The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About31B - 2022 N. HELIOTROPE DR. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ~. ~ CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: ~ SEPTEMBER 19, 2005 TITLE: MINOR EXCEPTION NO. 2005-06 TO PERMIT A SOLID SIX-FOOT TALL FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD LOCATED AT 2022 NORTH HELIOTROPE DRIVE - CHERIE KERR, APPLICANT /"'. / Lj. -',,' /"., ',// " .". I . ~'~~.F'/ :-t,...' i. '- ~-7[Ld< ,,-_. }J C? ~_ I CITY MANAGER APPROVED o As Recommended o As Amended o Ordinance on 151 Reading o Ordinance on 2nd Reading o Implementing Resolution o Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive and file the staff report denying Minor Exception No. 2005-06. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On August 22, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying Minor Exception No. 2005-06 by a vote of 4:0 (Cribb, Mondo and Nalle abstained) to allow a six foot high fence within the front yard setback in the Single Family Residential (R1) zoning district at 2022 North Heliotrope Drive. The Planning Commission made no changes to the attached staff report (Exhibit A) . FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Agency PG:rb pg\reports\me05-06.cc 31 B-1 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action !~ ~~ ~ PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: AUGUST 22, 2005 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - MINOR EXCEPTION NO. 2005-06 FILED BY CHERRIE KERR TO PERMIT A SOLID SIX-FOOT TALL FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD LOCATED AT 2022 NORTH HELIOTROPE DRIVE APPROVED o As Recommended o As Amended o Set Public Hearing For DENIED o Applicant's Request o Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO Prepared by Pedro Guillen ~xecutive Director ~H~~ t~ Planning anage' RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt a resolution denying Minor Exception No. 2005-06. Zoning Administrator Action On July 27, 2005, the Zoning Administrator referred Minor Exception No. 2005-06 to the August 22, 2005 Planning Commission meeting due to the number of variances requested. DISCUSSION Request of Applicant Ms. Cherie Kerr is requesting approval of Minor Exception No. 2005-06 to construct a solid six-foot tall fence within the front yard setback for the property located at 2022 North Heliotrope Drive. Property Description The property is located on a lot measuring approximately 15,000 square feet and is located in the Single-Family Residential (R1) zoning district with a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LR- 7) . The surrounding uses consist entirely of single- family residences (Exhibits 1 and 2) . Project Description The project involves the construction of a six-foot tall solid masonry fence located within the prevailing front yard landscaped setback and will stagger between two and four-feet behind the front property line. The fence has been designed to complement the architectural design and ~~!1 Minor Exception No. 2005-06 August 22, 2005 Page 2 materials of the residence by incorporating similar materials, such as 12- inch wide horizontal "hardie" applied to the lower portion wrought iron panels will be (Exhibits 3 and 4) . siding on the upper half and brick veneer of the fence. Addi tionally, 18 - inch wide utilized between the solid masonry walls Analysis of the Issues Section 41-610 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code establishes height regulations for the construction of front yard fences. Properties that are located along non-arterial streets, such as Heliotrope Drive, are limited to a maximum fence height of three-feet. Additionally, the front yard fence regulations limit the solid portion of fences to a maximum of 18-inches in height. The applicant is proposing a solid six-foot tall fence within the prevailing front yard setback that exceeds the front yard fence regulations. The applicant states that the wall will provide additional security and privacy for the property. Additionally, the applicant states that the construction of the fence would allow for better use of the front yard area by adding additional landscaping and creating an enclosed garden setting. This request will require approval of a minor exception for the following reasons: 1. The proposed fence does not conform to Section 41-610 (a) as the proposed fence will measure six feet in height and will exceed the maximum allowed fence height by 36 inches. 