HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-04-03; Planning Commission; ; AV 95-02 - TARYAN FENCE AND WALL APPEALA REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMlMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: APRIL 3, 1996
Application complete date: October 30, 1995
Project Planner: Van Lynch
Project Engineer: Ken Quon
~~
SUBJECT': AV 95-02 TARYAN FENCE AND WALL APPEAL - Request for an
Administrative Variance to approve an eleven-foot tall fence on the northerly
(rear) property line located at 1110 Camino Del Sol Circle, zoned as R-l-
7500, and in the Local Facilities Management Zone 1.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOFT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3910
UPHOLDING the Planning Director's decision to DENY Administrative Variance 95-02,
based on the findings contained therein.
11. INTRODUCTION
The applicant is appealing the Planning Director's decision to deny a request for an
administrative variance. The requested variance is for an existing five-foot wooden fence
which is on top of a six-foot tall masonry block wall. The fence is located on a portion of
the rear property line, and the total combined height is eleven feet. The Planning Director
denied the request on November 29, 1995 because the findings of exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances and preservation of a substantial property right could not be
found. The improvements were also found to be materially detrimental to the adjacent
property.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The single family zoned lot is located on the corner of Adams Street and Camino Del Sol
Circle. The fence is located on a portion of the rear property line of the subject lot, which
is also a portion of the adjacent lot's side yard. The properties on both sides of the wall are
graded to the same elevation. The subject property has a cut slope along the interior side
yard that extends the length of the property. This same slope continues along the side yard
of the adjacent lot and to it's rear yard. At one time, there may have been the ability to
climb up the slope to the top of the wall. The wooden portion of the fence was intended
to keep people and animals from crossing into the subject property's yard and pool area.
The fence is a violation of CMC section 21.46.130 which does not allow fences or walls to
exceed six feet in height. The City has never allowed fences over six feet unless finding for
a variance could be made.
/?
AV 95-02 TARYAN FhCE AND WALL APPEAL
APRIL 3, 1996
PAGE 2
The applicant states that the fence was existing when the property was purchased in 1976,
and that the fence was reconstructed in 1992 because the old one was dilapidated. The City
received a complaint on October 24, 1994.
During the notice period, a letter from the adjacent property owner, who shares the wall and
fence, stated he had no objection to the granting of the administrative variance.
Can the four findings required for the granting of a variance be made? Namely:
A. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same
vicinity?
B. Is the granting of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same
vicinity and zone but is denied the property in question?
C. Will the granting of the variance not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone
in which the property is located?
D. Will the granting of the variance not adversely affect the comprehensive
General Plan?
lv. ANALYSIS
A. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances
There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other properties or class
of use in the same vicinity and zone because other properties are similar in shape, size and
topography. All the lots in the vicinity are rectangular in shape, are wider than the
minimum width, and meet the 7500 square foot lot size requirement of the R-1-7500 zone.
The property adjacent to the north is at the same elevation of the subject property. The six-
foot tall masonry fence along the northern property line meets five-foot minimum pool
fencing requirement for the subject property. The bottom of the fence on the easterly side
(interior side yard) tee’s into the top of the masonry wall. This meets the fencing
requirements for the pool. The wooden fence attached to the top of the masonry wall is
above the six-foot fence height allowance and is above and beyond the fencing requirements
for pools.
B. Preservation of a Substantial Property Right
The requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied
to the property in question because no other property in the vicinity has an approved wall
/"
AV 95-02 TARYAN Fbl.tCE AND WhL hPEAL
APRIL 3, 1996
or fence over six feet in height.
C. Material Detriment to Public Welfare
The granting of this variance could be materially detrimental to the adjacent property since
it would expose the adjacent property to a solid barrier eleven feet in height which could
reduce light and air circulation.
D. Affect on the General Plan
The granting of this variance would not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan
because the property is developed with a single-family home which is consistent with the
Residential Low-Medium (RLM) General Plan Land Use designation.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Since the project involves the construction of a wall which is accessory to the main structure
on the property, the Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from
environmental review per Section 15303(e) of the State of California Environmental Quality
Act Guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
VLbk
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3910
Location Map
Background Data Sheet
Disclosure Form
Copy of applicant's Justification for Variance and plans
Letter dated December 8, 1995
Letter dated November 16, 1995