The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/02/2002, 1 - APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A 6-FOOT TALL FREESTANDING PRIVA � I council 07-02-02 j acEnba Report iN� CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direc Prepared By: Tyler Corey, Planning Technician 1?1-1 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A 6-FOOT TALL FREESTANDING PRIVACY FENCE WHERE NORMALLY A 4-FOOT TALL FENCE IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED IN THE R-1 ZONE. CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution to deny the appeal, and uphold the Planning Commission's action on the subject project. DISCUSSION Data Summary Address: 1515 Newport Street Appellant: Lara Cathcart Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) General Plan: Low Density Residential Project Action Deadline: The Zoning Regulations say that an appeal shall be scheduled for the earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements, unless the appellant agrees to a later date. It does not specify when action must be taken on an appeal. Situation Approximately four months ago, City staff was advised that a 6-foot tall freestanding privacy fence was constructed within the front yard setback area at 1515 Newport Street. .Based on research of City records, it was determined that the height and location of the fence requires an exception to the City's standard fence height requirements, and a code enforcement case was opened for the subject property. On March 8, 2002, the appellant submitted an application for an exception to the City's standard fence height requirements. On April 10, 2002 the Community Development Director denied the request based on findings outlined in the decision letter (Attachment 3). On April 24, 2002, the applicant filed an appeal of the Director's decision. On May 22, 2002 the Planning Commission denied an appeal of the Director's action (Attachment 4). On May 29, 2002, the appellant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision (Attachment 5). 1-1 Council Agenda Report-FH 27-02 July 2,2002 Page 2 Proiect Description The project is a request to allow an existing 6-foot tall freestanding privacy fence to remain located within the street yard setback area where normally a 4-foot tall fence is the maximum height allowed. The fence is currently setback approximately 5-feet 9-inches from the property line and is located on a 12-inch raised landscape planter at the back of sidewalk. This gives the fence the appearance of being approximately 7-feet tall when viewed from the public right-of- way, which further intensifies the massing of the fence in the street yard area(Attachment 6). Planning Commission.Action On May 22, 2002, the Planning Commission voted six to zero (Commissioner Aiken absent) to deny an appeal of the Director's action to allow an existing 6-foot tall freestanding privacy fence to remain located within the street yard setback area where normally a 4-foot tall fence is the maximum height allowed based on findings, as indicated in the attached Resolution No. 5B8-02 (Attachment 4). Commission discussion focused on the ability of the 6-foot tall fence to be relocated out of the required street yard setback area without compromising the appellant's privacy goals (see attached draft minutes from May 22, 2002, Attachment 7). The location and floor plan of the house on the property would facilitate the fence to be setback 20-feet (level with the garage) and comply with the City's standard fence height requirements while providing a private usable front yard area consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Appeal Filed On May 29, 2002, Lara Cathcart filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision (Attachment 5). The appellant believes that the fence is necessary to provide privacy in her bedroom and bathroom and screen less attractive landscaping in the front yard area, and is asking the City Council to approve the existing fence at its current height and in its present location through Fence Height Exception FH 27-02. The appeal letter indicates that the appellant would be willing to remove the top lattice portion of the fence in the event that the City Council does not support the 6-foot fence. This would provide for a 4-foot 6-inch fence where normally a 4-foot fence would otherwise be allowed in the street yard area. It should be noted that in the "artist's conception" included with the appeal letter, the fence support posts that remain at 6-feet are structural and considered as part of the fence, and therefore, would need to be taken down to the 4-foot 6-inch mark to be consistent with the City's fence height definition. Conclusion While the basis of the appeal is readily understandable, the fencing was not reviewed or approved by the Community Development Department prior to installation. City Code requires that the 1-2 Council Agenda Report-FH 27-02 July 2,2002 Page 3 fencing design/material be examined for compatibility with its surroundings, and that fencing location and height be evaluated for compliance with City Zoning Regulations. If staff had the opportunity to work with the applicant prior to fence installation, screening solutions consistent with the City's Zoning Regulations could have been explored. CONCURRENCES The appeal of the Planning Commission's decision does not affect other City departments. FISCAL IMPACT None. ALTERNATIVES 1. The City Council may uphold the appeal and approve the request for a 6-foot freestanding privacy fence in its present location. 2. The City Council may deny the appeal but approve a fence height exception with alesser height or greater setback. 3. The City Council may continue action, if additional information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the appellant. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. Director's Decision Letter Dated April 10, 2002 4. Planning Commission Resolution 5338-02 5. Appeal of Planning Commission decision received May 29, 2002 6. View of Property from Public Right-Of-Way 7. Draft Planning Commission minutes of May 22, 2002 8. Planning Commission Staff Report 9. Draft Resolution "A"Deny the Appeal 10. Draft Resolution `B" Uphold the Appeal G:\Tcorey\CC\FH 27-02 Cathcart\FH27-02 cc rpt.doc 1-3 -� - Attachment t k R-1 R- PF �q 09 Ab R-1 G� 09 0 R-1 GPO��O y a�OR VICINITY MAP FH 27-02 N 1515 NEWPORT A 1-4 Attachment 2 I I P }p P I _ c c � � 1 v I -}- I i- C� � � P X C� I 8 � � � P � � I � I s I 1-5 ��►►�ii►��h�Iilllllllllllllh�u°11p�� IIICAY ;of san is o Bis MR94990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 April 10, 2002 Attachment 3 Lara Cathcart 1515 Newport Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Subject: 1515 Newport (FH 27-02) Dear Ms. Cathcart: On April 10, 2002, I reviewed your request to allow a 6-foot tall free standing privacy fence along Newport Street, where normally a 4-foot tall fence is the maximum height allowed and a 6- foot trash screen where 5-feet 4-inches is the maximum height allowed in the Single Family Residential (R-1) zone. After careful consideration I have denied your request, based on findings. This decision is based on staff research which included a review of the project plans, visits to the project site, consideration of input provided by neighbors and a review of past decisions on fence height requests in the neighborhood. Findings I. Approval of a fence height exception at this location would constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 2. A freestanding privacy fence can be constructed without the need for a fence height exception due to an expansive front yard area. 3. A 12-inch raised landscape planter at the back of sidewalk gives the fence the appearance of being at least 7-feet tall when viewed from the public right-of-way. 4. The existing 6-foot tall fence at the proposed location is architecturally incompatible with the site and development on adjacent properties. My decision is final unless appealed to the Planning Commission within ten days of this action. If you have any questions about the appeal process, please call Tyler Corey at 781-7169. Sincerely, // R Whtsenan Deputy Direc r of Community Development cc: Project File O The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services,programs and activitiq�. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)774 81- 10. Attachment 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5338-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S ACTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1515 NEWPORT STREET, FH 27-02 WHEREAS, the City opened a code enforcement case for the subject property on March 5, 2002, for the construction of an illegal fence in the street yard area; and WHEREAS, the appellant, on March 8, 2002, submitted an application for an exception to the City's standard fence height requirements; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, on April 10, 2002, denied a request to allow a 6-foot tall freestanding privacy fence in the R-1 zone; and WHEREAS, Lara Cathcart, filed an appeal of the Director's action on April 24, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 22, 2002, for the purpose of considering an appeal of the Director's action for Application No. FH 27-02; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, the records of the Director's actions, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: 1. Approval of a fence height exception at this location would constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning because similar exceptions have not been granted in the neighborhood. 2. The existing 6-foot tall fence is not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.6.2 because the outward street appearance of the subject building is substantially blocked from public view. 3. A 12-inch raised landscape planter at the back of sidewalk gives the fence the appearance of being at least 7-feet tall when viewed from the public right-of-way. 4. The existing 6-foot tall fence is architecturally incompatible with the site and development on adjacent properties. 1-7 Attachment 4 Resolution No. 5338-02 Page 2 5. A freestanding privacy fence can be constructed without the need for a fence height exception due to an expansive front yard area. Section 2. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny an appeal of the Director's action, Application No. FH 27-02. On motion by Commissioner Boswell, seconded by Commr Caruso, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Caruso, Peterson, Osborne, Cooper, Loh NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Commr. Aiken The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 22nd day of May 2002. i � on Whisenand, ecretary Planning Commission by: 1-8 Attacriment 5 o ived_ RECEI C�{i.,l�Ifi,, .'?jcI y O(' Psa,( A �ui1L `vikv `�y r SLO CITY CLERK San lues OBISp0 APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Lz�,fa s IJ e��o S .SLO M 1712(/Cy- Name 713(/C -- Name Mailing Address and Zip Code 36 'r .sgy 7-Z Phone Fax Representative's Name Mailing Address and Zip Code Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo . Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: h (Name of Offi , Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 3. The application or project was entitled: [Fc��jg fid- u.,ru j4C& 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: r on (staA Members Name aro Department) (Date) SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence,you have that supports your appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 1-9 Attachment S Reason for Appeal continued S)ECTICN4: y4PPEi<L4NT' RESF�ON.SIBIL�1Pj` Obis�rci`C'fi outiTglC:�raiWA--k uEi�c;" clpmfloiS:lR to at'governfnent jtt'd: • .. :..1 • 'F '.: .Y..1V • • Y.. ericoura*wflormmif<p!t(zehlriYoCy�fierit til ;0lfy i��nl'�Ec�e`rtioSf.Xn afifomia;does:no4 cliar -e.a.fee;for:ftll- an- A'' g ng appeal. syaweVer,placirigri: ppeal;tisfor,O ttieCity Council requiCes corisigerable warK;snd cost;,11ic1udtiig ageridc; eprk�?�aparation and;pUli1ic notifloation: . Therefore,your'right to ezerclse.ail;eppeal3cgine$'wlth';catta(il:respgR ibilit es. If you file an :-appeal;please.understand thatit.must;be heardwithtri' ;tiays frorri;.filing th[s form::You Willtie . notified in writing of the exact dote ioi tk appeal vSrtlf 1�. :r'-diQcluled tg tie tteard:before the :i odndl, You or your repte5entative annif`tie expected 3o:atfericl the pul 7iQ fiearing, end do preparesi to make .odr ca r :.Yp>]r tes irt7day s'Ij iiita4i o lD;mltiutes: A continuarice. riaytie:gtanted Crider bei�inpd'unusuaC clrctimstances.` Cf you.fel,you need to request.a:cclrititttlancro;you;•cnustsutimit3lour request.in-uvdting:tathe City Dleric., •Please be .advised that ff:your.rrequeiffor.onntinuanoe is YebeCVed$fter the appeal Is noticed to•the public;the Council may.nM be aide to:gmnt the rec{uestfor.oaritinuanbe. Submitting a request for.eotitlnuenee does not guarantee that it-wll be granted;that ecL'on is et the dscrovon of the city coundil. /hereby agree toappear and/or send a.representative to appear on.my.behalf when :said appeal Is scheduled for q public hearing tiefdile the My Council. (Signature of-Appellanty (Date) Thle Item Is hereby calendared for July 2, 2002 c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Depnrtrhent Head City Clerk(otiginaq n Whisenan ✓Tyler Corey Page 2of3 10101 1-10 m•d /QcA-"c(sno)veomen eie-t WV 00.OL ZOOZ'aZ AeW 'AepseupaM Attachment 5 Members of the City Council: I am appealing the Planning Commission's denial under section 2D of ordinance 17.16.050. This allows exceptions to the fence height ordinance if "no public purpose" is served by strict adherence to the standard. Why else would this section exist if not to permit this privilege to be granted when, as in this case, both common sense and compassion are called for? If allowed to remain the fence achieves all these goals: 1. The fence provides privacy and peace of mind by shielding my bedroom and bathroom from street view. As mentioned, I am particularly sensitive to this issue as I have been the victim of a stalker for six of the past seven years, one form of his harassment being keeping me under surveillance. 2. The fence screens less attractivetin progress landscaping. Although I enjoy gardening, I work extensive hours and time does not permit rapid progress on landscaping projects. 3. The fence allows me to landscape and maintain a manageably sized public view area. Again, I work in the medical field, Dialysis and Transplant, and have only a small amount of time to pursue my love of gardening. I would prefer to concentrate my efforts on this area so any lack of time will not affect the attractiveness of my neighborhood. In the event the City Council does not feel it can support my request for a variance allowing a six-foot fence where a four-foot fence would otherwise be allowed, I wish to propose a compromise. I request that I be allowed to remove the upper lattice portion of my fence and retain the solid under portion. This would be a four-foot, six-inch fence where a four-foot fence would otherwise be allowed. This is only six inches above what is ordinarily allowed, is an alteration I can make without damaging or unduly defacing my fence and will still achieve goals 2 &3. An artist's conception of this change is attached. If the larger variance cannot be granted, I respectfully request that this lesser one be permitted. Regardless of the decision, I thank the Council for its time and consideration of my appeal. I also wish to thank Mr. Tyler Corey of the Planning Department,who has provided me with invaluable assistance by guiding me through this appeal process. Sincerely, Lara Cathcart Note:all measurements of height in the requests submitted are based on Mr.Tyler Corey's interpretation of all required and appropriate dimensions I submitted,including height from grade. He advised me as to what was considered the fence height for Planning Commission purposes. 