PURPOSE:

This report recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance that would create new standards for fences, walls, hedges, and other yard features in single family and multiple family residential zones. These standards are intended to be in place for an interim period, subject to review by the public and the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Fences, Walls, and Landscaping.  This report further recommends that the Council appoint Burbank residents to serve on the Blue Ribbon Task Force.

BACKGROUND:

Recent History

Over the years, many residential properties in Burbank, particularly within single family residential neighborhoods, have been improved with fences, walls, and hedges with heights that are in excess of current City standards.  In August 2004, the Planning Division presented a report to the City Council that summarized the situation and proposed options for amending the Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) in an effort to address this issue.

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 to discuss potential changes to the City�s fence regulations and proceed with the development of a new ordinance.

Based upon the Council�s comments, the Community Development Department established an internal fence task force consisting of six staff members: two each from the Planning and Transportation, Building, and License and Code Services Divisions of the Community Development Department.  The task force was developed to make recommendations on changes to the existing ordinance based upon the professional experience of its members.

On February 28, 2005, the Planning Board held a study session on residential fence regulations. Staff presented the recommendations of the staff fence task force to facilitate discussion.  This report also included a background on the history of fence regulations in Burbank and the standards of a number of other cities.  Based upon input from the Planning Board, staff finalized its proposed revisions to the fence standards.  On June 13, 2005 the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider the proposed standards.  As discussed in more detail later in this report, the Board voted 4-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed standards.

On August 16, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the proposed standards.  The Council did not adopt the proposed standards, and directed staff to return with options for additional public involvement in creating the new standards.  On September 13, 2005, staff returned with the requested options, and the Council directed staff to establish a Blue Ribbon Task Force on fence issues.  The original deadline for Burbank residents to apply to serve on the task force was October 31, 2005.  Due to the limited number of applications that were received, the deadline was extended to November 30, 2005, and extended a second time at the direction of the City Council to January 31, 2006.  The City Clerk�s office received a total of 13 applications from Burbank residents interested in serving on the task force.

On November 15, 2005, in response to public testimony, the Council directed staff to return with options for enforcement of the existing fence regulations until such time that the Blue Ribbon Task Force completed its work and its recommendations were considered by the Council.  One of the options discussed included the adoption of an enforcement �moratorium� to halt enforcement of the fence regulations while the task force completed its work.  On January 17, 2006, staff returned with a recommendation that the Council adopt a set of interim fence standards in lieu of placing a moratorium on enforcement.  Staff further recommended that the Council direct staff to conduct a series of community meetings to solicit public input on the interim standards in lieu of appointing a Blue Ribbon Task Force.  The Council directed staff to return with a proposed set of interim standards.  This report responds to that direction.

Purpose of Fence Regulations

The regulation of fence and wall heights is a common zoning practice.  While fences and walls can provide privacy and a sense of security for homeowners, their location and height can substantially affect a community�s character and the relationships between private homes and the public street.  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 the balance between community values and private property rights.  Regardless of the influences, communities generally regulate the height of fences and walls in order to create a consistent development pattern and to maintain or improve the aesthetic quality of the streetscape.

Current Requirements

Heights of fences and walls in Burbank are regulated in BMC Sections 31-603(G), 31-628(H), and 31-1302 for single family residential, multiple family residential, and non-residential zones, respectively.  For all zones, the Code limits the height of fences, walls, and hedges to a maximum of three feet within a required front or street-facing side yard and eight feet elsewhere.  Height is measured from the abutting ground surface of the property on which the fence, wall, or hedge is located.

Several other Municipal Code sections are also applicable to the height and placement 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 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 feet and allowed fences up to eight feet tall within street-facing side yards.  The majority of the City�s housing stock, particularly in single family neighborhoods, 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 (block walls over six feet tall and retaining walls over three feet tall require a building permit under the Building Code; other walls and fences of any height do not).  As such, there is no formal review, approval, or inspection process for the construction of fences and most walls.  Enforcement is conducted in accordance with established City policy for a reactive Code enforcement program, relying on complaints to initiate enforcement action.  As such, there are many cases where fences or walls have been constructed in excess of City height limitations but remain in place because no complaints have been received.

Another issue that has contributed to the need to review existing standards is the increased availability and use of prefabricated fence and wall materials. Many of these prefabricated products available at home improvement stores are manufactured with heights that are in excess of the current City standards.  As a result, the current standards limit the different design options for fences and walls and the use of some prefabricated products.

Finally, the current ordinance does not address common yard features such as arbors, art work, fountains, and light poles, which are commonly utilized by property owners to improve their yards.

Code Enforcement

The License and Code Services Division enforces the existing fence standards only in response to complaints; there is no proactive enforcement of fence regulations.  As noted above, many fences, walls, and hedges throughout the City are inconsistent with current Code requirements, but the City becomes aware of nonconforming fences and walls only as complaints are submitted.  For those fences or walls for which a complaint has been received, the property owner has the option of either bringing the fence or wall into compliance with current standards, or applying for a variance to deviate from Code requirements and legalize the fence or wall as built.  Enforcement action is placed on hold while the variance application is processed, and resumed if the variance application is ultimately denied.

