not uncommon for a subsequent owner to be unaware that a fence or wall on a property is illegal.

 

As part of the real estate transaction process, there are a number of legally required disclosures to prospective buyers. Local jurisdictions have the ability to establish disclosures in addition to those required by the State of California. The proposed ordinance includes an addition to the City�s disclosures that would inform prospective buyers that fences in excess of four (4) feet in height are prohibited in the City and subject to enforcement. In that way, future buyers can be made aware of these standards.

 

Other Changes Considered

Staff, as a result of the Fence Task Force process as well as Planning Board and City Council comments also investigated several other modifications to the fence standards, which, although not ultimately part of staff�s recommendation, should be considered in the discussion of revised fence standards.

 

Enforcement

The City is generally reactive with regard to its enforcement of fence violations. Likewise, the City does not require a permit or zoning clearance in order to construct a typical fence or wall. As such, enforcement of fence height provisions is generally triggered by complaints received from residents.

 

Due to the number of non-conforming fences in the City, the Fence Task Force explored a number of alternatives to improve enforcement, such as requiring a permit or transitioning to a proactive enforcement program. Ultimately, the Fence Task Force recommended that a proactive code enforcement program would be the best method of enforcing fence regulations.

 

Proactive enforcement, generally, requires additional staffing resources than reactive enforcement. In the budget for Fiscal Year 2005-2006, the City Council approved an additional $100,000 for code enforcement activities. This additional money will enable the City to enhance the amount of proactive enforcement, primarily for the enforcement of conditions of approval for conditional use permits and similar entitlements. Additionally, inspectors from the Building and License and Code Services Divisions will be able to proactively enforce fences that are discovered during construction. It is staff�s belief that the proposed changes to the regulations would decrease the total number of non-conforming fences in the City, improving the overall ability of the City to enforce the new requirements.

 

While staff is endeavoring to increase the amount of proactive enforcement wherever possible, current staffing constraints necessitate that the primary trigger for enforcement on existing fences will continue to be complaints received from the public. The License and Code Services Division has indicated that a transition from a predominantly reactive to a proactive enforcement policy on fences would likely require the addition of one (1) full-time staff member. Additionally, such a transition would also impact the workload of the City Attorney�s Office.

 

Special Fence Districts

The City of Los Angeles has a provision within its zoning ordinance to permit the establishment of fence height districts, which are designated based upon factors such as crime rate and community character. Within these districts, fence heights are permitted to exceed the typical height restrictions. Likewise, the City of Glendale provides an exception to their height limits within the City�s Rancho area with design review approval.

 

Based upon comments made during the Planning Board�s study session, staff investigated the possibility of establishing fence height districts which might better address the character of individual neighborhoods, with the most likely areas being the Rancho and the Mountain Fire Zone. The Fence Task Force also discussed the possibility of allowing exceptions for properties along major arterials or for areas that are not improved with sidewalks.

 

The City of Los Angeles includes a large number of neighborhood areas, some of which are the size of cities themselves. As such, flexibility based on community character is more warranted due to the sheer number and variety of communities. The exception for the Rancho in Glendale is a response to maintaining architectural integrity of a specific neighborhood that would otherwise be precluded from having front yard fences.

 

While there are a number of neighborhoods in Burbank which have individual characteristics, staff does not feel that the proposed standards would require designs that would be in conflict with these characters. As such, any special districts that would be created in Burbank would be more likely to make specific, stricter design requirements, reducing the overall flexibility of homeowners. Likewise, it is staff�s opinion that the proposed height standards provide additional privacy to property owners along major arterials or in areas without sidewalks. As such, any special provisions for these types of properties are unwarranted with the exception of retaining walls within hillside developments, which will be evaluated on a case by case basis through the hillside development permit process.

 

Modified Fence Variance Findings

The majority of lots in Burbank are regularly shaped and, outside of the hillside areas, relatively flat. As such, it is often difficult to justify variances to fence height regulations because the required findings relate to unique and extraordinary conditions on a property that are not generally applicable to surrounding properties.

