Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1996/04/24 (9) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item -L Meeting Date 4/24/96 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: ZA V-96-08; Request for a variance to allow the construction of a fence up to 5.5 ft. high within the front yard setback of a single family home located at 21 F Street in the R-1 zone - Nicholas & Jayne Gistaro The request is to construct a fence up to 5.5 ft. high within the front yard setback of a single family home located at 21 F Street in the R-l Single Family Residential zone. The R-l zone limits walls/fences within the front yard setback to 3.5 ft. in height. The fence is already under construction, and in fact is located just beyond the property line, within the public right-of-way; therefore, it would also require an encroachment permit in addition to a variance. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 5(a) exemption. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt attached Resolution ZA V-96- 08 approving the variance in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION: Site Characteristics The project site consists of a 1.81 acre parcel located at 21 F Street, near Hilltop Drive. The property has 253 feet of frontage on F Street, and also has approximately 25 feet of frontage on Montebello street at the northwest corner of the site. This parcel contains a single family home which is designated as a Chula Vista historical site (the Starkey House, constructed in 1896), as well as a guest house and a barn located to the rear of the residence. The property also contains lush mature vegetation. The Chula Vista Booklet of Historic Sites notes that the original owner planted many trees and shrubs during the late 1890's and that a considerable number of these plantings are still thriving today (see Exhibit" A"). The majority of this vegetation is located within the front yard area. Although the Zoning Code requires a front yard setback of 15 ft. in the R-1 zone, the Building Line Map, which takes precedence over the code, depicts a 20 ft. front yard setback for the site. Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date 4/24/96 The dimension from curb to front property line is also 20 ft.; therefore, any fencing above 3.5 ft. on this site must be located 40 ft. back from the face of curb in order to conform with the applicable setback standard. Zoning and Land Use North - South - East - West - R-l R-l R-l R-l Single family dwellings Single family dwellings Single family dwellings Single family dwellings The site is bounded on all sides by single family lots and residences. The majority of the site is relatively level, although it slopes somewhat to the northeast at the rear of the property. It is also level with adjacent properties with the exception of the northerly abutting residences, which are located at a somewhat lower elevation than this site. Proposal The proposal is for a variance to allow the construction of 5.5 ft. high wrought iron fencing with 5 ft. high brick columns spaced 10 ft. on center within the front yard area. As noted, construction on certain portions of the columns and fencing has already commenced and is ongomg. The location of the columns (and thus, the proposed future fencing as well) encroaches approximately I 1/2 feet into the public right-of-way, thus also necessitating the procurement of an encroachment permit. The applicant has submitted the necessary paperwork for the encroachment permit to the City's Engineering department. ANALYSIS: Zoning Code Height Limitations The height limit for fencing within the front yard setback is 3.5 ft. for all zones within the City. The setback for structures, as well as the 3.5 ft. height limit for fencing, is intended to preserve an open character and preclude a "walled-off" effect along the City's street frontages which would diminish the visual quality of the environment. The open effect provided by the 3.5 ft. limitation also precludes the opportunity for isolation of residences, which could erode the sense of neighborhood afforded by the ability to see other homes both from the street and from one's own residence. Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date 4/24/96 The applicants' primary stated reason for requesting the height increase is to provide security for their family and residence, a desire common to all residents. This issue arises with some frequency at the Planning Department public counter and numerous residents of the City have in the past expressed concern with the 3.5 ft. height limitation, contending that this height is insufficient for the installation of a fence as a security feature. Staff's response has been that 6 ft. fences are not prohibited, but that they must simply be pulled back out of the front yard setback area. Demonstration of Hardship The most difficult finding required for approval of a variance is that a hardship unique to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Staff has visited the site and agrees with the applicants' contention that fence location alternatives are uniquely restricted on this property. The existing mature vegetation within the front yard is literally so extensive that the applicant would be unable to construct a fence in a reasonably straight line across the property frontage (regardless of the height) in any location other than approximately at the front property line, or far back from the frontage near the residence itself, which is 164' back from the front of the property. The question then becomes whether or not there exists a unique hardship which would allow the fencing at 5.5 ft. high at the front property line, thus affording this property additional security and a special privilege not afforded to