Following the fence issue discussion at the November 15, 2005 Council meeting, the License and Code Services Division received a combined total of over 500 complaints from two residents about fences, walls, and vegetation that the residents believe to be inconsistent with current Code requirements.  License and Code staff is still investigating and processing these complaints.

Other Municipalities

The majority of cities have adopted standards for the construction of fences and walls, but the standards vary widely.  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.  Fence height restrictions in most cities are within the range of three to four feet for front yards (and in some cases street-facing side yards) and six to eight feet for side and rear yards.

City of Glendale

Glendale is an exception to the typical three- to four-foot height limitation for front yard fences.  In 2001, Glendale upheld a 1922 law prohibiting fences within the front yard setback.  The only type of �fencing� permitted in the front yard is planter curbs up to 18 inches in height.  Retaining walls are also permitted, but may not exceed five feet in height per section, with a stair step requirement before another vertical section can be installed.  Fences within the Rancho area of Glendale are exempted from this standard if they receive Design Review Board approval. This allowance was made in order to maintain the character of the Rancho community, where the use of split rail and other traditional ranch styles of fencing is common.

In June 2005, Glendale temporarily suspended all enforcement action against existing nonconforming fences.  Nonconforming fences and walls are now allowed to remain in place, so long as they are not constructed of specifically prohibited materials, including chain link, barbed wire, razor wire, fiberglass, chicken wire, or electrically charged materials.  The construction of new nonconforming fences or walls is still prohibited, but existing fences and walls are being allowed to remain in place until a final decision is made about how to address the issue.  Further direction on this matter will be provided by the Glendale City Council pending the results of a comprehensive fence study now being prepared by staff.

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 feet in front yards and within five feet of the property line in street side yards.  The maximum height permitted elsewhere on the lot is six feet.

City of Santa Monica

Santa Monica coincidentally is dealing with a fence and wall situation similar to Burbank.  In August 2005, the Santa Monica City Council adopted interim fence and wall standards.  The interim standards maintained the pre-existing fence and wall height limits of 42 inches in the front yard and eight feet elsewhere.  The interim standards maintained the 42-inch height limit for hedges in the front yard but increased the allowed hedge height to 12 feet in side and rear yards with no limit along an alley.  Height is measured from existing grade with no portion of the fence or wall permitted to exceed the maximum height.  The interim standards also establish limitations for arbors, pergolas, and other ornamentation.  Arbors and pergolas are limited to one per front yard, with a size limit of eight feet tall, eight feet wide, and three feet deep.  Ornamentation on the top of a fence, wall, or hedge is limited to a maximum height of one foot above the top of the fence, wall or hedge, a maximum width of one foot, and a minimum separation of five feet.

As part of the interim standards, Santa Monica also introduced two discretionary fence permits to allow deviations from the interim standards.  An �administrative modification� is required if adjacent property owners agree to the proposed deviation from standards for the side and rear yards.  A �discretionary modification,� subject to the making of specific findings, is required if adjacent property owners do not agree to the deviation, if the proposed deviation would occur in the front yard, or if the deviation would result in a fence or wall more than four feet taller than the maximum height in the side or rear yard.

Another key aspect of Santa Monica�s interim standards is that all existing nonconforming fences, walls, and hedges will be allowed to remain in place if the property owner registers with the City by a specified deadline, and if neighboring property owners do not file a protest.  Fences that do not meet certain visual obstruction requirements would not be allowed to remain unless specific findings were made that the feature would not pose a hazard.

City of Culver City

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

City of Thousand Oaks

The fence ordinance in Thousand Oaks is highly focused on design issues.  Thousand Oaks restricts the height of fences to not more than three feet if the fence is located within 10 feet of the street in a front or side yard area.  The maximum height is six feet elsewhere.  The ordinance addresses a variety of design elements including the size of pilasters, ornamentation, colors, and materials.

City of Brea

The City of Brea limits heights of fences, walls, and hedges to a maximum of 30 inches for solid fences and walls and 54 inches for open work fences in front yards, and seven feet elsewhere.  Brea also requires that all fences and walls be set back at least six inches from any public right-of-way.

City of Los Angeles

The City of Los Angeles generally limits the height of fences in residential zones to 42 inches within the front yard and eight feet in other areas.  However, due to the size of Los Angeles, the City has 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 feet and the fences must be of an open design.

City of Anaheim

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

 Summary of Fence Height Standards

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

On January 17, staff proposed to Council that the interim standards be based largely upon the standards originally developed by the staff task force on fences and proposed to the Council in August 2005.  The major difference from the August standards would be regarding the amnesty program, which would be replaced with a tiered enforcement program and discretionary permits to allow exceptions from the standards when appropriate.  The Council was generally supportive of moving forward with consideration of interim standards based upon those proposed in August.  The Council members disagreed on certain issues, such as whether to prohibit certain fence materials and how to deal with hedges and trees.  The majority of Council members stated their desire not to regulate fence materials, and specifically not to prohibit chain link fencing.  As such, the originally proposed prohibition on chain link and wire materials has been removed from the draft standards.  Since specific direction was not provided on other issues, this report presents the full complement of the remaining proposed standards for Council consideration.  The complete set of proposed standards is attached as Exhibit A.

