Planning Commission upholds administrative permit allowing taller fence at 865 El Oro Drive
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
After neighbors raised safety and privacy concerns, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to adopt Resolution 25-10 approving Administrative Permit AP2025-04 to allow increased fence height in the street-side setback at 865 El Oro Drive. Public works had judged the fence did not constitute a traffic hazard.
The City of Auburn Planning Commission voted unanimously on Nov. 18 to approve an administrative permit allowing an increased fence height within the street-side setback at 865 El Oro Drive (Resolution 25-10, AP2025-04).
The permit was appealed to the commission after two written objections were filed during the administrative review. Associate Planner Laura Stewart reported that public works inspected the site, measured the fence height at 8 feet and concluded the panels “meet the site distance requirements, and do not constitute a traffic hazard.” Stewart also noted the building department flagged that a building permit will be required because the fence exceeds 7 feet.
Neighbors who spoke at the hearing described repeated near-misses while backing from driveways and asked the commission to require modification of the first fence panel or removal of adjacent vegetation. “I’ve been hit, almost hit several times trying to back up,” neighbor Fred Weisgerber said during public comment. Appellant Neil Riddlesdorf, a licensed civil engineer, argued parts of the panel layout could create momentary horizontal sight-distance problems where drivers do not come to a stop.
Applicant Jeff Patton told the commission the landscaping removal that preceded the fence improved sight lines and described the structure as a privacy screen intended to be an aesthetic addition rather than a safety hazard. “We’ve improved the sight lines as opposed to degraded them,” Patton said.
Commissioners asked staff and public works about their site inspections and the permit process. Staff explained that, under the municipal code, an administrative permit must be denied at the staff level when opposition is received and that the applicant then may appeal to the Planning Commission.
A commissioner moved to adopt the resolution approving AP2025-04 and the motion carried with Chair Hyatt and the two other voting commissioners recorded as voting "Yes," yielding a unanimous approval.
Next steps: The applicant will pursue any required building permits for the fence construction and must satisfy building-division requirements related to the over-7-foot condition. The commission’s approval completed the local land-use process for the administrative permit; any subsequent disputes about private CC&Rs remain civil matters between homeowners.