others within residential zones. Historical site designation. As noted, this particular property is designated as a Chula Vista historical site. Known as the Starkey House, this residence was constructed in 1896 for one of the original residents of the City at the northeast limit of the original Chula Vista subdivision. It was purchased in the 1930's by Harold B. Starkey and was occupied by Mrs. Starkey until her death in August of 1995. The property's designation as a Chula Vista historical site confers no particular rights, privileges, or obligations on this property; it is simply recognition of the property's value as a longstanding piece of Chula Vista's history. A plaque, presented by the City, is located on the front of the residence and identifies the residence as a historical site. According to the applicants, uninvited pedestrians and vehicles alike often enter the property. A narrow paved drive branching off of the property's entry driveway leads directly to the front porch. The applicants have owned the property for approximately three months, and Mr. Gistaro states that people often appear to believe this to be public property (or perhaps are Page 4, Item ~ Meeting Date 4/24/96 curious enough not to care whether it is or not) and not only enter the property, but have entered the house as well. Therefore, the question arises as to whether larger properties designated as historic sites are inherently more prone to security problems than the typical residence. Large lot properties. The property consists of 1.81 acres. To a degree, it can be said that, depending upon their configuration and the siting of structures on the property, large lot properties may be more prone to security problems than traditional single family lots which generally have 7,000 sq.ft. of area or less. The opportunity exists with larger lots for areas of inactivity and thus lack of monitoring to occur; if this becomes apparent to transients or vandals, or simply curiosity seekers, security problems can develop. In the case of this site, the residence is situated 164 ft. from the front and 120 ft. from the westerly property line, on the northeasterly portion of the parcel. The westerly portion of the site has tall, mature trees with large spreading canopies which obscure much of the surrounding area from the view of the main residence. The applicant states that upon moving into the property, beds and other items indicating transient occupancy were found in this area (see letter from applicant attached as Exhibit "B"). The lot is large enough to permit this type of activity to take place, and the problem is exacerbated by the frontage on Montebello Street which creates a sheltered "pathway" shortcut between F Street and Montebello. CONCLUSION: Anyone of the aspects discussed above would not be unique to this property, but could apply to any property within the same category. However, the hardship in this case is presented not by one of the aspects alone, but by the presence of all factors. In other words, this property appears to be more susceptible to security problems than the average residence because of its size, historic designation, and double frontage, and fencing options are uniquely restricted by mature landscaping which has been cited as a historic aspect of the property. For these reasons staff is recommending approval of the request. Attachments 1. Resolution ZA V -96-0R 2. Locator and Site Plan 3. Exhibit "A" 4. Disclosure Statement (m: \home\planning\patty\zav9608. rcp) RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. ZAV-96-08 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCE TO 5.5 FT. HIGH WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 21 F STREET IN THE R-I ZONE WHEREAS, a duly verified variance application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning Department on March 14, 1996 by Nicholas and Jayne Gistaro, and; WHEREAS, said application requests approval to construct a fence to 5.5 ft. high within the front yard setback at 21 F Street in the R-I Single Family Residential zone, and; WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this proposal is exempt from environmental review under CEQA as a Class 5(a) exemption, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on said application and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property at least 10 days prior to the hearing, and; WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely April 24, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES hereby find, determine, resolve, and order as follows: I. Findings. I. That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner exists. Said hardship may include practical difficulties in developing the property for the needs of the owner consistent with the regulations of the zone; but in this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. Further, a previous variance can never have set a precedent, for each case must be considered only on it individual merits. The subject property appears to be more susceptible to security problems than the average residence because of its size, historic designation, and double frontage, and fencing options are uniquely restricted by mature landscaping which has been cited as a historic aspect of the property. Therefore, a hardship peculiar to this property and not created by any act of the owner exists. 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the same vicinity, and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. The granting of this variance will allow the owner to secure his property to a reasonable extent, a property right possessed by other properties in the same zone. This variance would not constitute a special privilege considering the unique nature of the property as a large, double frontage, historic site with mature, historically significant vegetation. 