The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04 Variance 2013-031TY O AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: JANUARY 14. 2014 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: VARIANCE 2013 -03 APPLICANT/ ANDREW AND MICHELE DENNY PROPERTY 1151 TIKI LANE OWNER: TUSTIN, CA 92780 LOCATION: 1151 TIKI LANE ITEM #4 REQUEST: A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO KEEP AN EXISTING NON - PERMITTED FIVE (5) FEET SIX (6) INCH TO SIX (6) FEET TALL BLOCK WALL WITHIN THE REQUIRED FROM YARD SETBACK WHERE WALLS ONLY THREE (3) FEET IN HEIGHT OR LESS ARE ALLOWED. ENVIRONMENTAL: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15270(A) - PROJECTS WHICH ARE DISAPPROVED OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). PC Report January 14, 2014 VAR 2013 -03 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission Adopt Resolution No. 4244, denying Variance 2013 -03 to allow a block wall taller than three (3) feet within the front yard setback of a single family residence located at 1151 Tiki Lane. APPROVAL AUTHORITY: Section 9292e of the Tustin City Code gives the Planning Commission the authority to evaluate and grant requests for variances. DISCUSSION: Site and Location The subject property is comprised of a 2,045 square -foot single family residence with an attached garage and located on a 7,841 square -foot lot within the Single Family Residential (R1) zoning district. The residence was built in 1963 and is part of a 34 -unit single family residential subdivision. The subdivision is located near Main Street and Bryan and accessed by Cindy Lane PC Report January 14, 2014 VAR 2013 -03 Page 3 Uses surrounding the subject property are single family residential to the southeast, southwest and northwest, and multiple - family residential to the northeast. The subdivision is designed with a loop circulation, with Cindy Lane being the only access into and out of the subdivision. The subject property is located on Tiki Lane, near the knuckle intersection of Elizabeth Way (Figure 2). 1151 Tiki Lane 13422 733j7 13391 13411 3 113431 a 13441 p6� O !O N �1 Figure 2 — io I m I m TIKI LANE 13422 13421 LETTY LANE N N N N N Background 13392 13401 13412 13411 13422 O 13421 13432 13441 1344 13452 J 13451 134, 13472 1 13471 BRYAN AVENUE Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9271(i)(1)(b) states that no fence or wall shall exceed three feet in height within the front yard setback area. The required front yard setback area within the Single Family Residential (R1) zoning district is twenty (20) feet measured from the property line (Table 1 of TCC Section 9220). On July 18, 2013, permit number B2013 -0223 was issued for the subject property to build a block wall that would be 1) 19.6 linear feet and five (5) feet eleven (11) inches high along a portion of the side property line and 2) forty -five (45) linear feet and five (5) feet six (6) inches high across the front yard area to the corner of the garage. The submitted and approved plans show that the proposed wall would be located twenty (20) feet eight (8) inches from the inside of the sidewalk, which is the property line, and that the sidewalk and street curved away from the residence (Figure 3). The wall was subsequently constructed but not as per plan and the five (5) foot six (6) inch wall encroaches into the required front yard setback by approximately twelve (12) feet. X3367 K _ X KAU N 1 }3T1 1 13371 r 13381 r372 13472 1 13471 BRYAN AVENUE Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9271(i)(1)(b) states that no fence or wall shall exceed three feet in height within the front yard setback area. The required front yard setback area within the Single Family Residential (R1) zoning district is twenty (20) feet measured from the property line (Table 1 of TCC Section 9220). On July 18, 2013, permit number B2013 -0223 was issued for the subject property to build a block wall that would be 1) 19.6 linear feet and five (5) feet eleven (11) inches high along a portion of the side property line and 2) forty -five (45) linear feet and five (5) feet six (6) inches high across the front yard area to the corner of the garage. The submitted and approved plans show that the proposed wall would be located twenty (20) feet eight (8) inches from the inside of the sidewalk, which is the property line, and that the sidewalk and street curved away from the residence (Figure 3). The wall was subsequently constructed but not as per plan and the five (5) foot six (6) inch wall encroaches into the required front yard setback by approximately twelve (12) feet. PC Report January 14, 2014 VAR 2013 -03 Page 4 uj /, n C'fJ I APPROVED COMI NTY MEWMEW DEPT JUL 19 7013 PV\NNING GIVI5147N ,j i 5 rlucr�� V, - I Figure 3 — Copy of Permit 82013 -0223 approved plan. On September 4, 2013, Code Enforcement staff inspected the subject property after receiving a complaint about a block wall being located within the front yard setback. A Code Enforcement inspection revealed that the wall was built about eight (8) feet from the inside of the sidewalk at the closest point. On September 19, 2013, the City sent the property owner a letter informing them of the code violation and the options available to them to remedy the violation. Figure 4 shows the subject property front yard setback area, identified in yellow, and the location of the existing block wall, identified in blue, illustrating the portions of the wall that are within the front yard setback. Figure 5 shows a series of photographs taken by Code Enforcement during its inspection that shows the existing wall, respective to the public sidewalk. The photos show the wall was constructed with a plaster coat and wrought iron details along the top. PC Report January 14, 2014 VAR 2013 -03 Page 5 Figure 5 — Code Enforcement Photographs PC Report January 14, 2014 VAR 2013 -03 Page 6 Application The property owner has submitted an application for a variance requesting to keep the existing non - permitted block wall. The application contained the following: • Copy of issued permit B2013 -0223 (Attachment C) • Written statement (Attachment D) • Photos of existing front yard walls within the subdivision (Attachment D) • Site Plan (Attachment E) • Six (6) signed statements of support (Attachment F) The applicant informed staff that the block wall was constructed to create more privacy for the residence and mitigate noise impacts resulting from the adjacent property. The site plan submitted with the variance application shows a site plan in the as -built condition (Figure 6). T Z r Vo. FECE�� DEc091pi3 Fxrsr;,,,/, aESres.cE un t�� Lti 1 X _ co uxmo °'�1A° -Y% 6/,1t v-d lxfC<c.