Justine đã giao vấn đề này cho David Y., Traffic Engineer

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

@Ondgo707....you seem to be the one who needs to get a toy! That wrought iron fence is an obstruction! It was bad enough when the church is in service and the folks with the LARGE SUVs are parked on opposite corners, once again obstructing vision! Now since the fence has been put up it has gotten worse. This fence will be the cause of many accidents! I have spoken in the past about attempting to make a left turn when the larger vehicles are parked on the corner near the apartments! This traffic situation will worsen in the warmer months when more events will be held at the church! What really needs to happen is a no parking zone place on the corners in front of the church and apartments, red zone painted and signs, with huge fines given out to those who violate! Unfortunately, this putting large iron fences around neighborhood churches seems to be an ever growing trend now! Somehow being concerned about the very community they're in seems to be non-existent! That fence is a hazard and needs to be removed from that corner or cut down to the size you would place in a residential yard! Hopefully the traffic division will come out and notice how the improvements need to be made! Does Cal-Trans also need to involved? Also, a city bus drives that route and has to also pull out to see to make that left turn!

Because they have people moving into their parking lot and camping, or leaving abandoned vehicles and trash. And so the answer is a iron fence to keep them out. I believe the church was reported in the past on SCF for all the above mentioned. If there was actually a traffic/parking division presence on the street you might see some action, otherwise this town doesn’t have the resources to deal with it in a timely manner. I would imagine they had to apply for a permit to construct that fence? Planning division?

I agree with @Artsem that a permit should have been pulled to put the fence up in the first place. This should be checked with the planning dept.

Code Enforcement will be taking a look and coordinating the property owner as necessary.

Thanks for your response, David.

Thanks for all of the positive comments. No one is against the church jyst the traffic problems that it creates. So far at this particular church there has been no littering or illegally parked vehicles, just folks using the parking lot to make u-turns or take shortcuts to Sonoma. That fence should not be that tall. There should be red no parking zones on all 4 corners for bith pedestrian and vehicle safety!

By the way, another church a few blocks down Sonoma Boulevard, on the corner has the exact same fence style, height and positioning.

That church on the corner of Sonoma Blvd and Lemon street does have a wrought iron fence, however, there is a stoplight there. The fence is also back a ways from sidewalk/fence and the bars are not as close together as the one on Winchester!

What is happening with the fence situation? I see that a piece of it has been damaged, perhaps by a vehicle. What is the outcome of the original complaint regarding the fence?

Didn’t you see that code enforcement is on the job, as posted five months ago.....

It has been 6 months since this has been first put on see click fix. This is a safety hazard for all those pulling out a Winchester to Sonoma Boulevard. Why does it take 6 months to get things fixed?

@Artsem
Code enforcement has done exactly WHAT in the past 6 months regarding that fence...or were you being funny? That fence is still a hazard to all attempting to make a left turn. If church is on service and you're attempting to make a right turn, with large SUVs on the left side, that too is hazardous as well! What is the exact status on this fence situation?

See. Click, Fix:
Where exactly is this issue at? What has code enforcement done to remedy this problem? The fence doesn't have to completely removed but it needs to be reduced in height. Not only that, but on BOTH corners, there should be an area of red painted so that cars don't park so close to the corners! If code enforcement doesn't want to do that, then need active traffic lights at that corner as well!

@Ange, for the fence, you will have to follow up with Code Enforcement and get an eTRAKiT case number (if one exists). And the other requests for red zones is going to be the Traffic Engineer David,
And yes & no on being funny, if our City services weren’t such a joke.

Here are the two City Codes that might help you determine if a violation exists. It appears that it should have been approved inspected for its proximity to the intersection & sidewalk before installation.

16.70.050 - Safety standards applicable to required screening and landscaping.
SHARE LINK TO SECTIONPRINT SECTIONDOWNLOAD (DOCX) OF SECTIONSEMAIL SECTIONCOMPARE VERSIONS
A. Safety Standards. Fences, walls, other screening and landscaping, whether provided in accordance with the provisions of Section 16.70.020 or provided in addition to those provisions, shall be subject to review by the traffic engineer in the following areas:1. Within ten feet of the point of intersection of: a. A vehicular accessway or driveway and a street; or b. A vehicular accessway or driveway and a sidewalk. 2. Within twenty feet of the point of intersection of two or more vehicular access ways, including driveways, alleys, or streets. 3. As used in this section, "point of intersection" shall be measured from the face of curb or if none, from the edge of pavement. B. Applicability. The standards described in subsection A shall govern the areas as illustrated in the areas subject to safety standards. The areas subject to safety standards is a part of this title and all references to this section include it.
(Ord. 1385 N.C.(2d) § 1 (part), 1997: Ord. 558 N.C.(2d) § 2 (part), 1980.)