Changes Applicable to All Residential Zones

The current fence standards are applicable to all residential and non-residential zones.  Since the discussion about fence standards has been entirely focused around residential neighborhoods, the proposed changes to the standards would affect only single and multiple family residential zones.  The height limitations and other standards for non-residential zones are proposed to remain unchanged.  The majority of the changes proposed would be applicable to all residential zones, as follows.

Front Yard Fences

As noted previously, there are a number of fences and walls in the City that exceed the current maximum height limit of three feet.  While these walls come in a variety of sizes and styles, most of the walls are six feet or less in height.  Many of the nonconforming fences are four feet or less in height, consistent with pre-1967 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 believe that increasing the height of fences and walls in the front yard improves the overall security of the property. 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 ensuring that front yards remain generally open and unobstructed.

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 and otherwise limit the Police Department�s ability to see a property and structures from the street, resulting in increased safety concerns for residents.  Also, there are concerns about the impact of taller fences and walls on driver and pedestrian safety, particularly near intersections and driveways. 

While a variety of fence height limitations were considered by the staff fence task force, the discussion focused predominantly on heights ranging between three and four feet.  Three heights within this range are utilized by most cities for fences and walls: three feet, 42 inches, and four feet.  The current three-foot height limit provides the most visibility into the front yard and creates the least impact on neighboring properties. A three-foot height limit also decreases the likelihood that dogs, equipment, and other items will be kept in front yard areas.

It has been noted that many of the prefabricated fences sold at home improvement stores are in excess of three feet.  Many prefabricated fences are 42 inches in height.  This additional six inches makes it more difficult to reach or climb over a fence, and is therefore an often desired height.  This height is consistent with the City�s standard for required enclosure of private open space areas within multifamily residential projects.

A four-foot height limitation also provides additional privacy and further limits the ability of an individual to reach or climb over the fence.  The additional height further increases the variety of prefabricated fence materials that could be utilized by residents.  The four-foot height also allows for greater variety in fence and wall designs (such as scooping or arching designs).  Due partially to the previous fence regulations, the use of four-foot fences is relatively common in Burbank. As such, increasing the height limit to four feet would capture a large number of existing nonconforming fences.

When compared to a three-foot fence, a four-foot solid fence or wall substantially reduces visibility.  Likewise, the massing of a four-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.  Subsequent to the August hearing, staff has further considered this open design requirement and recommends that a definition be created such that there is no debate about what constitutes an open design.

Recommendation: Increase the maximum height of fences and walls within front yards to four feet.  Any portion of a fence or wall in excess of three feet in height would be required to utilize an open design such as wrought iron or picket.  Open design would be defined such that for each one-foot section of fence or wall, at least 50 percent of the surface area would have to be open and provide direct views through the fence or wall.  For example, in a picket fence, this would mean that the spaces between the slats would have to be at least as wide as the slats themselves.  This recommended approach allows for additional flexibility in the design of fences and gives residents more options when utilizing prefabricated fences. The requirement that four-foot fences utilize an open design provides additional security while ensuring that front yard areas remain predominantly open. Furthermore, it is staff�s belief that a four-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 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 than a sloped yard.  As such, staff recognizes 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, staff believes 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 below.  For example, for a property that has a seven-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 feet in height, and a second three-foot retaining wall would then be installed at a setback of four feet to get to the finished grade (Exhibit B-1).

Recommendation: Limit the height of retaining walls in front yards to four 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 below.  A fence or wall with a maximum height of three feet could be constructed on top of a retaining wall provided that it is of an open design.  Staff believes that it is important for property owners to be able to create a level yard in front of their houses if they desire.  However, the impact of retaining wall height from the street perspective is the same as a regular wall.  The proposed requirement would soften 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 fixed structures but rather landscaping that can grow and evolve over time.  Hedges can be �constructed� out of trees and shrubs and may include flowering plants.  While fences and walls are generally utilized on the perimeter of properties, hedges are often used throughout 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.

In developing the proposed standards, staff 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 the City establish a minimum separation requirement between trees installed near the public right-of-way.

Recommendation:  Staff recommends the following standards regarding hedges and trees:

• A hedge would be defined as vegetation that is grown or maintained in a manner that creates a physical or visual barrier or otherwise functions in a manner consistent with a fence or wall.

• Hedges located within 10 feet of a public right-of-way would be subject to all standards applicable to fences and walls and could not be used to satisfy an open design requirement (and would therefore be practically limited to three feet within front yards).

• Trees planted within 10 feet of a public right-of-way would have to be planted a minimum of eight feet apart on center.

Hedges can be utilized to function in place of fences and walls. However, hedges are landscaping features that 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 as reflected in the height limitation within 10 feet of the property line.  This height limitation ensures 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, the requirement reduces 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. As reflected in the proposed standards, staff does not propose to retroactively enforce these requirements on mature trees.