� r8 I r N R hFy,. Nq Q -llx ct�!V SY L/Nf `r`, Lq R Figure 6— Site Plan PC Report January 14, 2014 VAR 2013 -03 Page 7 ANALYSIS: Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9271(i)(1)(b) states that no fence or wall shall exceed three feet in height within the twenty (20) foot front yard setback area in the R1 zoning district (Table 1 of TCC Section 9220). This requirement is applied uniformly throughout the R1 zoning district regardless of lot shape. Notwithstanding, staff believes the facts of the case do not support the findings for a variance, there are several purposes for restricting wall heights in traditional R1 Districts as follows: Purpose of Wall Height Restrictions in Front Yard Setback The maximum height requirement for walls within the front yard setback is meant to provide several benefits to the general welfare of the residents, public, neighborhood, and city as a whole including the following: • Public pedestrian and vehicular safety - Maintains line of sight: Walls taller than three (3) feet could block the line of sight for drivers leaving their driveway and create a safety hazard. Drivers may not be able to see pedestrians or other vehicles approaching, which could lead to an accident. Vehicles would also impede the pedestrian walkway and potentially the street while waiting for gates to open to access the property. Line of sight or visual clearance area in ensuring there are not impediments or obstacles are standard throughout the country. For passenger vehicles, it is assumed that the driver's eyesight is at 3.5 feet. Obstructions within a line of sight would impair the decision point for the driver if there is an oncoming pedestrian or car. With respect to the project site, the subject wall would block the line of sight for cars parked adjacent to the wall as shown on Figure 4. Further, the non - permitted wall would establish a standard for walls in front yard setbacks in R1 Districts that all other property owners do not enjoy. PC Report January 14, 2014 VAR 2013 -03 Page 8 The photos above show tall walls built within the front yard area, blocking visibility of the street from the driveway and creating a safety hazard. These photographs are not within the City of Tustin. • Public Safety /Emergency access: Taller walls and gates within the front yard area can also impede fire and police emergency services by adding another barrier that emergency service personnel must overcome. • Maintain consistent building lines — Single- family residential (R1) Districts have continuity of front yard open spaces. The neighborhoods have been designed to look and feel like a low density community, with front yards and homes setback from the street. Allowing walls taller than three (3) feet within the front yard setback would disrupt the visual character of R1 neighborhoods and create "hopscotch" settings in an otherwise orderly single family neighborhood. the street and the residence. This photograph is not within the City of Tustin. PC Report January 14, 2014 VAR 2013 -03 Page 9 Enhance aesthetics of single - family neighborhoods — Walls taller than three (3) feet within the front yard setback would change the character of the street and neighborhood in that instead of seeing homes along the street, drivers and pedestrians would see walls and fences. art of the street scape. These photos show hazard and "hopscotch" conditions. These photographs are not within the City of Tustin. PC Report January 14, 2014 VAR 2013 -03 Page 10 Variance Section 9292a (Basis for Granting Variances) of the Tustin City Code (TCC) specifies that applications for variances from the strict application of the terms of the Zoning Code may be made and granted when the following two (2) circumstances are found to apply: • Circumstance 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 enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. Applicant Justification: 'There are special circumstances applicable to the property at 1151 Tiki Lane, Tustin, CA 92780. The circumstances include the shape of the curvature of the sidewalk which curves inward toward the property. Several other properties on the Tract No. 4494 have the same curvature in the sidewalk that decreases the amount of space between the wall and the sidewalk. Each of these properties; lot #9, #6 #21, enjoy the privileges of having a wall on their property. (Please see the measurements of the wall and amount of footage between the walls and sidewalk, as well as the height." Staff Response: The existing neighborhood (Tract 4494) is characterized by single -story residences with two -car garages on minimum 8,400 square -foot lots. There are thirty -four (34) residences in the track, generally designed in an "L" shaped footprint with the garage located closer to the front property line than the rest of the house and all have similar site plan layouts. Lot Shape The applicant cited that the special circumstance applicable to the property is that the curvature of the front property line curves inward toward house because of the street and sidewalk knuckle configuration. The tract circulation is designed in a loop pattern with the sole access into and out of the subdivision via Cindy Lane. There are three (3) knuckle intersections within the subdivision and are located at Cindy Lane and Tiki Lane, Tiki Lane and Elizabeth Way, and Elizabeth Way and Lefty Lane. The knuckle intersections have been incorporated into the street design in order to provide adequate area for vehicles to negotiate the turns. Figure 7 highlights the properties within the tract that are located near street knuckle intersections and where the front property line tapers closer to the residence similar to the subject property. Within the subdivision, six (6) properties out of the thirty -four (34) are located at knuckle intersections and the front property line tapers in toward the residence similar to the subject property. PC Report January 14, 2014 VAR 2013 -03 Page 11 /45T /3 /2 Bo // 10 9 so- g /30' 41' Subject 2 v Property m: 23 24 q 25 a 26 a" 27 a9 0 o h M $ w 7 14 stn• .