2. The proposed fence will also not conform to Section 41-610 (f) (2) as the fence will be entirely solid. This request exceeds the code regulation limiting the solid portion of walls and fences to 18 inches by 54 inches. Staff surveyed the surrounding neighborhood and observed that the majority of the properties on Heliotrope Drive have large prevailing front yard setbacks ranging from 40 feet to 60 feet. With the exception of two properties, the majority of the properties on this block have large open front yards with some hedges and a few fences that are reflective of the current code height regulations. The remaining properties have no fences at all. The large open front yard setbacks on Heliotrope Drive contribute to the positive aesthetic character of the existing neighborhood. An intrusion into the existing streetscape pattern, such as the proposed solid six-foot tall fence, will negatively impact the visual appearance and character of the neighborhood. 31 B-3 Minor Exception No. 2005-06 August 22, 2005 Page 3 The applicant states that approval of this request will enable her to utilize the front yard area for additional private and personal open space. It has been determined that the need to enclose the front yard area for additional private open space is not vital when considering that the lot size is approximately 15,000 square feet and two and one-half times the size of a typical lot size in Santa Ana. The existing private open space located in the rear yard would allow for substantial private open space and not necessitate the need to enclose the front yard. Based on the above analysis, it has been determined that no special circumstances exist to warrant relief from the code for an increase in fence height and for a solid six-foot tall front yard fence. In an attempt to reduce the construction of new fences that are intrusive and detract from the exiting character and pattern of development of the neighborhood, it is recommended that the strict application of the code be applied in this instance (Exhibit 5). Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Minor Exception No. 2005-06. CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed proj ect is exempt from further review as section 15303 (e) exempts the construction of front yard fences. Categorical Exemption Environmental Review No. 05-134 will be filed for this project. ~Y\~ Pedro Guillen Assistant Planner I PG:JM pg\reports\me05-06.pc 318-4 R1 R1 z fI~ 51:r 0 R1 R1 R1 R1 Rl ., I ~ I " R2 I R1 R1 . Rl . Rl R1 Rl R1 C2 R1 ,r Cl "". ~ Cl Cl ~~ Cl , i! C1 ..-289.6" . ~...- >-' '" 0 ...J ~ Rl '" a: III -- R1 '~~: 1m I Al .B C-SM Cl Cl-MD C2 C3 C3-A C4 C5 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL PARKING MODIFICATION COMMERCIAL SOUTH MAIN COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL COMM. COMMERCIAUMUSEUM DISTRICT GENERAL COMMERCIAL CENTRAL BUSINESS CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTIST VILLAGE PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL CR GC Ml M2 MO o P PCD PRO COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT CENTER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MILITARY OPERATIONS OPEN SPACE PROFESSIONAL PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Rl R2 R3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE MULTIPLE DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SUBURBAN APARTMENTS RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIFIC PLAN R4 RE SO SP ~ ~~ ME 05-6 CHERRIE KERR 2022 NORTH HELIOTROPE A rPI' - = 500 FEET 1" = 1000 FEET P LAN N N G AND BU LD EXHIBIT 1 318-5 N G AGE N C Y ..... ~ <: ..... lJ.J ..... <( Cl W <( VJ > - lJ.J it - l- I- ... C I- - W >- ..::J W ..... ~ <( a: :!: ..... I- lJ.J <( lJ.J <( - tn IJ.. - I- Cl " Cl I- ",. - ..... <: lJ.J Ql - VJ <: VJ lJ.J Cl a VJ - lJ.J lJ.J - VJ VJ lJ.J a: a: lJ.J a: PROJECT a: SITE >- >- >- ..... ..... ..... ..... - - - :s - :!: :!: <( ..... :!: -.. <( IJ.. IJ.. <( f: <( IJ.. <: L.l. ,,, lJ.J a: lJ.J - ..... ..... w ::: Ql 3: lJ.J VJ Ql lJ.J lJ.J ~ ~ 0 a: ...I W ..... - u. >- Q. VJ VJ Ql ::: 0 Ql r-- :> .,;;, a: ~ I- <: 0 - lJ.J :i - VJ Ql W VJ <: :I: VJ ~ ~~ ME 05-6 CHERRIE KERR 2022 NORTH HELIOTROPE A .g.(' P LAN N N G AND B U L D N G AGE N C Y EXHIBIT 2 318-6 mIIIJJ: 5 ; ~ . ~ " '3 "' > ii Q "' .. o '" ,.. o ::; "' ...'" ... . "z CD'" "", ,," ,,'" " .. 0= zi:! m;g 0(0( . 3^IHO 'Y:1 'YN .~" 3:3N3:1 H 3dOHJ.on3H HJ.)JY Y.LNYlI !JIH .9 M3N ON UOl: Q3S0dOUd !iO.Li:6 "0' ":lA" aOOM YNV Y~NYS NI' oN SC91: :ldWYQ 'YOM :A:q .Ul!ld ~~~~-~ r 1l ~ "'Til- ~ t i ~ '" ... " "' > ii Q" "'~ .. '" 0" '" . ,..0( 0" ~a.{ ~=-:~ jiZc( "' ",'" ",,,,z u~= Ii! "' z ~ o I ,.. ~ ,.. 