Arbors and Pergolas

The current fence and wall standards do not include any provisions to permit arbors, pergolas, or similar structures.  While arbors and pergolas are typically considered an aesthetic enhancement, the size and quantity of these features should be considered.  Overly large structures or a large number of the structures could negatively detract from the aesthetic quality of the streetscape.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that these types of features be exempted from fence height limitations provided that they are no larger than eight feet high, five feet wide, and two feet deep.  Further, staff recommends that such structures be limited to no 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 ensure that yards do not become overdeveloped with these features and 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 of the fence or wall.  Currently there is no provision in the Municipal Code to allow for ornamentation such as light fixtures or statues to exceed the 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 or wall and the overall aesthetic quality of the neighborhood.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that ornamentation be permitted on fences and walls provided that such objects are no larger than one foot high as measured from the top of the fence or wall, no more than one foot wide, and separated by at least eight feet on center.  Ornamentation, if limited in size, does not impact the overall massing of a fence or wall and can contribute to improving the overall design. The recommended dimensions allow for a variety of ornamentation but are intended to alleviate the potential misuse of ornamentation to exceed height limitations.

Stand-Alone Ornamentation

The single and multiple family development standards allow for features in yard areas that fall within the definition of landscaping as that term is defined in BMC Section 31-203.  This definition includes �structural features such as fountains, reflecting pools, art works, screens, walls, fences, and benches.�  Therefore, such features are technically allowed, but the size or quantity of such features is not regulated and their use is not anticipated by the yard standards.  Prior to the adoption of the new single and multiple family standards, there was no provision in the Code that explicitly permitted or prohibited the installation of these types of objects within front yard areas.  Such objects are used by homeowners to add a �personal touch� to their yards.  While homeowners typically believe that such objects enhance the appearance of their yard, neighbors may believe otherwise.  Therefore, the size and number of such objects should be regulated to strike a balance between the homeowner�s ability to personalize their yard and the aesthetic impacts on the neighborhood.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that stand-alone ornamentation be permitted provided that such objects are no larger than eight feet high, five feet wide, and five feet deep.  Staff further recommends that such objects be limited to no more than two per street frontage, except that features under two feet tall would not count toward this limitation to allow additional flexibility in the use of small ornamentation.

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, staff examined the issue of 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 design and character of the community.  Although staff recommended in August that chain link and wire materials be prohibited in front and street-facing side yards, a majority of Council members on January 17 indicated their desire to not regulate fence or wall materials and specifically to not prohibit chain link fences.

Recommendation: The proposed interim standards would not place any restrictions on fence or wall materials, consistent with the Council�s discussion on January 17.

Changes Applicable to Single Family Zones

Some changes are proposed to the fence standards within single family residential zones that would not be applicable to multiple family 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 feet.  As a result, a number of corner lots are currently improved with nonconforming fences in the street side yard.

The current ordinance limits the height of fences within street side yards to three feet. Since these fences are typically surrounding rear yards, the ordinance effectively decreases the width of most rear yards on corner lots by about 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 to 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 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 staff-level 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-foot maximum. While this type of standard would provide additional flexibility to the owners of corner lots while protecting the open streetscape character, staff 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 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 feet in height, and walls along sidewalks, could negatively impact the streetscape aesthetic.

The recommended alternative is a combination of the first and third alternatives.  In this concept, the length or starting point of a taller fence would be limited to ensure 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 feet.  Fences within the street side yard would be permitted to have a maximum height of six feet beginning at the rear of the house and four feet elsewhere.

Recommendation: Increase the maximum height of fences and walls within street side yards to six feet beginning at the rear of the house and extending to the rear property line (Exhibit B-2).  The existing restrictions regarding reversed corner lots would be retained, and the maximum height within the reversed corner lot setback area would be limited to four feet.  While staff would prefer a minimal setback, three 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 would ensure that the open streetscape will continue around the corner of the house 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 the finished ground surface on the property where the fence, wall, or hedge is located.  As a result, under the current standards, a three-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 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 erect a fence or wall to the 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 inches of elevation change (the height of a typical block).  The shortened distance 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 B-3).

Recommendation: In single family zones, the height of a fence, wall, or hedge would be measured at the center point of a horizontal run with no portion of the fence exceeding the maximum height by more than eight inches as measured from the abutting finished ground surface of the lot.  This allows additional flexibility in design and allows stair steps in the wall to be spaced further apart.

Changes Applicable to Multifamily Zones

Staff is proposing several revisions to the fence standards that would be specifically applied to multifamily zones to improve the overall design of multifamily projects and to allow fence standards to be administered in a manner more consistent with the other multifamily standards.

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 recently adopted multifamily development standards include provisions to ensure that new multifamily developments are focused toward the street.  Development of a six-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 fences and walls within street-facing side yards in multifamily zones be subject to the same limitations as fences and walls located within front yard areas.

Measurement of Height

The current fence standards measure maximum fence heights from finished ground surface.  In contrast, structure height in multifamily zones is measured from the average grade of the lot. Multifamily projects with semi-subterranean garages often utilize the top of the garage deck as the functional �grade� of the project, and place fences and walls on top of the deck.  To avoid any confusion about fence and wall heights, it would be simpler to measure fences and walls in the same manner as the structure itself.  However, multifamily projects often utilize several adjacent lots.  On sloped properties, the potential exists for the average grade of a property to be considerably higher than the abutting grade.  Measurement of fence and wall height from average grade therefore does not fully address potential massing impacts on downhill properties.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the height of fences and walls be measured in relation 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 feet from average grade with no portion of the fence or wall exceeding five 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 feet with no portion of the fence or wall exceeding 10 feet above abutting natural grade. These limitations ensure 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 sight 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-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-foot 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 feet to four feet to correspond with the proposed fence height provisions.