°. T /K/ LANE .°o yo• � w b q O '�, O O O Gp • �. /9.45' 6 1,8.92• 3 W 19 80' 30 40' 40' 33 O g /20' /zo • Q 3132 4 J S 16 „c.94• g 10 132 40' 40' 5 c Z O O 27 26 o la m m /20• 2B 29 g v 34 /1y' 31 Bo' 40' 40 2S "o 0 4 17 ad.ul 32.23• 60. A O O O O 0 17 A 32 Bo' 81, 3 T 3 w /B 18.43' N 19 51.77 N �LETTY LANE a 33 P. 0 R�,97' 3344' 80, Bo' 72' p = 2 Is s<fB NO. 4494 �' / Y n M `yy' m 14 13 v 12 II n r 34 0 co' e O m 24 "i• M19� 24BF' 2182' 145' 20 2/ Bo' 2Z n 23 Bo' 87.97' 56.75' Figure 7 —Tract Map Diagram of knuckle lots Outside of the subdivision, in other R1 zoning districts nearby, there are other properties that are similarly located near street knuckles and have front property lines that taper in toward the house. To provide context, Figure 8 shows the residential areas surrounding the subject property. Properties within the blue line are zoned R1. The properties highlighted in light purple are located at knuckle intersections and the diagram also shows that the front property lines tapers inward. In addition, similar situations occur in properties near cul -de -sacs where the street widens to accommodate the cul -de- sac bulb; these properties are highlighted in yellow in Figure 8. PC Report January 14, 2014 VAR 2013 -03 Page 12 Q R1 Zoning District Knuckle Lots Cul cle sac Lots Figure 8 — I=$ 6 uavt 1339, A�A� „�t�g�( MAKW4 L04 rJ ']Me 1313] %f ,T RM1 gg � Y 13]34 ,352 13321 • � , erne ..,. - a 1W LAIK _ a a Ian A loss '' W some tt 1071 ME .a IGWA Uu *- �+ n ,181 I]3e1 ,] 13342 1]71 ®logo � �MmI Q R1 Zoning District Knuckle Lots Cul cle sac Lots Figure 8 — I=$ 6 uavt 1339, A�A� „�t�g�( MAKW4 L04 rJ ']Me 1313] %f ,T RM1 gg � Y 13]34 ,352 13321 1318, a 1W LAIK _ a a Ian A 1]W W 'JAI, IGWA I V n ,181 I]3e1 ,] 13342 1]71 Nn ' tN,2 3M'16V31 1'ta a 0322 13 q IN21 131J1 O 115]1 INIt -' ° _ IFnY lAN1 133et INA INN Q R1 Zoning District Knuckle Lots Cul cle sac Lots Figure 8 — I=$ 6 uavt 1339, A�A� „�t�g�( MAKW4 L04 rJ ']Me 1313] %f ,T RM1 gg � Y 13]34 ,352 13321 ] nee Ian A W 'JAI, IGWA I V n ,181 I]3e1 ,] 13342 1]71 ' x]] 3M'16V31 1'ta a 1]]71 13371 F Li G Z Q. � 13'IT1 13m, 115]1 iv1n 1 71 133et 13]83 13]81 1]36] ,3311, 133111 13392 1]101 134@ ,3301 ,{ 13«1 Issas 13402 _ s ] 1vz I]N, a 'J'tl1 ' MMM 134,1 ]12]0 13312 1^ J 13421 ,N12 MW "M 9= 13331 11111 13322 ♦'�' ♦5 1]811 13411 1a10.15 1]111 13422 1]911 IN21 ,3]21 Jan 1`3611 1]621 lama 13u1 � 1]613 g g ICY 1341 t3H2 I� 1331 IN], 1X31 INS 1 134 1]6]1 13Wa 1]8]1.1! 5� 1]7]1 1361$ C iN]I 1332 �155 13631,33 S 1]342 1]941 W 133tl1S S 1]572 ] nee Ian A W x ] 1192 y? ,181 ] 1191 g�O 3 13 3M'16V31 1'ta a 13]21 11532 ly F Li G Z Q. � ] 1209 115]1 S -R' ] t2W 1151, - _ Issas A 3AM xmn' _ s ] 1vz I]N, �_ �_ ' ]12]0 131101 131101 11111 �� 1]612 ♦'�' ♦5 1]811 13411 1a10.15 1]111 1]912 1]911 IN21 ,3]21 Jan 1`3611 1]621 lama 1]121 1 %n 1]613 IN], 1X31 1]632 13831 1]6]2 1]6]1 13Wa 1]8]1.1! 5� 1]7]1 1361$ C 1.2 �155 13631,33 S 1]342 1]941 W 133tl1S S 1]572 1]0.41 M 117 1]671 11161 11181 Ib71 � � 1]772 b 1311 I.-. �'3 Z 14 �y ` ♦e'S IN9a 16 ], 1 1]79, q 13102 13 3 .=I-. 13]0, 1371, g 11112 R! ? 13712 k IN91 lam %6711 h similar shapes in surroundina areas Lot shapes vary from one location to the next, however configurations similar to the subject property occur throughout the surrounding area and the City and the lot shape is not unique to the subject property. In other words, the subject property's lot shape is not unique which creates a special circumstance and similar street configurations and similar lot shapes occur in other R1 zoning districts throughout the City. PC Report January 14, 2014 VAR 2013 -03 Page 13 Existing Walls within the Subdivision The applicant stated that three (3) other lots within the subdivision have walls within the front yard setback and submitted a diagram and photos of the walls. No building permits were issued approving the construction of these walls in excess of three (3) feet within the required front yard. At this point, existing walls within the front yard setback were not permitted and /or not constructed per plan; therefore, the subject property is not being deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties that were legally established. In the alternative, this property is enjoying privileges that are not legally permitted or attainable by other property owners in the R1 District. • Circumstance 2: That any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege PC Report January 14, 2014 VAR 2013 -03 Page 14 inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. Applicant Justification: "A variance in the minor adjustment, would not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. Three (3) other properties in the general vicinity, all within a couple hundred feet of 1151 Tiki Lane have the same curvature in the sidewalk. Each of these properties has constructed the same type of block wall which has added to enhance the beauty and value to the neighborhood in tract No. 4494, and has further added an element of privacy between the neighbors." Staff Response: The applicant has identified other properties within the subdivision tract that have walls within the front yard setback and are located near the knuckle intersections. As previously stated, no legal building permits have been established for