1-11 •.\ �. f ^tel. f, 44 I IV C. �1 l ♦ t ? ♦ ` aI t f � � ol f ✓Y- SII 1 - NN" r l 7 ta4 x,,:::3:':1,. .'.tr, ""•a':'+ .. At , t1,•., r �..r• �•. . ' 1 +ate " r 9' r4`. ta7ic. a. it !i."3r f+t � 1 ne �'i_ Ac5 - q 1?• , 4 c )''< k. 'l'+�"Sa.•i. r- Y�' L ` i. .•. a r -•Y�.a +c ti�• -' '"Tr l ' gil�{ 7i•,•� ili. '(� _� a t'�✓ti A..` _. �' r* 'rif'1 -R a d /�wY i .]y�1 a s .• ,�........nr�+J�f ...1 . �]iS" 'f • 1w �" '» • OTi.Y'�++� �'� _ .ya� s �. y, p y JAY 'R.i.7C ' ' Rai'." • w c:; A t —rte s »:.-;- a. d *Lt�.0 � i°a�' �"`y' of t•'; IF _ �-t IJ.•Y .n:�'r *j+'�'� ,� '.tom .+,;, i '17.1��{•t��{�}t•t L �i�.� - �� ''1 r..l �3'✓' ��x„� i� 4„Y." +l f�`.,( 3',.. � wJY Zvi LIMY '! *�Y+•� i'�Y>Ma� ;. T�J'_�5 P��^7• r� _ �� ... \ YV Sp y f� �^,',ri�.�Y3 Aice" .L�„y'{_{4r � 4,+. RltL �>•ri,..n,�.h.^..,u.�+♦ * r "�y rf bj "- _�_T •' ,.i i Z i ma t'? C � f 1. 1; K � .iG .�y, T•i IF zz `.�'E�rSx x'`j`�,. �� ., � .+. '�a.a'^^"pr,T3t,u.• r.J'Ir •E y �%: ..s' II •a �pp -t c'llf ♦ i A f r >�plk ha J ,-t .:� � . • f..fc,+irt lf"�`i5`,fs ) .� [S .. .� i' s'•`&t' • ',i Lys '�i� '� � i�:l.`• f r ��77 �7 • '� ' Attachment 7 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 227 2002 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7`05 p.m. on Wednesday, May 22, 2002, in the Council Chamber of city Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commrs. Stephen Peterson, Allan Cooper, Michael Boswell, James Caruso, Orval Osborne, and Chairwoman Alice Loh. Absent: Commissioner Jim Aiken. Staff: Planning Technician Tyler Corey, Associate Planner Glen Matteson, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, Deputy Community Development Director Michael Draze, Deputy Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce. ACCEPTEANCE OF THE AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS There were no comments made from the public. OPJABLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1010 av Avenue. U, GP/R, LLA, and ER. 145-01; Request to allow a hospital addition in zone, and height exception to allow a 35-foot high parking garage where a 25-foo ' h building is allowed; change the zoning and land use designations from R igh-density residential) to 0 (office); adjust lot lines involving 6 lots to create ts; and environmental review; 0 zone; Sierra Vista Hospital, applicant. At the request of the applicant, this item was c 'nued to a date uncertain, without any discussion. 2. Margarita Area. GPA, R, and ER 44-02; Request to ame a General Plan Land Use Element text to allow parks in the Margarita area before specific plan is adopted; to rezone the proposed Damon-Garcia Sports Fields s om C/OS (Conservation/Open Space) to PF (Public Facilities), with the creek co s to remain C/OS; and environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. 1-14 Draft Planning CommissiL_ Ainutes Attachment 7 May 22, 2002 Page 8 carried 4-1. Deputy Director Whisenand men i decision could be appealed to the. City Council. He explained that appeal forms are availa rk's office and the appeal must be filed within 10 days. 4. 1515 Newport Street. FH 27-02; Appeal of the Zoning Hearing Officer's denial of a request for a 6-foot high privacy fence where a 4-foot high fence is allowed; R-1 zone; Lara Cathcart, applicant. Planning Technician Tyler Corey presented the staff report recommending denial of the appeal and upholding the Director's action to deny the fence height exception, based on findings which he outlined. Commr. Boswell asked staff for a clarification of finding 2. Planner Corey explained the site plan shows that the garage is currently set back 20- feet from the street yard. It appears there is a significant amount of yard area where a fence could come off the edge of the garage and parallel the existing fence to accomplish the applicant's privacy concerns without an exception to the City's fence height requirement. Commr. Boswell asked if the fence were set back further, could it be taller. Planner Corey replied yes. He explained in the R-1 zone, a 6-foot high fence is allowed. Lara Cathcart, applicant, commented that her lot is actually 50 x 100 feet, and it is the 50-foot frontage that has the 20-foot setback. She explained the extra height provides piece of mind and security by shielding her windows without blocking natural light. She noted it was by ignorance that she inadvertently violated the Zoning Regulations, but has applied for necessary permits. She mentioned every neighbor that has a line of sight to her fence have sent letters of support asking that the 2-foot exception be granted for the privacy fence. Commr. Cooper asked if there is some private use gained from the backyard and is there an unusual necessity for having privacy in the front yard as well. Ms. Cathcart replied yes. She explained her bathroom window, which is waist high, and her bedroom window both face the street. She noted that in the past, she had been a victim of a stalker. Commr. Osborne asked how far from the 20-foot setback is to her house. Ms. Cathcart replied about the same distance as is to the fence. Commr. Osborne noted this was 15-feet and questioned why there wouldn't be light from this 15400t.area. 1-15 Draft Planning Commissi-_ nAinutes _ Attachment 7 May 22, 2002 Page 9 Ms. Cathcart explained the exposure of her home is such that the only time she gets sun on half of the house is in the early part of the day, which it comes up at an angle over the fence and the hedge. If the fence were closer, it would completely block the windows at the angle that the sun would hit. Chairwoman Loh asked what the height.of the lattice is on her fence. Ms. Cathcart replied not quite 2-feet, perhaps 18-inches. Chairwoman Loh mentioned the City has regulations and it would be difficult for the Commission not to follow them. She noted people could hide behind the existing freestanding fence and people along the street would not be able to see them. She also noted that the neighbor's shrub is lower than the applicant's fence. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Daniel Manion, 1250 West Newport, felt the fence is a beautiful fence, but there are no fences like this in the setback anywhere in the Laguna Lake neighborhood. He stated this fence needs to be set back at its proper location, and would still leave 20-feet to the face of the house. He opposed the fence height exception. Chuck Mowanaski, 1884 Husana, could not understand how a commercially manufactured fence that is common for residential uses throughout this city, is architecturally incompatible. He mentioned there are wooden fences and shrubbery throughout the Laguna neighborhood that exceeds this height limit. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Boswell moved to adopt the resolution denying the appeal and. uphold the Director's action to deny the fence height exception based on findings noted. Seconded by Commr. Cooper. Commr. Boswell mentioned they have a fence height ordinance because it provides a benefit to the public and the fence regulations and zoning code are part of the adopted city policies, which represents the will of the community. Commr. Cooper noted it is important to realize that some of the reasons behind prohibition of tall fences in front yards has to do with some of the environmental psychology literature that has come up regarding liaison territoriality, neighborhood watch issues, etc. Planner Corey stated the resolution included information for background purposes to let the Commission know where the project came from as far as code enforcement, and that an application was submitted for an exception. 