Enforcement and Exceptions

The standards presented to the City Council in August included an amnesty program that would have allowed nonconforming fences to remain in place for a certain period of time depending upon their height.  All fences and walls within front yards in excess of six feet would have been required to be brought into compliance with the new standards within one year of the adoption of new ordinance.  Fences in front yards between four and six feet in height would have had three years to be brought into compliance.  Staff also proposed to include a statement regarding fence heights in the City�s required real estate disclosures.  Although staff considered utilizing a special type of discretionary permit to allow legalization of existing nonconforming fences or deviations from the standards for new fences, staff ultimately recommended that the existing variance process, with its standard variance findings, continue to be used.

The purpose of the amnesty program was essentially to delay enforcement of the new standards by providing homeowners with up to three years to bring their fences or walls into conformance with the new standards.  As with current practice, enforcement under the amnesty program would not have been proactive, and would have been in response to complaints only.  For example, if a complaint were submitted against a fence between four and six feet tall within three years after the effective date of the ordinance, the property owner would have until the end of that three-year period to bring their fence or wall into compliance.  Complaints submitted beyond the three year period would be subject to normal enforcement timeframes.  As an alternative to altering the fence, homeowners would always have the option of applying for a variance to seek approval to deviate from the Code requirements.

After further consideration of this issue, staff is recommending an alternative approach to simplify enforcement and to allow increased flexibility for fences over the height limits prescribed in the Code.  During Council deliberations on this issue in August, some Council members indicated that fences over four feet tall were not necessarily a problem, depending upon the design of the fence, the neighborhood impact, and any safety concerns that might arise from the placement or design of the fence.  Rather than delaying enforcement as the amnesty program would have done, staff believes that a better approach would be a tiered enforcement program, coupled with a special permitting program to allow fences over four feet tall.  The proposed program would allow many fences and walls erected prior to the new ordinance to remain in place, so long as they were determined not to pose a safety hazard.

New Discretionary Permits

Staff is proposing that new fences and walls in excess of the heights prescribed by the Code be allowed when appropriate through a discretionary permit process.  A �minor fence exception permit� would be required for fences in front or street side yards between four and six feet tall, and for any other yard features six feet or less in height that do not comply with the standards.  The permit would be similar to an administrative use permit: the decision to approve or deny the permit would be made by the Community Development Director with public notice, and the decision could be appealed to the Planning Board and City Council.  A �major fence exception permit� would be required for fences or any other yard features taller than six feet.  The permit would be similar to a variance: the decision to approve or deny the permit would be made by the Planning Board following a noticed public hearing and could be appealed to the City Council.

Both types of permits would require notice to be provided to surrounding property owners and tenants, as with administrative use permits and variances.  Staff recommends that the required mailing radius be reduced below the 1,000 feet required for those permits as reflected in the proposed standards, since a fence or wall on a residential property would not have any impacts to properties 1,000 feet away.  Rather than traditional administrative use permit and variance findings that are generic and could be difficult to apply to fences or walls, the new permits would have findings to specifically address fences and walls dealing with issues such as aesthetics and visual impact, safety, and neighborhood character.  The proposed findings for the two permits are attached as Exhibit C-1.

Tiered Enforcement

The proposed permits would work together with a tiered enforcement strategy that would consider the impact of existing fences and walls on the public health or safety.  Enforcement action against certain fences and walls that were in existence prior to the adoption of the new standards and that are determined not to pose a safety hazard would be held in abeyance and no enforcement action would be taken.  The proposed enforcement program would work as follows:

Fences, walls, and other features erected prior to the ordinance effective date:

• Up to six feet tall: Upon submittal of a complaint, the fence, wall, or other feature would be inspected to determine if it posed a hazard to the public health or safety, based upon specified criteria such as sight clearances for driveways and street corners and structural integrity.  The proposed criteria are attached as Exhibit C-2.  If it were determined to not pose a hazard, the enforcement action would be held in abeyance and the fence or wall would be allowed to remain in place.  If it were determined to pose a hazard, the feature would have to be modified so as to no longer pose a hazard (not necessarily to fully comply with Code).  It is important to note that this proposed approach would not legalize a nonconforming fence, but simply hold in abeyance the enforcement action.  If the fence or wall were destroyed, it would be subject to the normal Code provisions for nonconforming structures, and could not be rebuilt except in compliance with the requirements in effect at that time.  If the homeowner desired not to modify the fence or wall so as to satisfy the safety findings, or if the homeowner wanted to seek full legalization of the fence or wall as opposed to simply avoiding enforcement, they could apply for a minor fence exception permit. 

• Over six feet tall: Upon submittal of a complaint, the homeowner would be required to modify the feature to be consistent with the Code, modify the feature to be six feet or less in height and to not pose a hazard as determined by the safety criteria, or receive approval of a major fence exception permit.

Fences, walls, and other features erected after the ordinance effective date:

• Up to six feet tall: Such features would be permitted only with approval of a minor fence exception permit.  Upon submittal of a complaint, the homeowner would be required to modify the feature to be consistent with Code, or apply for a minor fence exception permit.

