Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/06/1990, 3 - USE PERMIT A 149-89: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSIONS' ACTION UPHOLDING THE HEARING OFFICERS ACTION D MEETM DAM _ Clty O� Sa►Yl lU1S 081Sp0 ffW NUMWt COUNCIL A8E1YOA REPORT FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community elopment Director BY: Ken Bruce, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Use permit A 149-89: appeal of planning commissions' action upholding the hearing officer's action denying a request for height exception to allow a 6-foot high fence where a 4S-foot high fence is allowed for a site on the west side of Chorro Street between Center and Mission Streets. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution denying the appeal. BACKGROUND Discussion The applicant wants to build a 6-foot high wood fence across the front yard of his house. City zoning regulations allow a 4S-foot high fence. The applicant applied for an administrative use permit for an exception to the height limit to allow a 6-foot high fence. The Administrative Hearing Officer conducted a public bearing on the exception request on November 17, 1989. The request was denied The applicant appealed the action to the Planning Commission. At a public bearing on December 139 1989, the commission denied the appeal on a 3-1 vote. The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's action. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS None CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING AN ACTION The applicant can build a 4.5 -foot high fence or no fence. A neighborhood precedent would not be established �w/ Page 2 DATA SUMMARY Address: 283 Chorro Street - Applicant/Appellant: Raymond Ensing Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-density Residential Environmental Review Status: Categorically exempt SITE DESCRIPTION The site is a 6050 square foot lot with a single-story house with attached two-car garage with access off Chorro Street. The garage has been illegally converted to a living unit. Old Garden Creek is at the rear (west) of the lot. The site is surrounded by houses. EVALUATION The proposed wood fence would be setback 10 feet from the street property line, which is the rear of the sidewalk. At this setback, a 43-foot height is allowed. The applicant has indicated he cannot live with a 43-foot high fence because it will not affectively deter petty theft or mitigate traffic noise or views on Chorro Street. In his appeal, the applicant talks about a traffic study done by a consultant. This study was done by DKS Associates as Phase I for updating the city's general plan Circulation element. The Phase I study looked at ways of reducing neighborhood traffic throughout the city. The Murray and Chorro Streets area was one neighborhood identified as having a major problem. The study shows there are 10,400 average trips per day on Chorro Street at Center Street. This amount of traffic in a residential neighborhood is a lot and was such a concern to the city that the City Council, in their 1989-90 budget, have allotted $107,000 for traffic reduction improvements in this neighborhood. The improvements may include stop signs and bulb-outs. The improvements have not been designed, approved, or installed yet, but will be sometime in 1990. Also in his appeal, the applicant notes that properties at 67 and 73 Chorro Street have installed fencing in their front yards that does not meet zoning regulations. The two sites noted have installed wood fencing at a 10-foot setback that is 5-feet high. Both sites' fences are 6 inches higher than allowed. Staff and the Planning Commission feels an 18-inch higher than allowed wood fence is not appropriate at the requested location because it will diminish the streetscape and open.space,appearance of the site and neighborhood. It would also establish a precedent in the area with others wanting to install higher than allowed fencing. A higher fence would diminish neighborhood watch opportunities. _i Page 3 Wood fencing with or without landscape planting will not mitigate any traffic noise. A block wall would attenuate some traffic noise. It would also better tie in with the existing block walls installed at the side property lines of the site. Sight distance should not be a problem for cars exiting the driveway for any height wall. ALTERNATIVES The council may uphold or deny the appeal or may continue the appeal with direction to the applicant and staff. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Other departments did not comment on the requested fence height exception. RECOMMENDATION Staff, Hearing Officer and the Planning Commission recommend the Council adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal subject to the findings cited by the Hearing Officer and the Planning Commission: 1. The proposed fence height exception will adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed fence height exception is not appropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with surrounding development. ATTACHMENTS Draft Resolutions Vicinity Map Site Plan Applicant's Appeal Hearing Officer Action Letter Administrative Hearing Minutes Draft Planning Commission Minutes RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series) ' RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS _OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS ACTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A HEIGHT EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A 6-FOOT HIGH FENCE WHERE A 4S FOOT HIGH FENCE IS ALLOWED AT 283 CHORRO STREET WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing on Use Permit Application A 149-89 November 17, 1989 and denied the application; and WHEREAS, the decision of the Hearing Officer was appealed to the Planning Commission which conducted a. public hearing on December 13, 1989, and denied the appeal; and WHEREAS, applicant has filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action; WHEREAS, the council has considered the testimony and statements of the applicant and other interested parties, and the records of the Administrative and Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluations and recommendation of staff; NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to deny the appeal and affirm the action of the Planning Commission, thereby denying Application No. A149- 89 based on the following findings: 1., The proposed fence height exception will adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed fence height exception is not appropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with surrounding development. On motion of seconded by . and on the following roll call vote: C Resolution No. (1990 Series) Use Permit A 149-89 ' Page 2 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of 1990. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk APPROVED: City Administrative Offi tto ey Community Dev went Director J '� RESOLUTION NO. (1990 Series) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A HEIGHT EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A 6-FOOT HIGH FENCE WHERE A 4.5 FOOT HIGH FENCE IS ALLOWED AT 283 CHORRO STREET WHEREAS, the Administrative Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing on Use Permit Application A 149-89 November 17, 1989 and denied the application; and WHEREAS, the decision of the Hearing Officer was appealed to the Planning Commission which conducted a public hearing on December 13, 1989, and denied the appeal; and WHEREAS, applicant has filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action; WHEREAS, the council has considered the testimony .and statements of the applicant and other interested parties, and the records of the Administrative and Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluations and recommendation of staff; NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves to uphold the appeal and approve Application No. A149-89 based on the following findings: 1. The proposed fence height exception will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of persons living orworking working at the site or in the vicinity. 2. The proposed fence height exception is appropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with surrounding development. On motion of . seconded by . and on the following roll call vote: Resolution No. (1990 Series) Use Permit A 149-89 Page 2 J AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of. 1990. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk APPROVED: Atyministrative Offi ty o y Community Develbiment Director ��t7 li � 0 t, O i O O O VES M V � •` O , 0 O F o SOT- c O �NPgV o •:�. � O O O �► O � n� o - I'-loo, �t �t OQ.O0 G O % aO O o �' Vol, % O O o O a O Q . J-00 1A 1 I! -- -/hii i �b!M9ni�Q � � I' 9 � v I ►n a I t � UN . � v i O I j JR U M t ` tp Y I a - Drc 2- 1 1459 0 : c !TY GLE2K 2 = 4PPC-AL OF PGANNINli COMMI MOM AcrION 5uayEGT: uSE PE/2MTr A lyq- ;?q 283 c/4022o 5 r2GrrT P la,1411hi C G�y� r»i s S%ort q,T i rneGri'l�,g f.D ez e-s.�e r /3 /ta. W�i'C.hI.f tf�7��� � `�{�u•Vi'wg o�i 'C-�'S R C.� � Jap OtGh�/ our rtt ve st A r a. 4-elj4f-- exGGph`o-A �o tl(ow a- 4,ft .ems Yl fvof 41lowejQt 0 b wvui ,cagx(-y Fvl,ac", DuJ kers • Calendared For /b RECEIVED DEC 2 1 1989 114,4f PIA CITYCLERKCLERk J- cGE� stw W'S os�sPO,CA ss i. �d.tlVtL - ---- ----NOV-2 7-1989 - - ------ - ---------— -- --�- .San ;S .Cnrm LUMObIW - - - --- u eA., o ,u- --- A 1571-8_1 -- - ' _--- Tti►s lalfw is -fo a/aeal the den.,al -I;r a, he- t exceph'on - - allow . a..-6 fao•I'_l11 �encQ.. Wlie,.c a.. 9.5 Fa �` ---- - - -- __. ---------.---._--AMC& ►c a66owad_—�{�ca�; -- - - - --tltie e.XeePjtioh _W_a keK u Su6►,��ct�ovl and .Sv (�se ver►fl�r----- - dewie,d . _-_-- -._ -- -- Tke, our. on-_ a and hei' hf of- _ 6 foof �e-�►e�will de�'n,'�c-{ _ $ - Geal�k 4;0_ 6or welfare of—�Crs S- -- (1 W'v+Q._ oh W orlCik$. Q,+ Ki s s i I-e , TILere. t S S-01 I(n), la; weep _ i -r-e�¢� ,►ce ' a w d s i de w Ql k W b e�► s ad u a6e d i•s faw cx, -to See ei�J-(�w orn-oa,i eJes f yn'c.w% o r a d fo_{r Q '�'e, - --- - --- -- --�;- - -- - - A 6- f off' tR. w r t( Whore 4.t'4CckVe.� -- ---✓- ---gy of our �—�---� _ - -- -- - ---- - -- -- •av►d vi s i 6yc Proper _ pp b 40�- {Gwee: w i`l' keey e u reK 0+ v1`si - - {//YorA +Ctpfd.-Q-.-vie oC.It0V-ro ro U �wb5ca f'1 vl`skQl aud�'{„ i 4i- t -- ---- ---- -- ------ &eaff�r o `.-r Mr 8roce_ih farr .� me 6tA� a-- _----- _—ble-!;�kWoli w u�ob,N�e acce�f l = wTc�- rvtu CA. . rev&T not even a"lica ble , -� . fr . nn-- — 0 SiO� '� TRc� I �►14� Cj`y�y of� S L IJEy►� .l'7�i�0� o K COhL9 I _ l S-fjj y /WtW tty s 4z h�V Ce l—M pQLk 4 +r gL f^�Cbrr►1ti�2F� oK9. T�f' COILP-0 4 eln imfer 'b (d Us Th4� �Ons�a�er►'h<i . .