3. That the authorizing of this variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, and will not materially impair the purposes of this chapter or the public interest. The authorizing of this variance and the ensuing fence construction will not be substantially detrimental to adjacent property because of the open and quality design of the fence as viewed in relation to width and depth of the property and the extensive landscaping planting. 4. That the granting of this variance will not adversely affect the general plan of the city or the adopted plan of any governmental agency. The approval of this permit is consistent with City policies and the General Plan based on totality of findings cited above. II. Conditional Grant of Permit; Conditions. The Planning Commission hereby grants approval of this request subject to the following conditions whereby: A. This variance is approved only for fencing of an open design as depicted in plans accompanying this application. The fence shall consist of wrought iron with columns spaced no closer than 10 ft. on center. No portion of the fence or columns shall exceed 5.5 ft. in height. B. If the subject property is subdivided in the future, this variance shall become null and void and any fencing exceeding zoning ordinance requirements shall be removed. C. If the subject historic residence should lose its designation or be removed from the site, this variance shall become null and void and any fencing exceeding zoning ordinance requirements shall be removed. D. If the mature front yard landscape planting is removed or modified in any substantial way, as determined by the Zoning Administrator, this variance shall become null and void and any fencing exceeding zoning ordinance requirements shall be removed. E. If an encroachment permit is not obtained to locate the fence in the public right-of-way, this variance shall become null and void. III. Additional Terms and Provisions of Grant. A. Post-Approval Conditions. This approval shall be subject to any and all new, modified, or deleted conditions imposed after adoption of this resolution to advance a legitimate governmental interest related to health, safety or welfare which City shall impose after advance written notice to the grantee and after the City has given to the grantee the right to be heard with regard thereto. However, the City, in exercising this reserved right/condition, may not impose a substantial expense or deprive Grantee of a substantial revenue source which the Grantee can not, in the normal operation of the approval granted, be expected to economically recover. B. Time to Commence Use. This approval shall become void and ineffective if not utilized within one year from the effective date thereof. C. A copy of this resolution shall be recorded against the property of applicant, known as 21 F Street; proof of said recording to be provided to, the City prior to the issuance of building permits. D. Any violation of the terms or conditions of this permit shall be grounds for revocation or modification of the variance. IV. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to the applicant. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 24th day of April, 1996, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: William C. Tuchscher II, Chair Nancy Ripley, Secretary (m:\home\plamung\patty\zav960X. REP) LOCATOR AND SITE PLAN \ CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT Nick Glstaro PROJECT DESCRlPnON, C) APPlICANT, VARIANCE PROJECT 21 "F" Street Request: Increase the existing maximum allewable fence ADDRESS, height within the fren! yard setback frem 3'-6" te 5'-6". SCALE, FILE NUMBE~ NORTH No Scale ZAV-96-08 .... 292.82' EXISTING BARN EXISTI G GUES -_._---~.- - ------~_._-_.. b o I() o ~ EXISTING RESIDENCE ;,. o b o o o ~ ~~/[~~, _: 1 / / (\'/_~)/ / /(~X .~j )---;- ',--~---_./ ~ (j) N <Ii 253.46' ~~) - (;) 18' 6" Ul --11'0' 21 "F" STREET Map 505 of Chula Vista Por OSEC 111 & 124 APN 589-070-20 PLOT PLAN elY ------'.._-- -..--.. ---_.~-- SCALE . ------------- 1/4"= l' 0" WILCOX DESIGNS 8030 La Mesa Blvd. La Mesa, CA 91941 (619) ~7.7(fJ5 z lC) 0 t:!: 0 K - ~ I- ~ cr- ~ ...... ~ ~ Z ...... '<f< 0 cr- LJ.J ...... ~ - ....J -< I- LJ.J u ~ oj' '" LJ.J Q) ::E LJ.J ~ j ....J tf) ..,j Z ;> LJ.J (!) () - U) j:Q oj LJ.J ~ '" Q) () >< ::E ~ j Z 0 LJ.J ~ <') <fJ 0 t 00 u.. Q) <fJ c: c: e -r b r 0> c: '[j CO LL ~ Q) Q) c: OJ > -" u .;:: (]J l .............. " - .c 0> ::J e S J L ~:: LT- - -, -- - - -- -- -- - - I - - __ I- - --- - , - - - -- - - - -- -- - r- --- '---- -- - - --- . _.~ -- b i:o ...J - ~ LJ.J o Z ~ ::> ....J o () EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT "A" HISTORICAL SITE NO.9 ~,~ tar key House [)J))~ 21 "F" Street The Starkey House is a stately home of New England Colonial design. The structure was built in 1896 for Reginald Vaughn at the northeast limit ofthe original Chula Vista Subdivision. Mr. Vaughn landscaped his home with many trees and shrubs during the late 1890's. One particularly interesting specimen, an Indian laurel fig, was planted in 1897. A considerable number of these original plantings continue to thrive and encase the house in a virtual forest of vegetation. Harold B. Starkey Sr., who was very active in the financial and social community of San Diego, purchased this home in the 1930's. Mrs. H. B. Starkey still resides at the residence. LETTER FROM APPLICANT UJ Our proposal is to place a 5' to 5'6n fence on our front property line. The city ordinance is for a 42n height restriction. We cannot provide sufficient protection for our property with this size fence. The Planning Department contends that we can put up a higher fence if we place it 