1-16 Draft Planning Commiss. Minutes Attachment 7 May 22, 2002 Page 10 Assistant Attorney Trujillo explained changes to the original resolution. He noted they are adding the first two "Whereas" items to the resolution, as follows: Whereas the City opened a code enforcement case for the subject property on March 5, 2002, for the construction of an illegal fence in the street yard areas; and Whereas the appellant on March 8, 2002, submitted an application for an exception to the City's standard fence requirements. AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Cooper, Peterson, Caruso, Osborne, Chairwoman Loh. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commr. Aiken. The motion carried 6-0. Chairwoman Loh noted the applicant has 10 days to appeal this decision to the City Council. MMENT AND DISCUSSION: 5. A. A en Forecast: June 12: Cope 's Project EIR Draft; Study Session for Text Amendment for Zoning Regulations that uId allow Bed & Breakfast Inns in R-2 zoning districts. June 26: Proposal of Aban ment of portions of right-of—way; Two subdivision condominium conversions with exce ' n requests; Sierra Vista Project. Commr. Cooper noted he would miss June 2002 meeting. 6. Commission: The Commission discussed the Planning Commission Re t. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourn at 9:35 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for June 12, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in Cou 'I Chamber. Respectfully submitted by Irene E. Pierce Recording Secretary 1-17 Attachment 8 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM # BY: Tyler Corey, Planning Technician (781-7169) TE: May 22, 2002 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Deputy Director of Community Development FILE NUMBER: FH 27-02 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1515 Newport Street SUBJECT: Appeal of the Community Development Director's decision to deny a request for a 6-foot tall freestanding privacy fence where normally a 4-foot tall fence is the maximum height allowed in the Single Family Residential R-1 zone. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and uphold the Director's action based on findings. BACKGROUND Situation Approximately three months ago, City staff was advised that a 6-foot tall freestanding privacy fence was constructed within the front yard setback area at 1515 Newport Street. Based on research of City records, it was determined that the height and location of the fence requires an exception to the City's standard fence height requirements, and a code enforcement case was opened for the subject property. On March 8, 2002, the appellant submitted an application for an exception to the City's standard fence height requirements. On April 10,.2002 the Community Development Director denied the request based on findings outlined in the attached decision letter (Attachment 3). On April 24, 2002, the applicant filed an appeal of the Director's decision (Attachment 4). Appeals of items that require Director approval are referred to the Planning Commission. Data Summary Address: 1515 Newport Street Property Owner/Appellant: Lara Cathcart Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) General Plan: Low Density Residential Project action deadline: The Zoning Regulations say that an appeal shall be scheduled for the earliest available meeting, considering public notice requirements, unless the appellant agrees to a later date. It does not specify when action must be taken on an appeal. Site Description The lot consists of approximately 6,000 square feet. The property is located on the west side of Newport Street and is developed with a single-family residence. 1-18 FH 27-02 (Cathcart) Attachment 8 1515 Newport Street Page 2 The surrounding area is residential in nature. The area to the north is zoned R-I and developed with single-family residences; the area to the south is zoned R-1 and is developed with single- family residences; the area to the west is zoned R-I and is developed with single-family residences; the area to the east across Newport is zoned R-I and is developed with single-family residences. Zoning surrounding the site is shown in the attached vicinity map (Attachment 1). EVALUATION In approving a fence height exception, the Zoning Regulations state that the Community Development Director must find that no public purpose would be served by strict compliance with the standard fence height requirements. In general, fence height exceptions can be approved where there are no impacts to sight distance and safety, where the proposed fence has been determined to be architecturally compatible with the site and with development on adjacent properties, where the neighborhood has not raised significant issues regarding the fence, where the proposed fence is consistent with the General Plan and where the exception would not be considered a grant of special privilege. In this case, the Director could not make the finding that the 6-foot tall freestanding privacy fence was architecturally compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood or that the exception would not be considered a grant of special privilege. Fence Height and Location City Zoning Regulations allow 3-foot tall fences at the front property line (street yard) increasing to a maximum of 6-feet tall at the required minimum yard. In the R-1 zone, the minimum street yard setback is 20 feet. The existing 6-foot tall fence has a 5-foot 9-inch setback from property line, which normally allows for a 4-foot tall fence at this location. The existing fence is located on a 12-inch raised landscape planter at the back of sidewalk. This gives the fence the appearance of being approximately 7-feet tall when viewed from the public right-of-way, which further intensifies the massing of the fence in the street yard area (Attachment 6). Fence Design and Compatibility Although there is no specific General Plan policy or Zoning Regulation specifying an appropriate style or design for fencing, the City encourages open-style, decorative fencing in areas visible from the public right-of-way. Staff has reviewed this project for site and neighborhood compatibility and finds that the existing wood fence does not blend with the neighborhood and detracts from the project's appearance. Appeal Filed The appellant believes that the fence is appropriate at its existing location and is both consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. She further states that the fencing is needed to provide privacy in her bedroom and bathroom that have windows facing Newport Street. 1-19 FH 27-02 (Cathcart) (� 1515 Newport Street Attachment 8 Page 3 Response: The majority of the photos included with the appeal letter appear to be of fences and hedges that are on side yards of corner lot properties. Cotner lot properties with two street frontages that were recorded before April 1, 1965, are allowed 6-foot tall fences with a 1040ot setback on the longer street frontage in the R-1 zone. Based on the photos submitted, it does appear that some of the fences and hedges are not in compliance with the City's fence and hedge height standards. Due to the addresses of these properties being screened to protect the owners, staff has not conducted any further research or made any determination as to whether these fences are in compliance with City standards or have received previous fence height exceptions. Currently, City policy for code enforcement is on a complaint basis only. The City does not have the resources to actively patrol and enforce all code violations that may exist throughout the city. The Director determined that the existing fence was not compatible with the site and surrounding neighborhood and would be considered a grant of special privilege because there have been no other street yard fence height exceptions granted in the neighborhood and most of the homes on Newport Street do not have fences or hedges that exceed the City's standards. Additionally, the subject property has an expansive front yard area where a 6-foot tall privacy fence could be constructed without the need of a fence height exception. • General Plan Policy 6.6.2, of the Land Use Element states, "The street appearance of buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained." The existing 6-foot fence located on top of a 12-inch raised landscape planter would not be consistent with the above stated policy because the outward street appearance of the subject building is substantially blocked from public view (Attachment 6). There are other alternatives available to the appellant in terms of privacy screening in the front yard area that would not necessitate the need for an exception to the City's standard fence height requirements. Other possible alternatives include: 1. Construct a 6-foot tall privacy fence located out of the street yard setback area. 2. Plant appropriate landscaping that would be effective in providing a visual barrier in front of the subject windows. 