`('ku-� : G` I�ws SQGr� 'ce� tPl ��►o�arId�pOlO0% h0o bv s4G T---��~ dead _ ; w 1.' ►► ova c �or_ 11 0 Z - ea ef'l y r 6,oma, l Sah'rq, '(Lo SQ,, ���;, �,��,►;�;,,pp�h,��������� �Bl!i� IIBs city of san tuts oBispo , 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100 November 21, 1989 Raymond Ensing 283 Chorro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Use Permit Appl. A 149-89 283 Chorro Street• Dear Mr. Ensing: On Friday, November 17, 1989, 1 conducted a public hearing on your request for height exception to allow a 6-foot high fence where a 4 .5-foot high fence is allowed, at the subject location. After reviewing the information presented, Z denied your request, based on the following findings: Findings 1. The proposed fence height exception will adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. _ 2. The proposed fence height exception is not appropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with surrounding development. My decision is final unless appealed .to the Planning Commission within ten days of the action. An appeal may be filed by any person aggrieved by the decision. If you have any questions, please call me at 549-7117. Sincerely, 1 Ken .Bru Hearing Officer C, ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING - MINUTES. FRIDAY NOVEMBER 17, 1989 283 Chorro Street. Use Permit Appl. A 149-89; Request for height exception to allow a 6-foot high fence where a 4.5 foot high fence is allowed; R-1 zone; Raymond Ensing, applicant. Ken Bruce presented the staff report, recommending denial based on findings which he outlined. He explained that the applicant wants to install a fence in his front yard, ten feet behind the sidewalk. The fence would be 6-.feet high and would be cedar. The Zoning Regulations allow a 4.5-foot high fence at the 10-foot setback. He further explained that the applicant wants the fence at that location to reduce visual and auditory impact of traffic and reduce petty thievery. Staff's feeling, explained.Mr. Bruce, was that in this particular location, a 4.5-foot high foot fence would probably accomplish the same as a 6-foot high fence; 18 inches wouldn't make that much difference. In terms of reducing noise, Mr. Bruce explained that a wooden. fence will not reduce any noise. He acknowledged that it is a busy street, and something other .than a. wooden fence, such as a block or stucco wall, might be supported by staff. He clarified that a 4.5-foot high fence is allowed without use permit approval. The public hearing was opened. Raymond Ensing, applicant, spoke in support of the request. He asked for clarification. of the findings as to why denial was being recommended: Ken Bruce explained the findings. as recommended. Mr. Ensing commented that there is still 10 feet' between the fence and the sidewalk. He thought that would be enough space to see traffic, pedestrians, etc: He noted that in the 50 to 83 block of Chorro Street there are fences in the setback area that are higher than normally allowed. He asked if a block wall were proposed at 6-feet, would that be approved? Mr. Bruce responded that a block wall would make more sense, both architecturally with the .design of the house and for reducing noise. Mr. Ensing explained that 18 inches, from his point of view, was a lot, in terms of privacy. He said he is 6-feet tall, so a 6- foot high fence would eliminate his looking at the street; a 4.5 feet high, the privacy wouldn't be there. He felt that a wooden Cfence would be simpler and safer than a block wall. He felt his Administrative Hearing Minutes November 17, 1989 Meeting Page 2 meet to allow this, he would be willing to do it. He also said that he would rather have no fence than a 4 .5 foot fence, since it really wouldn't serve any purpose, from his point of view. Ken Bruce noted that a letter was received from Roger Longden, (neighbor to the rear) supporting the request. He then explained his concern with the streetscape. along Chorro Street and felt that if one person is allowed to have a 6-foot high fence, then everyone else will want to do it, and before long the end result will be a fenced street instead of having front yard lawns. Mr. Ensing felt that the city is at fault for the situation because it doesn't do anything about the .traffic problem on Chorro Street. He didn't understand what good front yards are if no one wants to use them because of the traffic. The public hearing was closed. Ken Bruce took this item under submission. He explained this means he has an addition ten days to render a decision. He also explained that his decision can be appealed to the Planning Commission within ,ten days of the action, and that an appealed can be filed by anyone aggrieved by the decision. On November 27, 1989, Ken Bruce denied the use permit, based on the following findings: Findincs 1. The proposed fence height exception will adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. 2 . The proposed fence height exception is not appropriate at the proposed location and will not be compatible with surrounding development. Draft Minutes Planning Commission December 13, 1989 Item 5. Public Hearing: Use Permit A 149-89. Appeal of Hearing officer's action denying a request for height exception to allow a 6-foot high fence where a 4. 