16.70.060 - Height standards applicable to fencing and screening.
SHARE LINK TO SECTIONPRINT SECTIONDOWNLOAD (DOCX) OF SECTIONSEMAIL SECTIONCOMPARE VERSIONS
In accordance with the provision of Section 16.70.050 or in addition to those provisions, fences, walls and other screening shall be subject to the following height standards:

A. Commercial, Professional and Limited Offices and Medical Districts. Required screening, except for plant material, shall not be more than six feet in height. B. Intensive Use Districts. Required screening, except for plant materials, shall not be more than eight feet in height. C. Automotive and Equipment Type Uses. Notwithstanding the provisions of an applicable zone, fences, walls and other screening on any building site with an automotive and equipment use type, except sales/rental - light equipment, required screening shall not be more than eight feet in height. Fences, walls and other screening on any building site with an automotive and equipment sales/rental - light use shall not be more than six feet in height. D. Parking Facilities. Notwithstanding the provisions of an applicable zone, screening around an unenclosed off-street parking facility shall not be more than six feet in height. E. Courtyard. Fences, walls and other screening installed to create a courtyard without a roof shall be a maximum of five feet in height and be set back a minimum of ten feet from the front property line or back of sidewalk, whichever is the least. Such screening is subject to the site development plan procedure, described in Chapter 16.90. In reviewing the plan for the proposed courtyard, the planning manager shall consider, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Building characteristics including the dimensions, color and architectural design; 2. Compatibility of the architectural and design features of the proposed courtyard with the features of the adjoining, as well as neighboring buildings; and 3. Landscaping, including the effort to minimize removal of existing vegetation and to match replacements with vegetation of the site. F. All Other Building Sites. Fences, walls, and other screening on building sites not subject to the regulations of subsections A through E shall be subject to the following height limits: 1. Within Required Front Yard. Except as provided in Sections 16.70.050 and 16.70.065, the maximum height of screening located within any required front yard shall be three feet unless the traffic engineer determines that a four foot fence would not create a visibility hazard and six feet thereafter. 2. Within Required Side Yard for Corner Lot. Except as provided in Sections 16.70.050 and 16.70.065, the maximum height of screening located within ten feet of a side property line, adjoining a public street shall be three feet unless the traffic engineer determines that a four foot fence would not create a visibility hazard and six feet thereafter. The planning manager in consultation with the traffic engineer may reduce the fence setback to three feet from the back of the sidewalk where the side yard is three feet below street grade. 3. An encroachment permit shall be obtained prior to erecting a fence or wall between the curb or sidewalk and the property line. 4. Within Required Side and Rear Yard for Interior Lots. The maximum height shall not be more than six feet. 5. A fence shall be provided around swimming pools as required in Chapter 12.44 of this code. 6. All Other Areas. a. Whenever a wall or fence is installed along a rear property line that will obstruct a view, it shall be limited to four feet in height. b. Open fences that do not obstruct the view may be six feet in height. G. For designated city landmarks and properties that are located within a designated heritage or historic district: 1. The maximum height for fences within the front setback area and/or the street side yard setback area shall be three feet six inches. 2. Requests for a variance to allow a fence on any property subject to the regulations of Chapter 16.36, which exceeds the height limits of this chapter shall be subject to review and approval by the architectural heritage and landmarks commission. 3. Requests for minor exceptions shall be subject to review and approval by the secretary of the architectural heritage and landmarks commission or his/her designee.
(Ord. 1385 N.C.(2d) § 1 (part), 1997: Ord. 1368 N.C.(2d) § 18, 1996: Ord. 1250 N.C.(2d) § 1, 1992; Ord. 947 N.C.(2d) § 1 (part), 1987; Ord. 649 N.C.(2d) § 18, 1982; Ord. 578 N.C.(2d) § 1, 1980; Ord. 558 N.C.(2d) § 2 (part), 1980.

Cut and paste made it look pretty messy, he might want to go to the city website and look up the municipal codes section. It’s much easier to read that way.