3. Install blinds or drapes over the windows. 4. Replace windows with mirror glass or similar material that would act as a visual impediment. Conclusion This is a code enforcement action and a notice of code violation has been issued for not complying with the City's fence and hedge height standards. While staff sympathizes with the applicant's situation, the fencing was not reviewed or approved by the Community Development Department. City Code requires that the fencing design/material be examined for compatibility with its surroundings, and that fencing location and height be evaluated for compliance with City Zoning Regulations. 1-20 FH 27-02 (Cathcart) iAttachment 8 1515 Newport Street Page 4 The Planning Commission needs to decide if the existing 6-foot tall freestanding privacy fence is appropriate at the location and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood or if other privacy alternatives exist for the appellant. In staff's opinion, the existing fence is not compatible with the site or surrounding neighborhood, would be considered a grant of special privilege and other privacy alternatives are available to the appellant that would not necessitate the need for an exception to the City's fence height standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS The only public comment received by planning staff during the review of this project was from a neighboring property owner, Daniel Manion. The original letter submitted by Daniel Manion in opposition to the fence is attached (Attachment 5) to this staff report. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The appeal of the Director's decision was not distributed to other City departments. RECOMMENDATION Deny the appeal and uphold the Director's action, based on findings included in the attached Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment 7). ALTERNATIVES 1. The Commission may uphold the appeal and approve the request for a 6-foot tall freestanding privacy fence if it finds that the fence is appropriate at the proposed location and is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. Deny the appeal but approve a fence height exception with a lesser height or greater setback. .3. The Commission may continue action, if more information is needed. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants/appellants. Attachments: 1. 2. 64p4aism 3. 4. Appeal Letter Dated April 24, 2002 5. Opposition letter from Daniel Manion dated March 19, 2002 6. vimftp if 7. 1-21 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP0 APR 2 4 200? Ron Whisenand Deputy Director of Community Development 990 Palm St. CONIMUM, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 Attachment 8 4/24/2002 Dear Sir: I am appealing your denial of my request for a fence height variance. Specifically, I request that the existing fence (6 foot where a four foot would otherwise be allowed) be allowed to remain. I am withdrawing the portion of my request pertaining to the trash screen. In response to your letter of April 10, 2002 in which you refer to a complaint received, I cite the large number of positive comments and compliments my fence has received from my neighbors and those who regularly traverse my neighborhood. While I can't access the records of the alleged complaint or complaints to compare numbers, I can say the more than a dozen(so far) compliments were entirely unsolicited, not garnered due to a sign posted out front for 30 days! Further, addressing Finding#1: Within my immediate neighborhood there are multiple examples of exceptions to the height ordinances. (To provide scale, the gentleman in my photos is 6' and I am 5'9" (in heels). mam • Notice that not only does this fence exceed the height ordinance T. ""'- by more than the two feet mine does,but also it is made of unattractive cinder block; z certainly no less "architecturally incompatible"than my fence. NOTE: All addresses have been I obscured to protect the privacy R rights of the property owners and ,Y�^ ��; . �•�• residents of these homes. r . 9 H, - Yrti 1-22 ' h♦ �r ieL�♦lVJVJj+�'�. T T. '. f . = a� Ala 1 '�A. ♦ .•. rl' �} '�..zt° s a ,Y ...,^�fi^q *i.. ��yr,.,.-fes♦y1 r�+'+.•.n•c`"L.4; + -� �v� fist a .. '"y } fla } � ,tj��ir „ } } �`�~�•a" �'M �cr .t Attachment 8 rr �r r s.\ Y K w SII i 1-24 f l` �cd ' Y J 1 t AM Yiya- 1{, >�.yy"7�I,F.r`.y1�y�w+'��' �/'7� t,• ? �{t y,a Jr�.�dS 'F R # +r� r y, n y1f►' f ,yr r ..., V t '-f" i. \ ;rrjfr.�'+T •T rrr.r > jj '�ri 1 , Srr1 'y`R•'�tr �"'A;k Jr'� .,.��'�y'1n {�.� L,�' ?`Y #� T'- �'Ri S•�s`y"'1` '�+t�r��i#�qq�r-al I"'k^� ° �!, 'y,i „�,.�•i a �7"'!ii~�sL Y-f3i s,.w p4, o .,.>rwr '�� =�iY -sr r+f� n',� tx.a�-`: aaq.b. nr4 .,f.. � r.3•{qr� �/jfla SC-*r - '¢YYS•Ti; -..:i' C4' � �. 'r.� mow_. r .' Y^tJ' T Y P t 1 ♦ } '\ f�y 3` �� t •S•. * fc f i �c A_' ai ,. _�v.!-s.•'x ki"�i 5 r ds� q. x.:. N • ,{'y Y. ..f `" f ,y r > 1-/,, ', }.-. {`• 71$Fay -\.• r� y4 C � 1 ! �-�,Yf F - •4 �1✓ �� 47�.i��Jrli 1� _ V -Y_. rJ ' ))� TTY F, ��1 J ��Vr u•w,- t .�. "n ` L "�''- �...r ' - .+ `.°'' F 1 ♦ N#��r x�. y s.Y` r1S Si.�,4 �4' i�Sb�� '^. t y`' y�.�• Rz r-"I., 1 `sr �♦v '..> vy�. t'Y:[.�yr, ♦_' ( _t r�,�`•53 �H�� i ^♦ r ._i'7'2A� t 3^ K' ry ` a+ h .. +��, '.i �Y J -. ��. � f r i^ ��r�` y_��r • ��tr ��I Y�• r tl+yy�b(.,^:. i Ci ?h^,S / a .Fi:..�.� �~� / r y f -_ ♦ •l:.t:♦ r 4 S y y,.0 wr 'Ir:i�''*r-�'♦ar.�v��i•. .-�+.w% t-. y�C�� r y!�;' � 3•� 1'.,� � � e�Siy 3'T± �• ' ,r�r!. r�y K_: _ ♦)Yya{ '� `�' sem. .� .j � ..r'r� iL�r+11i'►. y ♦!� riy .id;�r+R> � �yr i s ♦�z}+y J'� ��y� K + � �'ar.rr,+ �_�.al� Yf's4•`lei-�- iyt!'��='.a% '{NjCt''1�^�.�itft ;�Y'��; , 1# �;,r"�'�?�'"O�!'I-!^ +k;D. , �.; _ ur.. ''.Y��i..�±} tti,`i►t �� '`'s. ��a�^;t3 13t+� � s hS.j y��`r.�� "� "�.'�Y.K':taT G'�, F_ r s f j. �'� �t1...n�•� � � trtlh t i � K� � Y�r?.-., n�v�`.S`ti. S" at" t v>v � ;.:, � v" i. �';3,s•d� L`^"� h/^p s ,rpt _'� r• t :. � � ` �; Y 7 rj} 1 i r ✓ y S / r r i �{' >}.: i�` r •rte. 1 • i t.♦+wf y• `YJ •.. l .,'1•Y4i h,l Wyk; L � f ' ��l��l�f�'r. ��«�(vy4 �:' �f•t< ;r'f,4,,i1��1��r y.._ Y r�� { �. 5. �w def � � S�j '� `( *�A{f!'�r. �� ,. lyt,.?1 rw • 1r•f •+ t';rt_ c3�� 1' �T: y�.�r}� 'rfy�y� 9 4 W (i�� t, r t 1J' ,��. ♦ 1,t1F Mt�l ;r � � -+�a t t'r w{y YJ to r -� tiY i •( .1 �� i ; '�•1.j WAX, [ C. .. ✓ y ; • i tri A ] w, �7�r�''Y�r� i- r � .I`.d1 Lf•M 4..t .r F L ^ f•f T .j'C�L��.�d 4F� �. r,♦ 7 �'i �, {{yy¢ S �.rx `•`• >° w -t x r ♦ ► 7tir'i... e.A, rys 1., y t:� ,a e`a..2Z pa+1r r �' -,;. •yf- , • ' •r .. 'E : t �r ter'! � �s� i � a• '�' Y i i' � �v a-fwd` • h ��' -.��f J.� ',{ ✓' > s ♦ h.:..:t?.� .�'ts j� ��i .Y.,�1 A; ;x' k • ; `h, � T 7t,�."" , .- 1�.'y�.l �x •f« i.v' a, fs"L t ,. a C'F tr r ,-y � ti r k 'L•F .. •�.TT a � f s';Sr 'h... '� � is r _ y T ✓ �y.. �S. F • •� rl ..�� -. •�,yY�: ti.\rsl •'- 71� m'1.tr,;, ' Ti::yp ♦ .y\ ` 4 yy •ir . . r� J. . a �'�,.