walls exceeding three (3) feet within the front yard setback. The granting of the requested variance would constitute a grant of a special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties, since other properties in the R1 zoning district are not allowed walls taller than three (3) feet within the front yard setback. The approval of the requested variance would set precedence for the R1 zoning district because the circumstances of the property are common throughout the R1 zone; therefore, the issue becomes no longer a question about a variance, but rethinking the fence height restriction on a citywide basis. In addition, the granting of the Variance would defeat the fundamental purposes of this provision thereby impacting life and safety responses; line of sights, aesthetics, consistency of building lines, orderly development, etc. Should this be a desired outcome, an impact analysis city -wide would be appropriate rather than one property determining a standard that may not be acceptable from an aesthetic or safety perspective. Submitted Statements The applicant has submitted a total of six (6) signed statements in support of the existing wall at the subject property (Attachment E). In general, the statement indicated that the wall adds to the beauty of the neighborhood and is consistent with several of the other walls constructed in the neighborhood. They believe that the wall should not have to be torn down and should be left as is. Even though some residents have expressed support for the variance request, consideration of the variance should be based on whether there is a special circumstance applicable to the property and whether the granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special circumstances not provided to others. Therefore, careful consideration should be taken since the implication resulting from the grating of the Variance would apply to all properties within R -1 District throughout the City. PC Report January 14, 2014 VAR 2013 -03 Page 15 In addition, the applicants submitted a written statement explaining how much has been invested into the existing wall. Consideration of any project or request must be neutral to the project cost and be reviewed based on the merits of the variance findings alone. FINDINGS: In determining whether to approve Variance 2013 -03 allowing an existing six (6) foot high wall within the front yard setback to remain, the Planning Commission must determine whether or not the proposed use is in accordance with California Government Code Section 65906 and Tustin City Code Section 9292. The granting of Variance 2013 -03 would constitute the granting of a special privilege not afforded to other properties in the vicinity and identical zoning district of the subject property and no special circumstances existing on the subject property that deprive it of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. A decision to deny this request may be supported by the following findings: 1) The subject property does not have special circumstance due to the front property line curving inward towards the residence in that numerous other properties have this curvature and is therefore not a unique lot shape. Allowance of a wall taller than three (3) feet within the front yard setback would be granting a special privilege not afforded to other properties with identical zoning districts. The existing neighborhood (Tract 4494) is characterized by single -story residences with two -car garages on minimum 8,400 square -foot lots. There are thirty -four (34) residences in the track, generally designed in an "L" shaped footprint with the garage located closer to the front property line than the rest of the house and all have similar site plan layouts. The tract circulation is designed in a loop pattern with the sole access into and out of the subdivision via Cindy Lane. There are three (3) knuckle intersections within the subdivision and are located at Cindy Lane and Tiki Lane, Tiki Lane and Elizabeth Way, and Elizabeth Way and Lefty Lane. The knuckle intersections have been incorporated into the street design in order to provide adequate area for vehicles to negotiate the turns. Within the tract, there are other properties located near street knuckle intersections and where the front property line tapers closer to the residence similar to the subject property. Within the tract, six (6) properties out of the thirty - four (34) are located at knuckle intersections and the front property line tapers in toward the residence similar to the subject property. Outside of the subdivision, in other R1 zoning districts, there are other properties that are similarly located near street knuckles and have front property lines that taper in toward the house. 2) That other properties within the subdivision with existing walls taller than three (3) feet within the front yard setback do not have approved permits for said walls and PC Report January 14, 2014 VAR 2013 -03 Page 16 therefore have not been allowed the privilege of constructing and maintaining said walls within the front yard setback. The subject property in its "non - permitted as- built' condition is enjoying privileges that are not legally permitted or attainable by other property owners within the R1 District. Therefore, the granting of the requested variance would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and identical zoning district. 3) That approval of the requested variance would set precedence for the R1 zoning district because the circumstances of the property are common throughout the R1 zone; therefore, the issue becomes no longer a question about a variance, but rethinking the fence height restriction on a citywide basis. In addition, the granting of the Variance would defeat the fundamental purposes of this provision thereby impacting life and safety responses; line of sights, aesthetics, consistency of building lines, orderly development, etc. Should this be a desired outcome, an impact analysis city -wide would be appropriate rather than one property determining a standard that may not be acceptable from an aesthetic or safety perspective. 