Whoa Artsem...thanks for ALL of that information! That fence is not higher than 6' but, the way it's situated, it's still a traffic hazard! I'm wondering if Code Enforcement really looked at it. I will re-read what you posted to see how to actually get code enforcement out to look at that fence

From what Artsem posted, that fence should not be more than 3' tall instead of the 6' that it currently is!

This fence situation is the same! Nothing has changed! This fence should be shorter. There should also be an area painted red from the corner to about 5' so that vehicles especially those large SUVs won't park there blocking the view especially on Sundays or days when the church has a function. This should also be done the corner by the apartments too! Either that or give the community a stop light at that corner! It's ridiculous and no one is really paying attention until someone is hit and killed there again! Code enforcement needs to come on this and let us KNOW what they are actually doing to relieve us of this problem!

That fence situation has not changed at all. What has Code Enforcement done regarding this situation?

I will check the status of the investigation with Code Enforcement. The fence does not hinder visibility of northbound traffic on Sonoma Bl, but I will prepare a work order to paint some red curb on the southwest corner so vehicles don't park right at the corner.

David, that "No Parking" red zone won't be policed so that won't solve the issue. Safety is at stake here and the fence should never have been put up. Did they pull a permit for the fence at all? Where is the setback required that every fence I have ever put up in Vallejo has required?

@David...if you could put that red on both corners of Sonoma that would be a start, however that wrought iron fence needs to a least be shorter, a three or 4 foot fence! Also, with cars, especially the SUVs parking on both corners, you have almost pull out in traffic to see if you have the right of way to turn left or right!

That wretched fence is still stand and to make left onto Sonoma, you have to almost pull out into traffic and risk getting hit especially during morning and evening rush hour traffic!The church has opened back up since it was closed for awhile during the social distancing, so now there is once again more traffic on Sunday! Awe really need those corners painted red, perhaps with some bumps or signs letting folks know not to park on those corners! I brought this issue up January 2019 and here it is a over 18 months later an nothing has been done! Not good at all!

Since they were repairing Sonoma, why wasn't those red corners painted up? Also, that fence is still problem if you are making a right turn onto Sonoma from Winchester street! Still a problem and now that the church is back up and running, there is the fence and the parked vehicles, making you have to pull out into traffic if you want to make a left onto Sonoma and if you want to right you have to sometimes go around a SUV to make that turn! Are they waiting for a fatality to change things?

This content is currently blocked. The content is either under review by SeeClickFix or has been confirmed by SeeClickFix for violation(s) of SeeClickFix Terms of Use (https://www.civicplus.com/terms-of-service). Content that aligns with SeeClickFix Terms of Use will be posted, and content that does not align with our Terms of Use will not be permitted for public viewing.

So...what is exactly going on with the fence situation at the corner of Winchester and Sonoma? When will we see something done?

Eastbound drivers on Winchester at Sonoma have room to stop first for any pedestrians, then move forward without impeding southbound Sonoma Bl to see traffic (north and southbound) to make a right/left or continue straight.

A previous comment also asked about the red curb being done with the roadway pavement. Caltrans maintains the pavement and had a recent project to repave Sonoma Bl, the curb painting is a city job and the work order has been approved and waiting in line with other work orders.

I will also check with Code/Planning to get status on the fence height/location question.

720 days since this was reported and yet...NOTHING has been done about the height of that wrought iron fence! Nothing! Also, the corners have yet to be painted! That corner the way it is, is dangerous!

I have requested the work order to paint the red curb be prioritized, they are short staff and are focusing on maintenance items that come up first.

All this energy and the potholes aren't getting fixed on my street a few blocks away. Hmmmph!

“All this energy” has done nothing since 2019 when this was reported. Nothing fixed just some writing that says it will.

Can't believe that the fence is still there. It is dangerous enough pulling out of Winchester before the fence was put up, now it is even more exasterbated.

Planning has indicated that the fence is legal. Per the post on 11/12/2020 there is sufficient room to make decisions to complete a left turn.

For those who still feel uncomfortable in finding appropriate gaps in traffic from Winchester St, using Porter St to Lemon St will allow the use of the traffic signal to make the left turn onto Sonoma Bl.

Since 1/4/2019, finally an answer.

LOL, I wonder how they got that approved when I can't get anything but a 3' fence approved at the front of my property!