� �'P � \y ti o .. �+r •F�• r ,.7 . Y x ;tr�, ♦ a s\ ,(.,,+� � ,�.;i i� G r.' � r c •y3'y• ,t „wlrY� r,y, r .*�� r S r h > v - rr -�� • Y•:w ., f••tYq t� .XYZ :b4 )��ti�'r.\�• yr� -ar 4. �. I• . .•�rYT9♦• '�.\.�• � L 1 +7„°tay)wP`ar `C^�• i. { t c,� r 4 a [ 4 •tr � TI � < kif^ }T W� �.�. •�fA •••` •�J.1w ( .>�" .'� .i r > .n I TS afr+wycs..:rv•. �'_�r�.X�� 5 >•�.s^�Lr �� Y•• *.j'••Y�: ��i. iti.7 r..� 1 •, �I• ��.,y1, I�. kT . .hi ( �• y�?a-v •° �� `Yl• -i �.'!•1"1'+�i'� '-c �r4 y '.l P -4.. .' 'S1 < ,r 'u'yt' •t T.: [ � � a.�i� 1:r.��I �� r- \\ r F if 1 y Y 't> 1>y f i. �� !r s� I A•h Y,�r�-#'�f +, w`ytfC''�.:a}"��'.irny 1wa ac^ d� r .� Y"'�y, t `�+w\.':+ .,Y •� j Y f�p•`.Or�••� w�-�.�^f�t'su .J^ �+' .. F f (. ; s ': •- +, f�. Irl nt fFai/ti' w• �e` ty,.�s.. �r �✓-� �yn'4'':�� { � .�,'.�ij��j}T��'f-�' r~y'n��yw�,Y-��'sww,jr .,i� x`•'.�^ i`,�F>�-�''�3� ''''•�`_�:". -�SaE d'G z ?� - ),h •.y1f n'.. ! 4'il s"Sr'y r.- �ti.."pt 4 p.v.l�_f. � T $r Y3 � kd C: yr_y1y V A Pam ' - C�.yt[p� P; i 4S �}�`y.� ,3� '3� s�YJ1t �i;�jl•l f�� tl }\S.�L'. � �� sr�'fll,.<�Y �pAIZt 1r Y"J t.S�If.•h y�� 1 � p C[? r t� ��3^��.•w•P '.{�'�1, '. S s t � J'�F- �..••' y ;•' �� r>a � 4 i � 1 r i a h .� 1 aT l '�s i f'-� Aw`��. ' l•' Jt ' t tt » '�' y't _:-, n •1'dG.p 3 iS. wF t Y ! E'. � 4 Cy- ,h r _ .y ). Ly ``+w- in'F •�r ►'?T h.y*:a• �l 1~> ;�'7� r� �r'•Y I '�� x', r t,r„'a� ?iwf '•'i'_ fl d i Ly •xf- 1� � r w t l I M .� • h � 1 df •• _ . . . •. • �4 /t a 4 �f. f 4Ts � �1 _.,..v :i v.,-5—:f ♦yi �'. lI' � y 9 r .iS sv •f r*3v� 'y (+ - `Ti+ ft '+X �, "�'�G<cr •Hd .• i vA� �• " c+ y, s n , 4 '.r i. : �`(yv �'';?�. ^r��:��... >''. !� u��>•�' r � ! *�, .e-; v. � 1"'J �~r*'.- �f Y !• i'Al ri`(s - :... �3 YrY �.'.,., •` `K �t ro <� t f. If t .-w C�i £ r,� +Y t tsP r. �.FYr �. / f Y $a+�• ; r 1 �'v :2 •�_ � rx .r �, 1 �' 'r �r'..�z r, r .3 s. i:a"{J`'- 'T c � o i f r Y 2 f _ ♦ 1^�S J�'t�TH by"+t4 )-'fi. Nil r.. . r '. ---------------- Cr.'.�' •. 'v v 'W , •!, v c s iR v .... 2 _ l -t r f-n A� 4• t '+ ^f Sr '�f3� i T� � •r.'. J �` JI. 4` ` I tr �r ,y � :' 1 •'S ^1�yJ L� r '.'t 7 E �.,Y ,. S�' KL 3a.4 Jw i /- .a •..�.{� � _,.. � �''<<'- '^fin �,�' z .. t ` J � tT �• fi x�+4V+ �: # i �LiY v t � ✓•'� r Y epee �/`p c r .ugv �F^r'YIeV 1 f S h a(-Y r •y:. �� •+�•+ ATE ��i• /'�t� hr _♦� 'a 7 w 111YYY k ,r '' v �.K..ff r :'i '� t( xi in ��rr _., i<"•'• _. . L� � 1 ... s S t,^G~ r;2� 77 ?�~� L 1, j�Ilk � -' R '}. J1 J• J ♦ �i l � 7 ' ,S •>�1y •�Z'y... ,•� Gc -L+r r� ,r �'ryi V-� 'r�XL.�yI� �y L7�-t�l� �t,i �` , +..+i- � r(T o,V �n�'-Y e. . '->� � ear tt 's s' � J• r'� �� ^..�t #�'c:-�L x 3._ 'rr w' .�.as S i y r h > � I !Ja ` �'.1Q. ',(t �c -iY f. �/t i..` L 1• x r..;yl Jon • w:. Mktg ` .f.+ ...ter ,f HF � EH. -- av 1 i• !� .� .. ♦ �,�e[`."y R. 1( ALI .. �' Yi, ti t,F °st-rs "1}�4.. _'}',. �•iCj,Ti� a '.� i• t ��; � r 1 „ - Ij�r!S] { 1 • f � -'a 1-• :; Tlti tr> :• t fit` I '• 'aJ h.Y 'r..4J�. r rtSa-•Y � tr•- ..� rs7 tii •. '� � � it�` c �a �C _ .- •C. .,� \art �.', ri ✓'.: �7,1 vc..} 4 f "S.o- nZ r s� .R C .fit ♦ ,.'9.r M'r z 9•.� l,�C a�f��j c R�tj 4P ,a"t�'Ls"Tz';`itsy �;.ck 'Y3 `•`�"i' fe, Ym•�???t�i�3..Yi4xt.�"¢.t MnrZ�4�F.Jr`�i_h,am,��.'-cs+��r„/d!A,,,c 2�'$/�,��ri : '�ai CTzi>j�_.T.4,,n'�'�'t- wF'" r...ata'>i.{,y+�•t1Y..'�i ��f�` k'y�ri'* v%t LLt`+'�^� ^1�'S-PtTM+y.v35 441 t'vMASOPM VVa v+Y2'aJ}'i' .. Y'i.� 'F,r, •Mj�y� :(:.FT�' qn" `3+a.,n�,�iiN! J•� tR F`'7tC " �4r r ,�' t}�' �✓b rq� � '4.Y� ;'+ln�`+[ 5,A `` o,9:Y S �'i' Ci 1�\ f "}�iF `�i��.ir'I �_f.�C�'+ .%.� N '^1•ll 2 i} l iX Sr."t "A� �. t J�+ V}'4. w�t�GF4r� ��r� e'�t� .4.�c't�,c7 �wx r'il�,IJ�a '.'✓�� 4�,(�- xrs.i£i'l��?a S M� M1JQ -rt' �a t•- ! ¢.. r r Zr 1 •4♦ j t '!:y s 3 t •#- t dt �� r r iF• +� t r t�{.. rrI ,u i v { �•.' S{y ,ao,- r<. +.+•T Y„+ f. v. y � g r• K.-L.�Y? li(y1 Y K^'y! t � -l y �•� j ' -•�� . Y { .v..� � � 1 C � r l r v.z �. r, y r• ''♦v ��• {.Sy,�,r,��t 1 i3C r � a r ! i+rw d't3?{ Ef a 1� Kfq {.G %at 3 , t -2¢�`{. S •. T , 4 r + 1. 1_,fi..r.1. y. /yid'Y y 1.�1'2..y'a,. ,� `-.:iA Y �-�,1s +t:< �i v` .� Y N ' g,•[u. ' Y a s'..T>.i+-i 7jk C'. 1 vim} i 7-�• ? y ✓ .*, }r r". t ; ,��q�• V_• '•�°»LY� 2.'��1 p A~`y '}t.��sr d °^TrS, 7 �?-' ,i, v � a`. N'+ 'j ': 'g. �g: �, !F .rY.r�+� '�t.3• '+- -ta Yl+ ," 1 < a�F+e r L .rt rr%�� R ..i 'X J r.a t -" r ..�:.x :a a k.c4r r fy't'. -x£ h-�'�F Sin•.- a y. J'�Y 1 e r .F * � '�. �'� 1r � '..;i � �.+Y h ♦ s .T• f 1 ♦�r� �T * Sit 1. ��A/y-s.W�., si.. v �, a' ^r C r ?� l- ..Xi.. s:K VVT.�1n Ya,+/S. ...t�7 �. r� :F�i n�+,"� "•� `y{'1 x �`�� T �� J "�r�� r.. •1• .�^:y .i�;. -rr tc- ys ) ♦ r-w r otr `• ,J Y'l .t !.l` Y^CT J'� t 1 t ,��7. •+i�:` s _ate t r �� w � r.`r��w� ,fir �iw �! i an��i 1 �. l r -- , - "2'-.c.Tit�... r �' c 3 .Y.�• y�y� a Ra'r''irr ' a-.`'. � i t r w r<. '' l �'�ji�d��' +Etro'1'aatr�"•i�'�4 t-:� ty tr a. � � a �" 1 t r y - r � a$'eY•T �.. b. 1 3 a �- " +Y r" ♦ar ��ri a+ �Y r .�xy --'iL l•.�"�!. w }'' i ,y't a r -Cr��a '> a � sky t" X•.`> � ' - .,GiX ..,h ♦�s. ] .+.-, .ems r�v.l1�z». X Fi � ..� • a' s � �_✓�f-$p��s�"�'A ^,t,�^ w i.�S az.. �Ti:.•s�� r'�:r• � "'�v `i .�t�:.'.{xlon y K..+k�l�Y,rrr...• �,.,r P.� `�l""4 -♦�4�s3 1di �rr�fe�. ^� r'i-. y.a• ac .-+ft" �iy. af r. ' --� A.� � i t �y--�`"yy�.: t1•l '}V c zl a' .�' {t r•� i! Em t'�,y..w'ib �7 rrA� � � x^wl� i`1 a r � i •' I f > •ei."} fr ♦I � ..( !!i � .�7) �.f f�It$ }!:_`� Y� C;iS� t. '+y iT I �¢ ✓�� a Y �. �$.l.-. ,'i '�.' a � '''�'��• e �.�"yi >^�� '{St�r'`�w ':1('��`t`l-��r`� a.tw„��i' ��.,7Zv�.. � s' Iss" I�r �,Y .lc, f rw.'fi" .��.d^ -'��"•' �.�/^'.i Y'�r'.a+ �. ;•N -.r� � a ,/'.-�' �� a'4 2 �� SS�.: v� y_• '�P ^3"'R'�•'�_ � Y, \.*�i 'a'S'f r wrF -_. -� 1� �,t�Y t..c >< ♦ t ! >y Y aS'>l < ��. - ��y�ly �4 ,r L -`� a.: Y`ly '-.Y A. .. � S1 Y Y T t). •�x '-FY" �� .5.r`r YA�e� � •�i``� � yMYtlr. 5 1 r ♦ � yL. (;+ S � � ~' '+Y3Mi wi.rCFJ'u'ai I `^ ♦ {/ f^'T � T y (� 7 .�y. t r �- ft W Attachment 8 To Tyler Corey March 19 -2002 Community Development/Planning ---- - ----- City of San Luis Obispo Calif. CITY OF SAN !U!`; �'_'I` ! ;' i RE : Fence at 1515 Newport APN 4-401-022 I Vii," 'P 2 otic i Your file # 2702 Dear City Staff, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I am against the seven foot tall fence constructed five feet back of sidewalk on March 3 & 4 of this year. Due to its large size and close proximity to the sidewalk, it is unsightly and monstrous. It will become the visual barrier to the future front yard space which will be used to store junk just like the Volkswagen mini-bus which is parked curbside and not moved since January. The fence will contribute to an attractive nuisance. The fence is a sight distance hazzard now for people backing out of the driveway. Also it can be a danger to people passing as they may be accosted and easily taken behind the fence. Any fence of six in feet height may easily be constructed at the twenty foot set-back to screen the privacy and trash cans just as other homes in this location. This application should be denied as there are no fences like it in the Laguna Lake neighborhood. Respectfully Submitted, L It " iJ Daniel Manion 1250 W Newport San Luis Obispo Phone 781-5275 wk 543-8634 hm 1-34 Attachment 9 Draft Resolution "A" RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION ON A FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION REQUEST AT 1515 NEWPORT STREET,FH 27-02 WHEREAS, the City opened a code enforcement case for the subject property on March 5, 2002, for the construction of an illegal fence in the street yard area; and WHEREAS, the appellant, on March 8, 2002, submitted an application for an exception to the City's standard fence height requirements; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, on April 10, 2002, denied a request to allow a 6-foot tall freestanding privacy fence to remain located within the street yard setback area where normally a 4-foot tall fence is the maximum height allowed in the R-1 zone; and WHEREAS, Lara Cathcart, filed an appeal of the Director's action on