0( ,. " o ... lD .:,jClt 0( N 0'" ",0 ... ... =~ " , r ~ 11 ~ 1 L. I .O-I";} 1\ \ I : ~I r L I'" ~ ,~ I' ;" - ~ ~;~4" ' ~ ~ ~~i ~ & ~~'"~~ ~i 3 \tl\-ll -tt.~' ~;,,,\&o!i "..; 'i ~,," a;i ':;"j x!:\~-,')t ~~ ~ __ ..'l ~o "'~~ ~" <I I!J ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ .:-~ \ilt, <W~' ~ ~~ ~n '" ~ '1'15 ~ 1 "L a ~ ~ $t~ ~ ~ ;! "'.,I" ".-.(.j--;l d) ~ Ii} =..~ * ~ ~ ~ i ~ '~ ii --"'- I- '" '\ '" 31~~05-6 ~IBIT 3 , I ' , i ~< 'is ME 05-6 EXHIBIT 4 Minor Exception No. 2005-06 August 22, 2005 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact A. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property where the strict interpretation of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subj ect property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of the zoning code. This is a typical lot with no unique site features that warrant a fence above code requirements. B. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The denial of this minor exception should not impact the rights of the property owners to enj oy use of their property. The construction of a six-foot tall fence will not guarantee any greater enjoyment than which is permitted by code. Additionally, the lot measures approximately 15,000 square feet and is two and one-half times the size of a typical lot size in Santa Ana. The existing private open space located in the rear yard would allow for substantial private open space and not necessitate the need to enclose the front yard for private open space purposes. C. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The granting of a minor exception will be detrimental to the surrounding properties due to the fortress type fence appearance that is aesthetically incompatible with the immediately adjacent surrounding properties. The existing large prevailing front yard setback provides enhances the visual character of the neighborhood. A six-foot tall fence will be a visual and physical obstruction within the existing prevailing setback pattern of the neighborhood. fl~95 Minor Exception No. 2005-06 August 22, 2005 Page 2 of 2 D. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. Goal 3.5 of the Land Use Element Policy plan is to encourage residential alterations that are consistent with the architectural character of the neighborhood. The proposed solid six-foot tall fence is not consistent with this stated land use policy, as the solid structure would negatively detract from the large open front yard development pattern that exists. As a result, the proposed fence would have an adverse affect on the architectural character of the neighborhood. 31 B-1 0 ) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING MINUTES - July 27, 2005 MINOR EXCEPTION NO. 2005-06 Zoning Administrator, Ken Adams opened the public hearing at 10:41 a.m. in the City Hall Ross Annex Conference Room 2001. Also attending:" Bobbi Stubbs, representing Applicant, Joni Barr, neighbor, Pedro Guillen, Case Planner, and Martha Ramirez, Recording Secretary, Pedro Guillen presented the staff report and recommendation for denial of the construction of a solid six-foot tall fence within the front yard setback for property located at 2022 North Heliotrope Drive. Mr. Guillen received a letter opposing the construction from Rick Kagasoff at 2023 North Heliotrope dated July 26, 2005 as well as received telephone calls opposing construction of fence from Terry Sangster at 2013 North Heliotrope Drive and Loren Webb at 2214 North Greenleaf. ~) Bobbi Stubbs commented that Ms. Kerr was out of town and unavailable to attend public hearing and presented two letters of support from Dawn and Robert Lowry, 2012 North Heliotrope dated July 22, 2005 and Kathryn Tarbell and William Daugherty, 2022 North Heliotrope dated July 24, 2005. Ms. Stubbs indicated Ms. Kerr would like the fence for security and privacy as she lives alone and works out of her house. Joni Barr, neighbor at 2012 N. Heliotrope, spoke in support of the fence construction. Zoning Administrator commented on the degree of variances with the fence construction and indicated that merits discussion at the Planning Commission. Mr. Adams motioned to refer the public hearing to the Planning Commission for final disposition. The public notices will be contiguous with the property at 2022 North Heliotrope Drive. Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for August 22,2005. Adjournment: 11 :00 a.m. Martha Ramirez Recording Secretary ) 318-11 KO - 08/29/05 RESOLUTION NO. 2005-66 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING MINOR EXCEPTION NO. 2005-06 TO CONSTRUCT A FRONT YARD FENCE THAT EXCEEDS THE 36-INCH MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE PROPERTY AT 2022 NORTH HELIOTROPE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Applicant is requesting approval of Minor Exception No. 2005-06 a solid six- foot tall fence within the front yard setback, which exceeds the 36-inch maximum height for front yard fences on non-arterial streets, for the property located at 2022 North Heliotrope. B. Minor Exception No. 2005-06 came before the Zoning Administrator of the City of Santa Ana for a public hearing on July 27,2005. After conducting the public hearing, the Zoning Administrator referred the item to the Planning Commission pursuant to Santa Municipal Code Section 41-641. C. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Minor Exception No. 2005-06 on August 22,2005. D. Section 41-610 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code contains the wall and fence requirements, including limiting the front yard fence height to 36 inches, and limiting the solid portion of walls and fences to 18 inches. E. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a Minor Exception upon making certain findings which have not been established. 1. Will the proposed use provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community? There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property where the strict interpretation of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of the zoning code. This is a typical lot with no unique site features that warrant a fence above code requirements. 318-12 Resolution No. 2005-66 Page 1 of 3 2. That the granting of a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The denial of this minor exception will not impact the rights of the property owners to enjoy use of their property. The construction of a six-foot tall fence will not guarantee any greater enjoyment than which is permitted by code. Additionally, the lot measures approximately 15,000 square feet and is two and one-half times the size of a typical lot size in Santa Ana. The existing private open space located in the rear yard would allow for substantial private open space and not necessitate the need to enclose the front yard for private open space purposes. 3. That the granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The granting of a minor exception will be detrimental to the surrounding properties due to the fortress type fence appearance that is aesthetically incompatible with the immediately adjacent surrounding properties. The existing large prevailing front yard setback provides enhances the visual character of the neighborhood. A six-foot tall fence will be a visual and physical obstruction within the existing prevailing setback pattern of the neighborhood. 4. That the granting of a variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. Goal 3.5 of the Land Use Element Policy Plan is to encourage residential alterations that are consistent with the architectural character of the neighborhood. The proposed solid six-foot tall fence is not consistent with this stated land use policy, as the solid structure would negatively detract from the large open front yard development pattern that exists. As a result, the proposed fence would have an adverse affect on the architectural character of the neighborhood. F. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is exempt from further review as section 15303 (e) exempts the construction of front yard fences. Categorical Exemption Environmental Review No. 05-134 will be filed for this project. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana atter conducting the public hearing hereby denies Minor Exception No. 2005-06. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid hearing, which includes but not is not limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated August 22, 2005, and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. 318-13 Resolution No. 2005-66 Page 2 of 3 ADOPTED this 22nd day of August, 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: De La Torre, Gartner, Leo, Lutz (4) NOES: Commissioners: None (0) ABSENT: Commissioners: None (0) ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: Cribb, Mondo, Nalle (3) Glenn Mondo Chairperson APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Kylee O. Otto Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARTHA RAMIREZ, Clerk of the Planning Commission, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2005-66 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on August 22, 2005. Date: Clerk of the Planning Commission City of Santa Ana 31 8-14 Resolution No. 2005-66 Page 3 of3