• Over six feet tall: Such features would be permitted only with approval of a major fence exception permit.  Upon submittal of a complaint, the homeowner would be required to modify the fence or wall to be consistent with Code, or apply for a major fence exception permit.

One challenge with this enforcement approach would be establishing the date that a fence or wall was erected, since the enforcement would be based upon whether a fence or wall was in existence on the date the ordinance became effective.  As noted above, the City does not require any type permit for fences and most walls, and as such there is no official City record to establish the date that a fence or wall was constructed.  Staff believes that adequate evidence would be available on a case-by-case basis to determine the date that the fence or wall was erected, including the condition of the fence or wall and photographs provided by the homeowner or complainant.

It is important to note, however, that the proposed enforcement provisions would shift the burden of proof regarding the date a fence or wall was erected from the property owner to the City.  Under current Code provisions, the City is able to bring an enforcement action against any fence that does not comply with the current standards.  If the fence or wall was erected prior to 1967 when the current standards were adopted and complied with the standards in effect at the time it was built, the burden is upon the property owner to provide evidence to the City of the date that the fence or wall was built.  Under the proposed standards, the Code would specify that enforcement is held in abeyance for all fences and walls erected prior to the effective date of the new ordinance if certain findings are made.  Only fences and walls erected on or after the effective date would be subject to enforcement action.  The burden would therefore be upon the City to demonstrate that a given fence or wall was erected after the effective date and could be enforced upon.

In crafting the above enforcement strategy, staff considered recommending a switch from the current enforcement policy of reacting to complaints only to a proactive policy of actively identifying fences, walls, and other features out of compliance with Code requirements.  Proactive enforcement generally requires greater staff resources than reactive enforcement.  In the budget for Fiscal Year 2005-2006, the City Council approved an additional $100,000 for code enforcement activities related to land use entitlements.  This additional funding has enabled the City to enhance the amount of proactive enforcement for conditions of approval for conditional use permits and similar entitlements.  However, this pilot program is targeted to enforce conditions of approval, and has not allowed for proactive enforcement of fences or other issues.

While staff endeavors to increase the amount of proactive enforcement wherever possible, current staffing constraints dictate that enforcement on existing fences and walls will continue to be only in response complaints received from the public. The License and Code Services Division has indicated that a transition from a reactive to a proactive enforcement policy on fences and walls would likely require the addition of one full-time code inspector.  Such a transition would also impact the workload of the City Attorney�s Office as cases of non-compliance are referred there for prosecution.

Formatting Changes

Heights of fences and walls in Burbank are regulated in BMC Sections 31-603(G), 31-628(H), and 31-1302 for single family residential, multiple family residential, and non-residential zones, respectively.  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.

The proposed ordinance would amend the existing regulations in Sections 31-603(G) and 31-628(H) for the residential zones.  Sections 31-1302 and 31-1304 would be deleted and replaced by a new subsection within Section 31-1113.1, the commercial and industrial design standards.  This new subsection would incorporate the current commercial and industrial fence standards as well as the exception for security fences maintained by government agencies.  Moving the fence standards for non-residential zones into the commercial and industrial design standards would further staff�s efforts to make the Code more user-friendly and making the standards easier to locate.  Because the corner cutoff provisions in Section 31-1303 apply in all zones, that section would be amended in place.  The proposed fence exception permits and enforcement program provisions would be added to Article 19 of Chapter 31, where the requirements for other permitting and entitlement processes are located.

Interim Status of Standards

The standards presented in this report are intended to be adopted as �interim� standards as directed by the Council.  However, staff notes that these interim standards would not be adopted as an Interim Development Control Ordinance (IDCO), and are not proposed to include a sunset provision.  Ordinances adopted as IDCOs are valid only for 45 days unless renewed by the Council, must be approved by a four-fifths vote, and can be adopted only when specific findings are made by the Council.  The proposed standards have gone through the normal zone text amendment process, including environmental review, consideration by the Planning Board, and noticed public hearings with the Board and Council.  Staff therefore recommends that the standards be adopted through the normal ordinance process as a regular amendment to the Municipal Code.  This would allow the standards to remain in place as long as necessary to allow for adequate public review and Council consideration.  The standards would be considered interim by means of a policy statement by the City Council, but would not be subject to state laws governing the implementation and administration of a true interim ordinance.  The Council could, through the zone text amendment process, change the standards at any time as deemed necessary or appropriate, or declare the standards acceptable to remain in place as permanent.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was prepared by staff, which concluded that the proposed zone text amendment would not have a significant impact on the environment. A Negative Declaration was prepared accordingly (Exhibit D).

PLANNING BOARD ACTION:

On June 13, 2005, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the proposed zone text amendment (minutes attached as Exhibit E-1).  The standards considered by the Board were those considered by the City Council in August.  The physical standards presented in this report, including the proposed height limitations, are the same as those considered by the Board.  The standards considered by the Board included the amnesty program which is now proposed to be replaced with the two discretionary permits and tiered enforcement program discussed above.  While the Board did not have an opportunity to review and make recommendations regarding the permits and enforcement program, staff believes that the scope of what the Board considered is substantially similar to what is now being proposed to the Council.  On January 17, the Council directed staff to return directly to the Council with the proposed interim standards rather than first going back to the Planning Board.