April 24, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on May 22, 2002, denied an appeal of the Director's action to allow an existing 6-foot tall freestanding privacy fence to remain located within the street yard setback area where normally a 4400t tall fence is the maximum height allowed in the R-1 zone; and WHEREAS, Lara Cathcart, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on May 29, 2002; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on,. July 2, 2002, for the purpose of considering the appeal to the Planning Commission's action on Fence Height Exception FH 27-02; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered testimony of the applicant/appellant,. interested parties, the records of the Community Development Director and Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of Fence Height Exception FH 27-02, the Community Development Director and Planning Commission decisions, staff recommendation, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1-35 AV _ Attachment 9 Resolution No. (2002 Series) Page 2 1. Approval of a fence height exception at this location would constitute a grant of special privilege, an entitlement inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning because similar exceptions have not been granted in the neighborhood. 2. The existing 6-foot tall fence is not consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.6.2 because the outward street appearance of the subject building is substantially blocked from public view. 3. A 12-inch raised landscape planter at the back of sidewalk gives the fence the appearance' of being at least 7-feet tall when viewed from the public right-of-way. 4. A freestanding privacy fence can be constructed without the need for a fence height exception due to an expansive front yard area. SECTION 2.Action. The appeal is hereby denied. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 2nd day of July, 2002 Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: / . k.�-z ew,-- City Attorney Jeffrey 80.1orgensen 1-36 Attachment 10 Draft Resolution `B" RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO UPHOLDING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMNIISSION'S ACTION, THEREBY APPROVING A FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1515 NEWPORT STREET, FH 27-02 WHEREAS, the City opened a code enforcement case for the subject property on March 5, 2002, for the construction of an illegal fence in the street yard area; and WHEREAS, the appellant, on March 8, 2002, submitted an application for an exception to the City's standard fence height requirements; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, on April 10, 2002, denied a request to allow a 6-foot tall freestanding privacy fence to remain located within the street yard setback area where normally a 4-foot tall fence is the maximum height allowed in the R-1 zone; and WHEREAS, Lara Cathcart, filed an appeal of the Director's action on April 24, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on May 22, 2002, denied an appeal of the Director's action to allow an existing 6-foot tall freestanding privacy fence to remain located within the street yard setback area where normally a 4-foot tall fence is the maximum height allowed in the R-1 zone; and WHEREAS, Lara Cathcart, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on May 29, 2002; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on, July 2, 2002, for the purpose of considering the appeal to the Planning Commission's action on Fence Height Exception FH 27-02; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered testimony of the applicant/appellant, interested parties, the records of the Community Development Director and Planning Commission hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff. BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of Fence Height Exception FH 27-02, the Community Development Director and Planning Commission decisions, staff recommendation, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. No public purpose is served by strict compliance with the City's fence heightastai�ds Attachment 10 Resolution No. (2002 Series) Page 2 because the existing "stand alone" fence is a privacy fence intended to screen bedroom and bathroom windows facing Newport Street. 2. As conditioned, the existing 6-foot tall fence is architecturally compatible with the development on the site and surrounding neighborhood. 3. With approval of this exception, the existing fence complies with the fencing standards contained in the Zoning Regulations. 4. The proposed fence will not have any sight distance impacts for vehicles entering and exiting the property. SECTION 2. Action. The appeal of the Planning Commission's action is upheld, and the fence height exception approved, subject to the following condition: 1. The existing landscaping between the fence and sidewalk shall be maintained in a neat and orderly condition throughout the life of the fence. On motion of seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 2nd day of July, 2002 Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APP D AS TO FORM: 0 J iCity Attorney Jeffrey G. Jorgensen 1-38 F. EIVED Date Received Of MAY 3 12002 C1 O1- SLO CITY CLERK M&San tws OBISPO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECMON f. APtPELLANT MORMATION :Namg-e� Miaiiing Address.and Zip Code { Phone Fax Representative's Name Marling Address and Tip Code Title Phone .Fax SECTION 2 SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1,20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code('Copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision_of.the: (Dame of Office Comr+alttse or Commission decision being appealed) . 2. The date the decision being appear waS rendered: D .Z 3. The application or profit was entitled: 4. l discussed the matter with the following City staff member: -7 :_ on _ ( *Zra and' ) ( ) Z SECTION a REASON FOR APPEAL Explain spe&icaliy what actionts.you are appealing and why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what ev dance you have that supports your appeal. You may attach adc6ficnal pages,if necessary. This:form,ovnGnues.on the other side. Page 1 of 3 e Reason for Apped.cont1hued F -04 1 Lr le h-11-10V21 kv (i I e aISrdkftA &-air�. SEMONA MWri fli ef"tuages i rz a -� siz ita dose . charge a f g act�p i..:f is reueK;- epf esi e r I.�equi�ras sdereiwwe-v+re�a� in[�E7dir'ig age repot�c:pr�ar ��c a�rz. i mere#ori,your right iosnerase ar�aiipea(eomesvw'�toer#eurf respoir�es ��riu an appeal,piease untiersfana:isce :. aysfrorrrfiiing finis fomt..x-ou vrni ire notified in wriling,of the-exact-(We you_r-ap# i gra ikbe,,cwhedtnei io-be beard befam tine. Counts+ 'r'ou or your representative vvM be=eped iso aMnd thepoiic hmdrag,andto be prepared,to make your case: .Your iesurrinr�y�s'iiniite to a•u m►nr�ies. A coniinuandarr*-be granted under•certain-and-unusual circumstances. if you feel yuu i Hasa to reciuest a coc�tint,aru e,you mush suiuni ;roar request an vvrRing-'toV t;�r- . i3'rease ire i advised that:fir your request for corifinuance isreceived after the a�peai•is noriced tri the public;the Council may not be able to grant the requeatIfer cerifinuance SubMNfing-a request fdr coniff-wrwe does not guarantee that I wjH be.grantec that-armor_"yrs disff�c"of Me aly COUMii I herebyagree to nnybehaff and en said 88 3 Is saftedulad for a pubLk,baaubtg befam Mo.a:4,Cmrni: ure of Ap t This item is hereby caiendered for - -c: My Marney CRY Ment 1 Wad V Page 2 of 3 Cir 1.20 APPEALSPROCEDURE Sections: 1`20.010 Tale. 120.020 Rightto appeal. 1.217.030 Time within which to file an appeaL 1.20:040 Hearing-Notice. 120Am Hearing-Appellant to show cause-Council's determination final. 1:20.010 Title This chapter shall be known as the"Appeals Procedure-for 4he city.