4) That taller walls within the front yard setback would defeat the fundamental purposes of the code provision thereby impacting life and safety responses; line of sights, aesthetics, consistency of building lines, and orderly development, as follows: a. Walls taller than three (3) feet could block the line of sight for drivers leaving their driveway and create a safety hazard. Drivers may not be able to see pedestrians or other vehicles approaching, which could lead to an accident. Vehicles would also impede pedestrian walkway and potentially the street while waiting for gates to open to access the property. Line of sight or visual clearance area in ensuring there are not impediments or obstacles are standard throughout the country. For passenger vehicles, it is assumed that the driver's eyesight is at 3.5 feet. Obstructions within a line of sight would impair the decision point for the driver if there is an oncoming pedestrian or car. b. Taller walls and gates within the front yard area can also impede fire and police emergency services by adding another barrier that emergency service personnel must overcome. c. Single- family residential (R1) Districts have continuity of front yard open spaces. The neighborhoods have been designed to look and feel like a low density community, with front yards and homes setback from the street. Allowing walls taller than three (3) feet within the front yard setback would disrupt the visual character of R1 neighborhoods and create "hopscotch" settings in an otherwise orderly single family neighborhood. d. Walls taller than three (3) feet within the front yard setback would change the character of the street and neighborhood in that instead of seeing PC Report January 14, 2014 VAR 2013 -03 Page 17 homes along the street, drivers and pedestrians would see walls and fences. melynne V. Hutter Senior Planner Attachments: A. Location Map B. Land Use Fact Sheet C. Copy of Permit B2013 -0223 D. Variance Application E. Submitted Plans F,-t /iZ z- Elizabeth A. Binsack ` Community Development Director F. Submitted Signatures of Support G. Resolution No. 4244 ATTACHMENT A LOCATION MAP LOCATION MAP VAR 2013 -03 1151 TIKI LANE 1151 �' )g 1145 1155 11351141 11. 1139 11171127 1115 1121 1101 )2 � 1105 3,� PROJECT SITE 12 1223 110 1225 138 , ' 300' ^ ^ 117e 1204 ST i3� 1198 1214 ,3 ) 1218 ^ 0 ^ 0^ ^ ^ ' , 1182 1 ^ 13481 47 1 m^ 13322 a E m 1152( ^gyp^ Al )'2 `' ,3 • ^pp.. - 1162 Al ?a- ATTACHMENT B LAND USE FACT SHEET LAND USE APPLICATION FACT SHEET 1. LAND USE APPLICATION NUMBER(S): VARIANCE 2013 -03 2. LOCATION: TIKI LANE AND ELIZABETH WAY 3. ADDRESS: 1151 TIKI LANE 4. APN(S):500- 131 -23 5. PREVIOUS OR CONCURRENT APPLICATION RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY: NONE 6. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: RESIDENTIAL EAST: RESIDENTIAL WEST: RESIDENTIAL 7. SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATION: NORTH: PD SOUTH: R1 EAST: R1 WEST: R1 8. SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: NORTH: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 9. SITE LAND USE: A. EXISTING: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B. PROPOSED: SAME C. GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL D. ZONING: R -1 PROPOSED GP: SAME PROPOSED ZONING: SAME DEVELOPMENT FACTS: 10. LOT AREA: 7 841 S.F. 0.18 ACRES 11. BUILDING LOT COVERAGE: 40% MAX. PERMITTED NO CHANGE PROPOSED 13. PARKING: 2 CAR GARAGE REQUIRED NO CHANGE PROPOSED 14. BUILDING HEIGHT: 30 FEET MAX PERMITTED NO CHANGE PROPOSED 15. BUILDING SETBACKS: REQUIRED PROPOSED FRONT: 20 FEET NO CHANGE SIDE: 5 FEET NO CHANGE REAR: 5 FEET NO CHANGE 16. WALL SETBACKS REQUIRED PROPOSED FRONT: 20 FEET 8 FEET E XISTING Im SIDE: 0 FEET 0 FEET EXISTING REAR: 0 FEET NO CHANGE ATTACHMENT C C �i7 • CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department —Building Division 300 Centennial Way, Tustin CA 92780 Building Counter (714) 573 -3131 — Inspection Recorder (714) 573 -3141 BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER: B2013 -0223 ADDRESS: 1151 TIKI LN TUST SUITE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 500 - 131 -23 SUITE NUMBER...: LOT NUMBER .. ..............................: TRACT NUMBER.: DEVELOPMENT AREA ................: TUSTIN ISSUED BY.............: DATE ISSUED.......: 07/18/2013 PROPERTY OWNER .....................: DENNY MICHELE A TRUST PT 171 N CHURCH LN 4303 LOS ANGELES CA 90049 -2073 ARCHITECT JESUS SANDOVAL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION CO 308 AVENIDA GRANADA 4A SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672 (949) 361 -9607 JOB DESCRIPTION: 19.6 LF 5'11" BLOCK WALL AND 45 LF 516" BLOCK WALL O.C.F.A. Number..... OCCUPANT LOAD: 0 OCCUPANCY GROUP: FEE SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION TYPE.: PLAN CHECK RESIDENTIAL SQ.FT: 0 COMMERCIAL SQ FT: 0 INDUSTRIAL SQ FT: 0 GARAGE SQ FT: 0 OFFICE SQ FT: 0 WAREHOUSE SQ FT: 0 ROOF SQ FT: 0 TENANT IMPR. SQ FT: 0 OTHER SQ. FT: 0 NUMBER OF UNITS: 1 NUMBER OF STORIES: 0 CBC EDITION: 2010 SMIP FEE: NUMBER OF SEATS: 0 VALUATION...: SO.00 BUILDER VALUATION: SO.00 LICENSED CONTRACTOR DECLARATION: I hereby affirm that I sm a licensed Contractor under the provisions of chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business & Professions Code, and my license LICENSE NUMBER: 877708 LICENSE CLASS: C8 Expires DATE:0513I/3014 OWNER BUILDER DECLARATION: I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason (Section 703 1.5, Business Professions Code: Any City or county which requires a perm structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to Ole a signed statement that he or she is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License V 3 of the Business & Professions code] or that he or she Is exempt therefrom and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit si hundred dollars (5500.00). 