40' from the curb. To do this we would have to alter the entire front landscaping plan which was developed over the last 100 years. By following the previous fence line, we would not have to interfere with the present trees and foliage. On the plot plan we have marked the location of these trees in 5' intervals starting at the existing fence line. Additionally, we have included slides and pictures to show the forest- like nature of the entire front property. Refer to Item 4 for age and type of trees that would be affected. The trees' root systems are substantial, and they will be jeopardized with any kind of footing in their area. These trees are part of an historic landmark and removing or damaging them would alter the beauty of this property for myself and my neighbors. We have a petition signed by our neighbors to support this project (Item 5). There is a section (i?J of fence (2 brick columns and wrought iron) completed for the committee to view. Specifically, the reason we wish to exceed the 42" height restriction is due to the fact that we have many curiosity seekers walking into our backyard and, on two occasions, right into our house. "No Trespassing" and "Private property" signs have not discouraged this behavior. Adults and children alike cut through our property from F Street to Montebello (see lot map - Item 1). This raises a security, liability, and safety problem for us. Due to the size of the lot and the extensive foliage, especially around Montebello, we have also found makeshift beds and alcoholic beverage containers from transients and teenagers. There is also an illegal alien problem. They traverse the property from F Street to get to Bonita Road. This can be confirmed with our neighbors on Montebello. We have 3 daughters ages 15, 11, and 10. We both work, and of course, the children go to school during the day and also participate in afterschool activities such as softball, cross country, etc. The house is wide open during these periods to vandalism and burglary. There are many hiding places for attackers as well. I wish to put this fence up to protect myself and my family. LV There is a precedent for this height of fence. immediately east of us, the property has a 48" wall with a 7' gate. Their 48" wall is on the property line and the 7' gate is only 32' from the curb. (Set back is 40'). We have cited other properties in the area which have similar height violations (see Item 2). I hope this information is complete. Thank you for your time. The following properties, in the neighborhood of my property at 21 F Street, all have fences along the beginning of their property lines (20 feet from the curb) that are in excess of the 42" allowed by the City of Chula Vista: 11 F Street 4'6" columns with 4' high wall 22 F Street 5'6" picket fence 35 F Street 4' white wooden fence 39 G Street 7'6" columns with 7' wrought iron fence 299 Hilltop 6' brick and wrought iron fence 306 Hilltop 4'7" columns with 4'5" wrought iron fence and 5'8" wrought iron gate 368 Hilltop 4' stone wall 5 Center Street 4'7" columns with 4'2" wrought iron fence (10 feet from curb) (See attached photographs) The undersigned approve of the wrought iron and brick column fence located /--. . ~ on 21 F Street, Chula Vista. Signature Name (please print) Address ~{!~~D~r- rr-e.- ~frrerd1 G~ fJd~ 6-.., f}:, , 7"'<?~J ~-,lt~ I 'iF.Jj ': II121'y T wd~ 11 fI~VYrv1~d~ J;. / d /." S I Adam tra If, Tr , p ~.~- - . c- V ~ lI""' k...t.. K.-- d l" J. ,l:: \; -rW r t'-.r\ I ~ 0:il, ,~J /Z=Jv=J Lrt6n I""" - \p, /'<lyu ' "" j)J J)jt if,'-;' - ~ ft;;; I v 4-1 F str 4;? n + '8 i?- ~.Jt Q - C\.VY <! /~t1 &tt'~p;/ 3.5 tI()~~ELL0 S r (~t-. _ ,-:YvL,.,.A~ 'd.lLif: lG4d 33In.-",e1,dk <;,j. 1',,1/ t~;A~/~lA~~ ()/0nAJ~ Jt ~V( . J7 h V 4hJl.r AA '-rlO1l1i.-{ i/ jM~~ /"14eo4!:.~ ~, r !( T, G. V. "U91() :>Dr f!(/~/jJ ~~ PS'T / V DISCLOSURE STATEMENT mE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT You arc required to file a Stalemcnl of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests. payments, or campaign contrihutions, on all mailers which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must he disclosed: I. List the names of all persons having a financial intcrest in the property which is the suhjeet of the application or the c()ntract, e.g., owner, appliC<lDl, conlractor, suhcontractor, material supplier. J\ ~ <-l< ~:S ~ Y\.Q G ~ ~r() 2. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership, N/~ 3. If any person' identificd pursuanl 10 (I) ahove is non'profit organi/.ation or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non.profit organi/.ation or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust ~~ 4. Have you had more Ihan $250 worth of husiness transacted wilh any memher of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Commillees, and Council within the past twelve mOnlhs'! Yes_ NoX- If yes, please indicate person(s): _ 5, Please identifY each and every person, including any agents, employees, eonsullants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this maller, ~Ot <L V1\~~1\ 6. Have you and/or your officers or agenls, in the aggregate, contrihuted more than $1.000 to a Counellmember in the current or preceding ciccI ion period? Ye.,_ N(~ If yes, state which Councilmember(s): Date: I ' , , (NOTE: 3 ) /q, Attacb additional pap I7i:ll;/J I J5:L.. Signature of contraetor/aJ!fllca~1 tfd'lLt. '> vn. G~ 'tOtn Print or type name of contractor/applicant . ~ is defined as: "AllY u.dividulJl, {inn. co-parmcrship. jOl'" ~'t'1&IU'c, assocfation, social club, frtJlmJOI orgalltzoliOlI, corporatiOlI, utau. D'tUt. receiva, I)ndiCalt, lhis Q/ld atlY otha coumy, city a"d COUIII1)', ciry municipality, district, or nUIt:r po/iticalsubdi\viOlI, ex allY o,lIer ~oup or com/>imuiOlI GCIiI., AI II uniL.