(Prior code§1400) 120:020 Right to appeal A. -Except where an appeals procedure is otherwise speelficaily set forth in this code, any person objecting to the approval, denial, suspension or revocation oVa license, perrrd or entitlement of any nature, the determirm—Von or issuance of which is funder any of the provisions of this code, or to any ati_rninistraatiw decision mite by any ft official, if tie approval, deenlal, suspension or revocation of such license, permit or enti0ement or the determination of-such adrn"elstrative'deasicr:Iinttolves the exe-rd,se of adrrini_straWe discretioon or personal;judgm. ePt.:e.+cera1so-a under any of uhe-provisil ons:cg finis,-c o dee, may appeal in wr h-rig to the, council ny Mung with the dty derkc a written notice of such appeal, stating the speck grounds for the appeal. B. No appeal' may be taken to any such admnsbative decision made-by. a cagy clfi6ial under`the provisions-of .this chapter unless said decision to appeal has been:first taken'up with the department head:concerned, and where an appeals board is empowered to considerinterpretation and enforcement questions,uNess such.aecision to appeal has beenconsidered by such appeals bowm C.-No fight of appeal to the coune"u :rorn any WdI...iristrative decision ruse by a ft onaial under any.of: The provisr� of. thisi;;?tie s +aa cxt ...-en sacs ?.deer: is rrunis:eriai and thus-does-not .,exerdsv of administratwe tris.~etion or personal Judgment exercised under any of the provisions of ithis code, w^sitser the ad^ nis t^ ce sion involves the approval, denial,.s'usper.sion yr I-Mocafilo^-of.a license;permit, entitlement or any other admirfttutivre decision.(Ord MW§ i; M5:prior coda§1401)' 1:20.03 Timuiithiin.6dich,to fake an appeal'. The appeta:^t sha file a notice of appeal With the city de*-ae.,h n ten calendar.days-after-the rhe upon which the ad-mn-i,-r.strWfta decision appealed from, is made. In the event the last day of the filing period falls or, a nonbusiness stay. U le appeal period sha" be extended to include the next business day,and the rate -tall appy wheni ,rer art. appeal pm. cedure is speciffL=lfy set c uh elsvxhsre iii this cods: (Dior code § 1.20:040 Hearing-Notice' Vpi.on r•L•corew"'of It,ie. iiifnug-of Vu IQTioticeofappeal9in its proper, 'for,—,{, 1're citycleIn.shah piece the matter on the countls agenda. Eft in cases of emergency, whan the council may determine the matter irnmediate3y, or iizutwe-state lacy prescribes.a.diff erent,appeal process; tt:e.sleek.;s�lall set the li War-`..or. hearing at the next reasonably available council meeting,-but in no.event later.than .forty-five calendar days after the date of the f ling of such notice of appeal with the djt ^8TIL The city dark s hall cause wt�ten notice of such hearing t3 be giver; to the applicant riot less than fide business days.prior to such hewing, unless-suit;notice is valved it t 4Y;'lting bf the applicant. (Ord, 1252 § 1, 199::prior�e§1+oa) 12t^^:0� H'aa-•�,�- aIIBTTi�c �kioti+yaJSB-�i:'t'ioil'b tea,•r e fi�at� ti aa'. A2 si:cit hearing ths ap hart lack sk ttse fir the:g i ..eii in the nci e of appeal why the actin app ealad from should not'be.approved Th cou n:»: pray.Continua.tha hearing ;1 o-nIS elle to.time. and its findings on the appeal shall'be'final and coni clusi m in the matter. (Prior code-§ 1404): Page 3.of3.. Noise Abatement 522 Broad - rV mor` rr 7 7�7�R � o 1 c+ 1 - 41 � —� I a 0 Q Issues �° yyyJJJ� D n, • High Noise level from traffic on Lincoln n and accelerating for fi-eeway onramp (Broad)- ' • Additional noise from delivery trucks from market who leave motors running also late night noise at market and pay telephone. • Noise is reflected from 2 story commercial a -- buildings which lack any landscaping. ° 1 Issues (cont) • South side of house faces freeway with estimated 65-70 db(attachment 7) necessitating outdoor living areas to be on North and West side of house. Noise level on this side of house is much louder and discontinuous due to stop and start and acceleration onto freeway. Issues (cont.) Discussion of Staff Recommendation • House is built about 2 feet above grade so 1. Though property is zoned r-1 properties that the 5'`receiver height"mentioned in on both the north and west are tall the staff report is actually at or slightly commercial buildings. Property has no above the existing 6'wall. back yard as do other properties in the neighborhood therefore there is no quiet outdoor space such as exists at other residences. Discussion (cont) • Staffs alternative solution is to install r' soundproofing windows(staff was informed that this has already been done on most windows)and to install as conditioning so that windows need not be opened. With energy shortages,this is FF ryw certainly not a recommendation which"preserves the environment and promotes wise use of resources"(quoted from community development department mission statement)nor does is protect ►.,. , outdoor living areas. , F 2 I I Discussion (cont.) Discussion • 3. Property is not on the list of contributing Fences are not"out of character"with the historic resources. neighborhood and fences higher than 6'do • 4. The city policy of not allowing"walled- in fact exist at several locations within a off residential enclaves"may be admirable few blocks of the property—one at 456 in quiet residential neighborhoods but Broad is just one block away. With two cannot be deemed as desirable on what is businesses across the street,what is the essentially a freeway onramp with "character of the neighborhood? businesses on two sides Discussion Reasons for approval: • Staff did not explore the sources and sound Neighbors do not object and the majority signed levels rather utilizing the figure generated the petition acknowledging the seriousness of the by a computer model of fieeway noise when sound problem and supporting the sound wall. noise from.Broad and Lincoln is actually • No public purpose would be served by strict much greater and more disruptive due to compliance with the fence height regulations. acceleration of vehicles.It is this noise • The proposed fence height exception will not be which is the issue in this application.. detrimental to the health,safety,or welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity. Thank you for your consideration! 3 To: City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Regarding: Fence Height exception at 522 Broad We the following neighbors of Bob Rice(522 Broad)wish to inform the planning commission that we are in support of granting the fence height exception due to the following: 1. property is on a corner and completely bordered on 2 sides by Lincoln which is a main feeder street from the downtown and Cal Poly to the freeway and by Broad which is the freeway onramp. 2. property is across the street from two businesses with the accompanying noise of delivery vehicles, late night traffic,and brightly lit windows and signs. 3. property is attractively landscaped and maintained and the wall will have virtually no visual-impact on the neighborhood. Si date Name Address A 'T9 vaad kiw ELI RED FILE MEETING AGENDA Mayor Allen Settle DAT 7 oZITEM # July 2, 2002 City of San Luis Obispo RE: Agenda item# 1 -request for privacy fence 1515 NEWPORT St Dear Mayor Settle, I request that you approve the RESOLUTION to DENY the APPEAL for the 7 foot tall fence constructed five feet back of sidewalk located at 1515 Newport Street. There is NO valid reason to let this violation stand as it would set a terrible precedent. The fence needs to be constructed at the proper 20 setback. There it will not hinder any natural light as that side of the house bears North 45° West whereby it only gets direct sunlight six months out of the year. Respectfully Submitted, Daniel Manion 1250 West Newport St. San Luis Obispo OUNCIL CI CDD DIR AO C] FIN DIR FFMCAO C� FIRE CHIEF ORNEY CI PW DIR CLERK/ORIO ® POLICE OHF ❑�E ® M REO bin CT a IITIL DIk RECEIVED H�M oIm - JUL G SLO CITY CLERK