5-foot high fence is allowed; 283 Chorro Street; R-1 zone; Raymond Ensing, applicant/appellant. ---------------------------------------------------------- Pam Ricci presented the staff report and recommended denial of the appeal. Vice Chair Crotser opened the public hearing. Beverly Ensing, 283 Chorro, applicant, stated that their living environment has become noisy and less private because Chorro Street has become a major thoroughfare. She did not believe that their fence would affect the health, safety, and welfare of surrounding residents. She felt that the zoning regulations regarding the fence requirements should possibly be updated. She stated that she had been involved with the Chorro Street neighborhood discussions with the city and traffic consultants for the Phase I Circulation Study. Ray Ensing, 283 Chorro, applicant, felt there was a -conflict of interest, as Ken Bruce prepared the staff report and also acted as the Hearing Officer. Vice Chair Crotser closes the public hearing. Randy Rossi agreed that there appeared to be a conflict on the surface, due to Mr. Bruce performing both functions. He stated that he did not believe there was a conflict of interest and that the staff report and recommendation had been reviewed with other staff members. Commr. Kourakis agreed that codes needed to be update to address high traffic use, but did. not want to handle it on a lot-by-lot basis and felt it should be part of the upcoming study on the General Plan/Circulation Element. She did not feel the benefit of the additional 18" of fence had been demonstrated. Commr. Hoffman agreed with Commr. Kourakis and stated there needed. to be overall policy changes instead of granting .exceptions. Commr. Karleskint felt favoring traffic needs was destroying neighborhoods. He. did not agree with granting an exception and felt it should be dealt with under the General Plan update. Vice Chair Crotser suggested granting an exception with a condition that staff review the quality and character of the fence. He also agreed that the General Plan needed to address these issues. �to Commr: Karleskint moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer's action, subject to findings. Commr. Rourakis seconded the motion. VOTING: AYES- Comnirs. Karleskint, Kourakis, and Hoffman. NOES - Commr. Crotser. ABSENT = Commrs. Duerk and Schmidt. The motion passes. AGENDA DATE -?a i-11 # j �►il!!I�ili.!Jllll��III"!il I'jlilllll;�� at0 San tuis OBISPO nF in 990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 RC nil b'I ,��4Ci6'ICii ; January 25, 1990 ; J CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE APPEAL - PLANNING COMMISSION - 283 CHORRO STREET f�Alblio�t/ Our records indicate that your property or business is located near the subject property. You are, therefore, being noticed that the San Luis Obispo City Council has received an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to uphold the hearing Officer's action to deny a height exception at 283 Chorro Street for a six-foot high fence. The agenda report, including recommendation by staff, will be available for review in the City Clerk's Office (Room #1 of City Hall) on the Wednesday before the meeting. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 6, 1990, beginning at 7:00 p.m. , in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Other public hearings may be held before or after this item. The public is welcome to attend and comment. Written comments are encouraged. For more information, please contact Ken Bruce, Senior Planner, in the Community Development Department at 549-7177.—V _ RECEIVED �^-- v � �( JAN 2 9 1990 P m Voges, �erk CIN CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA v� O � J f: -� .•w.. .c •, ,'�' iebcnor`rosir eien, l t San Lu1s Obispo,CA 9340, T Pa/L , / AGENDA DIIE -Qo. ITEM # nano action ar�d'Fen:on. Respond bY: Council [�Cao i i i Clerkorig. I Y'l. uoN9S CTLs. c>J� 61% e(k. 1.14arP1,4K) cu RECEIVE® FEB 5 1990 CITY CL K SAN LUIS MSPo;CA AGENDA DATE 1-4a ITEM # February 5, 1990 SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL & THE PLANNING COMMISSION RE: APPEAL FOR HEIGHT EXCEPTION-AT::283_CHORRO.'STREET In response to the appeal to the City Council of the denial for a six-foot high fence at 283 Chorro Street, we have the following concerns: 1. In the process of building a six-foot fence' to shut out noise to the house in question, the sounds of traffic will be heightened. for the neighbors living across the street, since the traffic noises will echo off the fence. A hedge, instead, would absorb the sounds. 2. The aesthetics of such a high fence would not be especially pleasing to anyone in the immediate neighborhood. We sympathize with the young couple requesting the fence; however, we would hope they could' find a happier solution than a six-foot fence. Sincerely, A Allison B. Gliddleu , William Glidden 282 Chorro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 DeiiutM acilm by Leet PASIMCI by: ®'Cowcu [ICAO �t y Atty. t8'T T RECEIVED FEB 6 1990 CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPo,CA AUCIVUA �R ,d-PO ( # Z 40 19170 *Ucnotft action by LOW Person �Rv/sponci by: lid CoU:I F33 CAO cuy airy iL/CterKong. I q A, c%vn/AS dLg4NPia� 1 T r.