The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007-18 • RESOLUTION NO. 2007-018 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING MINOR EXCEPTION NO. 2006-11 (APPEAL NO. 2007-02) FOR A FENCE THAT EXCEEDS THE FRONT YARD FENCE REQUIREMENT AT 801 EAST POMONA STREET LCP, 3/28/07 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The applicant is requesting approval of Minor Exception No. 2006-11 to maintain an existing 52-inch high front yard fence with pilasters and wrought iron features that exceeds the allowable height at 801 East Pomona Street. The property is located within the Single-Family Residence (R1) zoning district and has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (LR-7). On October 6, 2005, the applicant obtained a permit to construct athree-foot high fence along the front and side property lines composed of split-face masonry blocks and ornamental wrought iron. Upon inspection by Code Enforcement, the height of the completed fence exceeded the three-foot maximum height permitted by 16 inches. !n addition, the front yard fence contains a total of six pilasters which do not comply with the minimum spacing requirement of eight feet as well as a solid wall base that exceeds the 18-inch maximum height by six inches. B. On January 31, 2007, Minor Exception No. 2006-11 first came before the Zoning Administrator of the City of Santa Ana for a public hearing and was continued until February 14, 2007. C. On February 14, 2007, Minor Exception No. 2006-11 came before the Zoning Administrator of the City of Santa Ana for public hearing. The Zoning Administrator denied Minor Exception No. 2006-11. D. On February 20, 2007, the applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision, Appeal No. 2007-02. E. On March 12, 2007, Appeal No. 2007-02 (Minor Exception No. 2006-11) came before the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana for a public hearing. The Planning Commission denied Appeal No. 2007-02 (Minor Exception No. 2006-11) F. The applicant is seeking a minor exception from Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-610 that requires a permit for the construction or repair • of any front yard fence and also establishes a maximum height of three feet for any wall or fence that extends into the required front yard or any Resolution No. 2007-018 Page 1 of 5 .• • required landscaped area. Additionally, Section 41-610(f) limits a solid wall to 18 inches in height between pilasters and requires pilasters to be spaced at eight-foot intervals. As constructed, the applicant's front yard fence does not comply with code requirements because both the fence and the solid wall exceed the maximum allowable height and the fence pilasters do not comply with the minimum spacing required. G. Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-638 authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a minor exception upon making certain findings. The Planning Commission determines that the findings necessary to grant the minor exception have not been established: 1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of this chapter. r: There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property where the strict interpretation of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges not otherwise at variance with the intent and purpose of the provisions of the zoning code. This is a standard residential lot that can construct a front yard fence within code requirements. 2. That the granting of a minor exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights. The denial of Minor Exception No. 2006-11 will not significantly impact the rights of the property owner to enjoy the use of the property. The construction of a 52-inch high front yard fence, in and of itself, will not guarantee any greater enjoyment than that which is currently permitted by the code. 3. That the granting of a minor exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to surrounding property. The granting of Minor Exception No. 2006-11 may be detrimental or injurious to the surrounding properties due to inconsistencies with other permitted front yard fences in the surrounding area. Although there are numerous front yard fences within the surrounding neighborhood which exceed the current standards, these were constructed prior to the implementation of the front yard fence ordinance and are considered legal non-conforming. Goal 2.7 of the Urban Design Element states that projects must exhibit a functional, Resolution No. 2007-018 Page 2 of 5 .w comfortable scale in relation to the neighborhood. Although • the fence material is compatible with the existing residence, the proposed fence will detract from the character of the neighborhood. 4. That the granting of a minor exception will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City. Minor Exception No. 2006-11 will adversely affect the General Plan, as it has a negative impact on the goals and policies expressed in that document. Goal 3.5 of the Urban Design Element Policy Plan is to encourage residential alterations that are consistent with the adjacent uses and responsive to the street classification of the neighborhood. A 52-inch high front yard fence is inconsistent with the non- arterial street classification and no special circumstances exist to allow relief from the code for an increase in fence height. A similar fence could be constructed with the required 36-inch height while maintaining the proposed style of the fence. G. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303(e). No further environmental review is needed. Environmental Review No. 2006-207 will be filed for this project. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana hereby, denies Minor Exception No. 2006-11 (Appeal No. 2007-02). This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes but not is not limited to: the Request for Planning Commission Action dated March 12, 2007 and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. ADOPTED this 12th day of March, 2007. AYES: Commissioners: Alderete, Betancourt, De La Torre, Gartner, Munoz (5) NOES: Commissioners: Leo, Mill (2) ABSENT: Commissioners: None (0) ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners: None (0) Resolution No. 2007-018 Page 3 of 5 • C ti Christoph r Leo Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Lorena C. Penaloza Assistant City Attorney CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, MARTHA RAMIREZ, Clerk of the Planning Commission, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2007-018 to be the original resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Ana on March 12, 2007. Date: ~_~~ . y Clerk of the Planning Commission City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2007-018 Page 4 of 5 .. PROOF OF SERVICE (GC.P. SECTION 1013(a), 2015.5) STATE OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the aforesaid county; I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within action; my business address is 20 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Annex 2nd ,Santa Ana, California 92702. On Appril 10, 2007 I served the fore ~tion No. 2007-018 (Appeal No. 2d : iiF's action~y acing a true copy t >ed as follows: Dolores R. Rodarte 801 East Pomona Street Santa Ana, CA 92707 document described as: and Minor Exce tion No. 2006- ~nc ose m sea e enve ones [ ] I caused to be delivered by courier, such envelope by hand to the office of the addressee(s). [X] BY MAIL I am readily familiar with my employer's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [ ]The document was transmitted by facsimile transmission and was reported as complete and without error. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 10, 2007 at Santa Ana, California. MARTHA RAMIREZ •