During the Planning Board hearing in June, one member of the public expressed concerns about the then-proposed 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 Code changes. Members of the Board also raised questions about the proposed enforcement and the potential for different standards based upon property location, such as 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 disclosures.  This real estate disclosure requirement was recommended to the Council in August as part of the amnesty program, but is no longer recommended in light of the proposed changes to the enforcement program.  The Board voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the proposed fence standards (resolution attached as Exhibit E-2).

PUBLIC OUTREACH:

Prior to the February 2005 study session before the Planning Board, staff placed ads in the Burbank Leader newspaper 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 email from a resident who believed that the City should place additional controls on fencing materials (Exhibit F-1). Additionally, two residents spoke at the Planning Board meeting. One resident expressed concerns about being able to rebuild existing nonconforming 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.  Prior to the June 2005 Planning Board hearing, staff forwarded the proposed changes to the Association of Realtors but received no comments.  As noted above, one resident spoke at the Planning Board public hearing.

In order to ensure that residential property owners were informed of the proposed changes, the City Council directed staff to send notices to all residential property owners prior to the August 2005 Council hearing.  Over 22,000 notices were mailed to all single and multiple family residential property owners.  The notices provided a summary of the proposed standards and identified ways to find out more about the proposed changes.  Staff also sent notices to all real estate brokers with Burbank business permits.  Additionally, staff set up a special phone line and email address dedicated to providing information and receiving comments on the proposed ordinance. The public notices included the phone number, email address, and the Planning and Transportation Division�s web site address, which was updated to provide information on the proposed changes.  As part of the public outreach effort, staff also included information on cable television channel 6 and included an announcement in the Burbank Council News program.  As a result of this outreach, dozens of residents submitted comments regarding the proposed standards via mail, email, and telephone.  A record of the input received via telephone is attached as Exhibit F-2.  Copies of all of the written comments received, including via email, are attached as Exhibit F-3.

For this public hearing on the proposed interim standards, the Council again directed staff to mail notices to all residential property owners.  Again, over 22,000 notices were mailed.  Staff again also sent notices to all real estate brokers with Burbank business permits.  Rather than typical public notices, the notices were formatted as letters and provided additional information about the intent of the interim standards and the standards themselves.  To further educate the community about the proposed interim standards, staff worked with the Public Information Office to produce a short video for cable television channel 6.  The video features a casual conversation between two �neighbors� about the proposed interim standards.  The video has been shown regularly on channel 6 beginning the week of February 13, and has been available for viewing on the City�s web site.  As with the last hearing, staff has also publicized a special email address for people to submit comments specifically about fences.  Details of the proposed standards, including the full draft ordinance, have been available for public viewing on the Planning and Transportation Division web site.  As of the publication of this report, no public comments had been received in response to the notice for this hearing.  Any comments received will be forwarded to the Council.

BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE:

On September 13, 2005, Council directed staff to establish a Blue Ribbon Task Force on fence issues.  The original deadline for Burbank residents to apply to serve on the task force was October 31, 2005.  Due to the limited number of applications that were received, the deadline was extended to November 30, 2005, and extended a second time at the direction of the City Council to January 31, 2006.  The City Clerk�s office received a total of 13 applications from Burbank residents interested in serving on the task force.  The 13 applications received are attached as Exhibit G.  The only requirements for serving on the Blue Ribbon Task Force are that all appointees must be Burbank residents and registered to vote in Burbank.

The purpose of the Blue Ribbon Task Force would be to review the interim standards adopted by the City Council, including the tiered enforcement program and discretionary permit findings, to determine their adequacy and effectiveness.  The Task Force would make recommendations to the City Council on any changes to the interim standards, and whether the standards should be adopted as permanent.  Staff recommends that the Task Force not be convened until at least several months after the new standards take effect.  This would allow staff time to gain some experience administering and enforcing the standards and to provide input to the Task Force on their effectiveness in practice.  Staff anticipates that the Task Force would meet once a month for about six months, as necessary to thoroughly review the interim standards and make recommendations on the standards.  Staff seeks direction from the City Council on the degree of public involvement and outreach that should be included with the Task Force meetings.

The City Council did not provide specific direction on the number of individuals to be appointed to the Blue Ribbon Task Force.  Ad hoc Blue Ribbon committees can vary in size.  As a recent example, the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Affordable Housing, convened in 2002, included 16 members appointed by various City bodies and community organizations.  Staff believes that it is important through the Blue Ribbon Task Force to gather as much input as possible from a variety of individuals with different interests and from different areas of the City.  However, staff also notes that it becomes increasingly difficult to reach a consensus as more members are added to a task force.  Staff seeks direction from the Council on the number of individuals to serve on the Blue Task Force, and recommends that the Council appoint the desired number.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff Resources

Although the scope of the new standards is somewhat greater than the current standards, staff anticipates that they would not require a substantial amount of additional Planning staff time to administer.  As proposed by staff, enforcement would continue to be in response to complaints only with no proactive enforcement.  However, enforcement would become more complicated and more staff time would be required, since code enforcement staff would be tasked with making the proposed safety criteria findings to determine whether or not to proceed with an enforcement action.  Some additional Planning staff time would be required to process applications for the proposed fence exception permits.  Although the minor fence permit would be subject to administrative approval, public noticing would still be required, with the possibility for appeal.  The impact on staff resources would depend upon the number of permit applications received.  Staff currently processes very few variances for fences or walls, with perhaps only two or three applications received per year.  Since the process and findings for a minor fence exception permit would be easier relative to a variance, staff expects that the number of applications would be greater.  It is difficult to estimate how many applications would be received; the number may also depend upon the amount of enforcement activity.