1 as owner of the property, or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered far sale (Section 7044, Busi not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or herself or through his or her own employees, provided that such improvemeni building or improvement is said within one year of completion, the owner - builder will have the burden of proving that he or she did not build or Improve for purposes of sale). _- I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Section 7044, Business & Professions Cade: The Contractor's Lim, or Improves thereon, and who contacts for such projects with a contractor(s) license pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). _- I am exempt under Section , Business & Professions Code for the fallowing reason(s). Owner Signature: Date, WORKERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the fallowing declarations: _ I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for Worker's Compensation, as provided for by Section 3700 ofthe Labor Code, fat the performance of the wt; 1 have and will maintain Worker's Compensation insurance, as required by Section 3700 of the labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this Permit is issued. Number are: POLICY NUMBER: COMPANY EXEMPT (this section need not be completed if the permit is for one hundred dollars (SIDO) or less), I certify that in the performance of the work for which this vomit is issued, I shall not emolov ame person in env manner so as to become suhiect to the Warku's Cnmmmol FEE SUMMARY PLAN CHECK $0.00 BUILDING PERMIT: 535.00 PLN INSP.: 50.00 MECH PERMIT: $0.00 PLUMBING PERMIT: 50.00 ELEC PERMIT: 50.00 SIGN PERMIT: SO.00 GRADING PERMIT: $O.DO PRIVATE IMPR: 50.00 NEW DEV. TAX: 50.00 TSIP ZONE A FEE: $0.00 TSIP ZONE B FEE: 50.00 SMIP FEE: 50.50 MICROFILM FEE: 53.00 OCFA FEE: 50.00 PENALTY FEE.: 50.00 REFUNDABLE BOND: $0.00 MISCELLANEOUS: 50.00 PLN REVIEW: SO.00 TOTAL FEES: 538.50 LICENSED CONTRACTOR DECLARATION: I hereby affirm that I sm a licensed Contractor under the provisions of chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business & Professions Code, and my license LICENSE NUMBER: 877708 LICENSE CLASS: C8 Expires DATE:0513I/3014 OWNER BUILDER DECLARATION: I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason (Section 703 1.5, Business Professions Code: Any City or county which requires a perm structure, prior to its issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to Ole a signed statement that he or she is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License V 3 of the Business & Professions code] or that he or she Is exempt therefrom and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit si hundred dollars (5500.00). 1 as owner of the property, or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered far sale (Section 7044, Busi not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or herself or through his or her own employees, provided that such improvemeni building or improvement is said within one year of completion, the owner - builder will have the burden of proving that he or she did not build or Improve for purposes of sale). _- I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Section 7044, Business & Professions Cade: The Contractor's Lim, or Improves thereon, and who contacts for such projects with a contractor(s) license pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). _- I am exempt under Section , Business & Professions Code for the fallowing reason(s). Owner Signature: Date, WORKERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the fallowing declarations: _ I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for Worker's Compensation, as provided for by Section 3700 ofthe Labor Code, fat the performance of the wt; 1 have and will maintain Worker's Compensation insurance, as required by Section 3700 of the labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this Permit is issued. Number are: POLICY NUMBER: COMPANY EXEMPT (this section need not be completed if the permit is for one hundred dollars (SIDO) or less), I certify that in the performance of the work for which this vomit is issued, I shall not emolov ame person in env manner so as to become suhiect to the Warku's Cnmmmol es °• n � c� nree 1151 Tiki Lane Twini -611 °9278.0 714915.1.078• ' °• •• To Whom it may concern; This letter is to serve as permission for Contractor Jesus Sandoval to build walls on myproperty.� 6feet high on the north side, and 5 feet high facing toward the southwest. These two walls are to be built on my side of the property line. Andrew T. Denny PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF TUSTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 7141573.3131or7141573J132 FAX:7141573.3129 POD Signature. Imcle nnel PLAN CHECKER+SIgnature: (dRt..na) ❑ OK for Issuance/Submlttal ❑ OK for IssuanWSubmlttal PLAN CHECK # _ l� Lo )-�•')11:-5 "'Plan Check will ewire In 360 days from subml0al date +t PROJECT ADDRESS h `i , L I Lzi & VALUATION OF PROJECT $ 7. SGd . G **DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE APPLICANT (contact) NAME: PROPER TY ER (requlred I am the: Phone No /Q Name rj/�rf (J eP7/I wn ❑ Property Oer ❑ Ar tea X'Contreaor e O Engineer i 1 (/ /-l/1 c- Address Z -/ / T Employee of the ❑Owner ❑ Conheaor (wnnaea,orua.ser'rewy..aegi✓mp ` Phone Number (2 /If 9/5-- Email Address @ CONTRACTOR: Co. Name JCiul ) 4i/ dds '4�CD�7l�� /��,P��, 308�G}lrPGr6,r�q City " "%4ddress / State License # % (J Class C_3 Exp. y n T State /Zip �, 7767 � Phone •.5118- CONTRACTOR: ❑ YES ❑ NO Email Address @ ARCHITECT: Co. Name Address City State License # Class Exp, State/Zip Phone # Email Address @ ENGINEER: Co. Name Address City State Registration # Class Exp. State/Zlpy Phone # _ Email Address @ :Fdn .. %t!J •Okn'.'I.k'4 / 'ry bl - :f.R "i`[: Room addition /Alteration sq. R.. �j Linear feet of block wall (x) max. 6' -8" high '0 r "6 Garage Linear feet of retaining wall (x) max. 6' -8" high light -frame sq. ft. Linear feet of wood fence (x) max. 6' -8" high masonry sq. ft. .tr":'..r -T .4%b 'f `•y,< 1.v: '- .p }Ai. S.aP :r3e,-,yJ }; Proposed Roofing Material Patio enclosure sq. ft, ICC ER# of roofing Patio cover sq. ft. Roof area sq. ft. Pool & Spa sq. ft. if Zahn or owr per rq. R., plem proWde rrMdural ana4o* by a mgldered engine. Sign sq. ft. Demolition sq. ft. Skylight sq. ft. Fire sprinklers AFRILIWNIMN New Building Area sq. ft. Grading area sq. ft. Tenant Improvement sq. ft. Occupancy Class Construction Type Far all waste coliectlnn bins or roll on haste, it Is mandatory to use CR &R Inc. City's franchise waste hauler. (rmtin City Code Section 4321 - Ord. No. 1325) APPLICANT SIGNATURE' J /J� i�0 i .