 

As part of this process, staff considered the development of new findings for fence variances, similar to the findings applied to variances from sign regulations, which consider the scale, balance, and compatibility of signs in relation to their surrounding environment. However, staff determined that the proposed modifications to height limits and the resulting increase in design flexibility provided adequate alternatives that eliminated the need for more liberal variance findings.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

 

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project, which indicates that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. (Exhibit E)

 

PLANNING BOARD ACTION:

 

On June 13, 2005, the City Planning Board held a public hearing on the proposed Zone Text Amendment. During the hearing, one (1) member of the public expressed concerns about the prohibition of chain link fencing and the public noticing process. Several Planning Board members expressed a desire for an enhanced public noticing process for these types of applications. Members of the Board also raised questions about the proposed enforcement and the potential for different standards based upon property location (e.g. along major arterials and hillside areas. The Board expressed its support for the proposed changes and recommended that the final ordinance include a requirement for the enforcement provisions to be included in the City�s required real estate enclosures.

 

The Board voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the Zone Text Amendment (Resolution attached as Exhibit F-1; minutes for Planning Board meeting of June 13, 2005 attached as Exhibit F-2).

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

 

Prior to the study session before the Planning Board, staff placed ads in the Burbank Leader and made announcements at community meetings and during Planning Board meetings inviting the public to comment on fence regulations in the City. As a result of these efforts, staff received one (1) e-mail from a resident who felt that the City should place additional controls on fencing materials. (Exhibit G) Additionally, two (2) residents spoke at the Planning Board meeting. One resident expressed concerns about being able to rebuild existing non-conforming fences that are in disrepair. The second expressed concerns about any changes to fence regulations and felt the City should require noise barriers as part of construction fencing.

 

Staff believes that the proposed changes to the ordinance will ultimately result in a more consistent development pattern and increase the variety of designs available. The proposed ordinance prohibits the use of certain materials.

 

The proposed ordinance will likely decrease the number of non-conforming fences in the City. However, those fences that do not comply with the current or proposed regulations are subject to enforcement.

 

In most cases, the purpose of construction fencing is to keep people out of unsafe construction areas. According the Building Division, construction fencing needs to be flexible enough to be moved around on the site as construction activities move. The cost of noise barriers is substantially higher than typical fencing. Furthermore, construction fencing is not typically tall enough to block noise effectively, even if it were made of a solid material.

 

Prior to the Planning Board hearing, staff forwarded the proposed changes to the Board of Realtors but received no comments. As noted above, one (1) resident spoke at the Planning Board public hearing.

 

In order to insure that residential property owners were informed of the proposed changes, the City Council directed staff to send notices to all residential property owners. As a result, 22,071 notices were mailed to residential property owners which provided a summary of the proposal and identified ways to find out more about the proposed changes. Staff also sent notices to all of the real estate brokers that have business permits with the City. Additionally, staff set up a special phone line and e-mail address dedicated to providing information and receiving comments on the proposed ordinance. The public notices included the phone number, e-mail address, and the Planning Division�s website, which has been updated to provide information on the proposed changes.

 

As part of the public outreach effort, staff included information on the Channel 6 scroll and included and announcement in the Burbank Council News program.

 

As of the preparation of this report, staff has not received any further comments on the proposed ordinance. However, all comments received will be forwarded to the City Council prior to the public hearing.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The height of fences, walls, and hedges are regulated in order to insure orderly development and preserve the aesthetic character of communities. Based upon a review of the current and historical development patterns in Burbank, staff believes that the proposed standards are in line with the overall character of the City and maintain a high aesthetic character while preserving the ability of property owners to develop based upon their personal preferences.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

Staff recommends that the City Council approve Project No. 2005-63, a Zone Text Amendment.

 

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration prepared for the project.

 

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending various sections of Chapter 31 of the Burbank Municipal Code relating to fences.