A substantial amount of staff resources would be required for the Blue Ribbon Task Force.  Staff anticipates that the task force would likely meet once a month for about six months.  At least two or three staff members would be present at each meeting, and perhaps more at some meetings depending upon the topics being discussed.  Substantial staff time would also be required for meeting preparation and follow-up activities including research and preparation of agendas, handout materials, and meeting minutes.  If the Council�s desire is for the task force meetings to be publicized and to also serve as community meetings to gather general public input, additional resources would be required to advertise and facilitate the meetings.

Proposed Fees

The proposed tiered enforcement process to allow existing fences to remain in place subject to certain safety findings would be administered through the existing enforcement program, and would therefore not have an associated fee.  If a fence or wall required modifications so as to allow the Director to make the safety findings, the homeowner would be responsible for the cost of those modifications, but no payment to the City would be required (except for inspection fees as already required in situations where an excessive number of inspections is required to determine compliance).

The minor and major fence exception permits would be planning applications that would go through the planning process and require City and staff resources.  It would therefore be appropriate to require a filing fee for these permits, as the City does for other planning applications.  As noted earlier in this report, the minor fence exception permit would be processed using the administrative use permit process, and the major fence exception permit would be processed using the variance process.  These permits would therefore require the same amount of City resources and staff time to process as an administrative use permit and variance, respectively.  It may be argued that it would therefore be appropriate to apply administrative use permit and variance fees to these applications.

However, in an effort to encourage homeowners to comply with the law and apply for the appropriate type of permit for fences or walls over the maximum allowed heights, staff believes that the fees for these permits should be as low as possible.  The lowest comparable fee currently charged for a planning application is $350 for an administrative use permit for a large family day care home.  The fees for all other administrative use permits are higher; however the City Council has opted to maintain the lower fee for day care homes because of the need for day care and the community benefit that such facilities can provide.  Because of Planning Board concerns about application fees for home occupation music lessons, staff also proposed to the Council that the $350 fee be utilized for administrative use permits for that use.  The application fee for a single family variance, which would be comparable to the major fence exception permit, is $625.

Staff recommends that the fee for fence permits be set even lower to further encourage homeowners to comply with the law and apply for the necessary permit if they wish to build a fence or wall above the Code limits.  Staff recommends that the application fee for a minor fence exception permit be $150, and that the fee for a major fence exception permit be $300.  Since these fees do not currently exist, an amendment to the Fee Resolution would be required.  The proposed additions to the Fee Resolution are shown in Exhibit H.  As with other planning application fees, these proposed fees are well below the actual cost to the City of processing the applications.  As such, processing the applications would incur costs on the City.

CONCLUSION:

The height of fences, walls, hedges, and other yard features is regulated in order to ensure 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 interim standards are in line with the overall character of the City and maintain an aesthetic standard while preserving the ability of property owners to improve their yards based upon their personal preferences.

An apparent misconception by residents in attendance at the August 16, 2005 public hearing was that the proposed standards would be more restrictive than existing standards.  Staff notes that this is not the case.  The proposed standards would allow taller fences and walls than do the current standards and would substantially increase the flexibility that homeowners have in placing fences, walls, and other features in their yards.  Staff believes that the proposed standards would provide a more consistent development pattern and increase the variety of designs available.  The proposed ordinance would decrease the number of nonconforming fences in the City, and existing nonconforming fences would be allowed to remain in place so long as they did not pose a safety hazard under the proposed tiered enforcement program.  Further, homeowners would have an opportunity to legalize existing fences and construct new fences above the heights otherwise allowed through the proposed discretionary permit processes.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance to approve Project No. 2005-63, a zone text amendment to establish interim standards for fences, walls, and other yard features, and adopt the proposed resolution to amend the Fee Resolution to establish application fees for the new fence exception permits.  Staff further recommends that the Council appoint the desired number of individuals to serve on the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Fences, Walls, and Landscaping.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit            A         Proposed interim standards

Exhibit            B-1      Retaining wall diagram

                        B-2      Street side yard diagram

                        B-3      Height measurement diagrams

Exhibit            C-1      Proposed findings for fence exception permits

                        C-2      Proposed safety criteria for tiered enforcement program

Exhibit             D         Negative Declaration

Exhibit            E-1      Minutes from the June 13, 2005 Planning Board meeting

                        E-2      Planning Board Resolution No. 2988 dated June 13, 2005

Exhibit           F-1      Public comment received prior to February Planning Board study session

                        F-2      Public comments received via telephone prior to August Council hearing

                        F-3      Public comments received prior to August Council hearing

Exhibit            G         Applications submitted for Blue Ribbon Task Force

Exhibit            H         Proposed additions to Fee Resolution

go to the top