2003-0414 - Appeal of a decision by the Administrative Hearing Officer denying a Variance from SMC (Sunnyvale Municipal Code) section 19.48.020 to allow a 3.5' and 6.5' fence in the corner and driveway vision triangles. The property is located at 811 Homestead Road in an R-1 (Low-Density Residential) Zoning District. (APN: 323-21-034)

Christine Cannizzo, Project Planner, presented the staff report. She summarized the subject application highlighting the use and site layout. She provided the history of the application leading up to the appeal of the Administrative Hearing Officer denying the Variance. She stated that there were safety and aesthetics concerns. She noted that staff received two letters from the neighborhood expressing concerns about the visibility from the corner and one letter in support of the fence. Staff was unable to make the required Findings and recommended denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer denying the Variance.

Jerry Dejea, appellant, stated that since the installation of the bus stop in front of his property, he lost privacy and experienced trespassing from high school students. He stated that there was a six-foot fence but was destroyed and needs replacement. In order to protect his privacy and vandalism from students invading his private property he needed to build a higher fence.

Thom Mayer, resident, commented that a six-foot fence does not have to be erected as it encroaches the vision triangle making the street unsafe. He urged the Commission to deny the appeal and deny the Variance to keep the streets safe.

Jerry Dejea, commented that a street light box is located on the corner blocking the vision triangle and wonders how this box is acceptable but not the fence.

Comm. Swegles commented that during his site visit, he noticed that although there is a traffic light, the fence blocks the view, thus creating a hazardous condition.

Comm. Hungerford commented that during his site visit, it appears that the fence has been partially constructed. Mr. Dejea responded that the City requested him to stop construction.

Ms. Ryan directed the Commission to Attachment 5 page 2 of 3 of the staff report to show which parts of the fence require a Variance.

Comm. Hungerford asked whether the issue is the corner piece of the fence. Ms. Ryan clarified the area of the fence requiring a Variance since it encroaches the vision triangle and the driveway vision. She added that the height of the fence needs to be reduced.

Comm. Chu confirmed with staff that the height of the existing fence for corrective action is that it is necessary to reduce the height of the existing fence from 3'6" down to 3" that encroaches the vision triangle and portion of the fence encroaching the driveway vision needs to be reduced by 2 feet. Staff said yes.

Chair Babcock asked Mr. Dejea if he has read the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Dejea said yes.

Vice Chair Moylan asked staff how does the utility box located right on the vision triangle be allowed and to explain what is "boulevard" as noted in one of the letters sent by the neighbors. Ms. Ryan responded that traffic control box has been located by traffic staff who are mindful of safely and no Variance is required but rather the Variance process applies to private properties subject to zoning. She stated that the "boulevard" noted in the letter may refer to the landscape strip between the sidewalk and the street.

Vice Chair Moylan explained that in order to approve a Variance the three required Findings must be met. He was able to make Findings #1 - because of the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions, the appellant's safety and privacy was impacted with the installation of the bus stop. Furthermore, Findings #3, granting of the Variance would not grant the appellant special privileges as enjoyed by other surrounding property owners. However, he was unable to make Findings #2 as granting of the Variance would be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious, therefore cannot approve the Variance.

Comm. Swegles commented that during his site visit, the neighbors expressed safety concerns of the fence. He felt that keeping the streets safe is foremost.

Comm. Simons supported the motion. He suggested that when a new traffic box is installed to consider underground installation where possible. He hoped that safety comes first before cost concerns.

Chair Babcock supported the motion. She commented that safety comes first before privacy and added that it is a difficult corner and blocking the vision triangle would cause accidents. She was glad that traffic signals have been installed.