�„ „v+a� DATE: 17 N O 2 0 F s O n era ell APPROVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT JUL 18 2013 SY: to fin+ o � 5,� Effiff e aa►4121 a1; VARIANCE APPLICATION TI i C ^I-' r Community Development Department • 300 Centennial Way • Tustin, CA 92780 V J L L V Phone • 714.573.3140 • www.tustinca.org Development Application Form Illtltiai BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PASI Project Description S / 5 f ICCO V GIOCK LvA t.L Assessor's Parcel Number qeo — I ?, I — Z3 Project Address_I(51 TIKj I_N ••VJ -r1iJ I CA . gzTbO Zoning District QE 52 Dr- N"riAL PresentUseofProperty 2F5JnCriCI5 Proposed Use of Property Existing Entitlement Affecting the Property Lot Size 813 fq Pi' AftcA Building Size: Existing: Property Owner Information Name MICHELE oVtviv Company Proposed: Address I I SI Tl Li WJ City, State, ZIP M16-11i), GA • e1%}fO Phone: Cell Phone: 11`.9) 3Z -liviq Fax: 11`) 54q- 010 E -mail: M(Ckeledf ^&A Q air wd •+ Applicant Information (if different) Name /.}v,alrCW arjng1 Company Address 1151 1-Mi Ld City, State, ZIP 1 -w5Itd 1 GA C1I It SO Phone: Cell Phone: '71y) Fax: ye- II.9'j E -mail: �LutN"IC{vfn.JpA✓t- dut,•w T T- Name��-. Company_ Address City, State, ZIP Phone: Fax: Office Use Only Project No. U U(3'' CA CER CUP OR GPA LFD MA SCE TPM TTM VAR gE�� ZC Other Preliminary Review Environmental: Exempt ❑ Initial Study ❑ Neg Dec ❑ EIR Date Received D 17 1 3 Received by rr� Fees Paid_ Receipt # Itemize OCFA SR# Designation of Person(s) to whom notices should be sent pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures Section 1094.6 �t Name rQ h.(r,G«) 7 ....r1 -+ -iNW-d�� Address 1151 JJK( 1/M City,State,ZIP - rV4,fl J , CA • 11"a E -mail: Av%"dJW9 riwA�L, .('j Name v" Id de Qey ,q Address 11151 T(W- 1 L d City, State, ZIP T-��`,r, Ch t ^ E -mail: /,�G.vy G lMl /.I.i,�G ry alW-& it- v Legal Description of Property (Attach a separate sheet if necessary) Tvit(A Va - LFy-q L ok 19 6(� r a+ Jvyj -tom I' wvGGI # 5-0- l � I - Z; -- Supplemental Application Form Attached (Check if applicable) 4Varlance /Minor Adjustment • Sign Code Exception • Alcoholic Beverage Sales Establishment ❑ Shopping Cart Containment Program Signatures and Acknowledgements I hereby certify that I am the owner of the real property described in this application. I hereby acknowledge that this application may not be considered complete until 1 am notified by the Community Development Department consistent with State law. I hereby certify that all of the information contained in this application, including all required plans, supplemental application forms, and other submission materials as specified in the informational handout provided to me by the Community Development Department has been submitted, and the information is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correctly represented. Should any or all of the information submitted be false or incorrect, I hereby agree to defend, indemnify, and hold the City of Tustin harmless from liability and loss by reason of its reliance on any such information. I hereby grant the City the authority to place a public hearing notice on the subject property if a public hearing is required. Properly Ownry s Notarized Si na a Print Name— Date / Applicant's Notarized Signature Print Name Date If the signature is by an agent, notarized, written authorization from the land owner must be attached to this application. The land owner's and /or agent's signatures on the written authorization also must be notarized. 43RNIICATT ATTACHED FOR CWODWA NOTARY WORDING Special Circumstances There are special circumstances applicable to the property 1151 Tiki Lane Tustin, CA 92780. The circumstances include the shape of the curvature of the sidewalk which curves inward toward the property. Several other properties on the Tract No. 4494 have the same curvature in the sidewalk that decreases the amount of space between the wall and the sidewalk. Each of the three properties; lot #9, #6, #21, enjoy the privileges of having a wall on their property. (Please see the measurements of the wall and amount of footage between the walls and sidewalk, as well as the height (Exhibit A) Special Privileges A variance in the minor adjustment, would not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. 3 other properties in the general vicinity, all within a couple hundred feet of 1151 Tiki lane have the same curvature in the sidewalk. Each of these properties have constructed the same type of block wall which has added to enhance the beauty and value to the neighborhood in tract No. 4494, and has further added an element of privacy between the neighbors. RECEIVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEC 0 9 2013 DECEMBER 09, 2013 DEAR SIRS. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY: IN JULY OF 2013 1 DECIDED TO CONSTRUCTA WALL IN THE FRONT YARD OF MY PROPERTY AT 1151 TIKI LANE IN TUSTIN. I TOOK MY PLANS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND IT WAS DETERMINED THEN THAT THIS COULD BE DONE ACCORDING TO PROPER CODE. TWO CONTRACTORS ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS WERE INFORMED THAT THE CITY CODE WAS 20 FEET FROM THE WALL TO CURBSIDE. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THREE OTHER PROPERTIES WITHIN THIS TRACT #4944. LOT #9, LOT #6 AND LOT #21. MY LOT IS #12. WE CONCIENSTIOUSLY MADE AN EFFORT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERY OTHER NEIGHBOR WHO BUILT SIMILAR WALL IN OUR TRACT. THUS WHEN OUR PLANS WERE STAMPED AND APPROVED BY EDMELYNNE V. NUTTER, SENIOR PLANNER, WE HAD NO REASON TO DOUBT OUR COMPLIANCE WITH CITY CODE. I BEGAN CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL WITHIN A FEW DAYS OF THE STAMPED APPROVAL FROM THE CITY. THE WALL WAS COMPLETED WITH IN THREE WEEKS AND AT A COST TO ME OF $30,000,00. DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL I RECEIVED NO NON CONFORMANCE NOTIFICATION FROM THE CITY. SHORTLY UPON COMPLETION OF THE WALL I RECEIVED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION /PRE - CITATION NOTICE DATED SEPTEMBER 19, 2013. 1 WAS DIRECTED TO (1) REMOVE THE WALL, (2) REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL OR (3) RETAIN A NEW PERMIT TO RE- DESIGN THE FRONT YARD WALL ACCORDING TO CITY CODE. I WAS TOLD TO RE SUBMIT MY PLANS, SUBMIT FORMS AND FEES TOTALING APPROXIMATELY $800.00 WHICH I DID. IN ADDITION, I CONTACTED SEVEN NEIGHBORS WITHIN 300 FEET TO SIGN AN APPROVAL OR NON APPROVAL OF THE WALL. ALL SEVEN APPROVED. THIS IS ALL IN THE FILE ON THIS MATTER. IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS OF MY NEIGHBORS THAT MY WALL IS A POSITIVE ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT HAS GIVEN ME THE PRIVACY I DESIRE AND IT HAS ABATED A NOISE PROBLEM FROM MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. ALL IN ALL IT HAS HAD A POSITIVE EFFECT FOR ALL CONCERNED. IT WAS AN EXTREMELY COSTLY UNDERTAKING AND TO ALTER IT IN ANY WAY WOULD ADD AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN OF COST TO ME. AT THIS TIME I CANNOT AFFORD THAT BURDEN AND I LIKE MY WALL. BASED ON THE OTHER THREE HOMES WITH SIMILAR WALLS AND MEASUREMENTS A PRECEDENCE HAS BEEN SET IN THIS TRACT. IT SEEMS ONLY FAIR THAT I NOT BE TARGETED TO ALTER OR REMOVE MY WALL WHEN MY NEIGHBORS HAVE HAD THEIR WALLS STANDING FOR SEVERAL YEARS WITHOUT VIOLATION NOTICES FROM THE CITY. EITHER EVERYBODY KEEPS THEIR WALLS AS IS ,OR WE ALL HAVE TO ALTER OR REMOVE OUR WALLS. THAT SEEMS EXTREME AND CONTRADICTORY TO HOW THE CITY SHOULD SERVE ITS CITIZENS. WOULDN'T YOU AGREE? I AM 71 YEARS OLD AND I AM ON A FIXED INCOME. I HAVE OWNED THIS HOUSE FOR OVER 41 YEARS AND I HAVE NEVER LET IT RUN DOWN, INDEED, I HAVE DONE SEVERAL REMODELS AND LANDSCAPING UPDATES THROUGHOUT THE YEARS IN AN EFFOR TO KEEP THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKING BEAUTIFUL. I WISH TO KEEP MY WALLAS IS. I CANNOTAFFORD TO REBUILD OR ALTER THIS WALL. I ASK YOU TO PLEASE RULE IN MY FAVOR AND ALLOW MY WALL TO STAND AS IS. MICHELE DENNY .221111L q�t CIN Z '2/Y-74 y 77/,,/ s. This is not a survey of the land but is compiled for Information by the ch Title Insurance and Trust Company from dafa shown by the official records. 12- j Ai Tw rY of, it i �Mmj r' try 'AIN, r. 11 41, J�S 1 �•vy r 4 v �k i 1 z r• 5 � '. r ,f' 1 � c � JJ yy4 4 P +Y� �r r <- f p th{ C', ' r 4L ATTACHMENT E SUBMITTED PLANS �- N VZ VV V L � a W v a M W O1 W V. 111 ® (� W F iTC�fWce�i ��xi' S,R/wcle G 1-OW // GN,j rrom W ck 'Jvdl L L -'V ::vv6,side �I r u e e da►Tll: 1011 a9 SUBMITTED SIGNATURES OF SUPPORT Residence: 1151 Tiki Lane Tustin, CA 92780 Tract # 4944, lot # 12 Parcel #500 - 131 -23 I live within 300 feet of the newly constructed wall at 1151 Tiki Lane Tustin, and I believe the wall adds to the beauty of the neighborhood and is consistent with several of the other walls constructed in the neighborhood (lot #8, lot #6, and lot #21) and I believe the wall should not have to be torn out, and should be left as is. Address ) 1 ! i K i L n-) % c -r S i iti Phone 7JY- or, I believe the wall is a hinderance to the neighborhood and should be torn out. Phone Sign Residence: 1151 Tiki Lane Tustin, CA 92780 Tract # 4944, lot # 12 Parcel # 500 - 131 -23 I live within 300 feet of the newly constructed wall at 1151 TIM Lane Tustin, and I believe the wall adds to the beauty of the neighborhood and is consistent with several of the other walls constructed in the neighborhood (lot #8, lot #6, and lot #21) and I believe the wall should not have to be torn out, and should be left as is. or, I believe the wall is a hinderance to the neighborhood and should be torn out. n.. M Residence: 1151 Tiki Lane Tustin, CA 92780 Tract # 4944, lot # 12 Parcel # 500 - 131 -23 I live within 300 feet of the newly constructed wall at 1151 Tiki Lane Tustin, and I believe the wall adds to the beauty of the neighborhood and is consistent with several of the other walls constructed in the neighborhood (lot #8, lot #6, and lot #21) and I believe the wall should not have to be torn out, and should be left as is. A)DL E/ ..Z.r�rGll Address /3Y22 v�2,OG��/ Phone —)N y20 O (,�% Sign or, I believe the wall is a hinderance to the neighborhood and should be torn out. Signature Residence: 1151 Tiki Lane Tustin, CA 92780 Tract # 4944, lot # 12 Parcel # 500 - 131 -23 I live within 300 feet of the newly constructed wall at 1151 Tiki Lane Tustin, and I believe the wall adds to the beauty of the neighborhood and is consistent with several of the other walls constructed in the neighborhood (lot #8, lot #6, and lot #21) and I believe the wall should not have to be torn out, and should be left as is. r- Sig C qLI -9� or, I believe the wall is a hinderance to the neighborhood and should be torn out. . Sig Residence: 1151 Tiki Lane Tustin, CA 92780 Tract # 4944, lot # 12 Parcel # 500 - 131 -23 I live within 300 feet of the newly constructed wall at 1151 Tiki Lane Tustin, and I believe the wall adds to the beauty of the neighborhood and is consistent with several of the other walls constructed in the neighborhood (lot #8, lot #6, and lot #21) and I believe the wall should not have to be torn out, and should be left as is. CH�I- Phone 7 I Lf S5' Z `F - e57 7 3 or, I believe the wall is a hinderance to the neighborhood and should be torn out. i Signatu Residence: 1151 Tiki Lane Tustin, CA 92780 Tract # 4944, lot # 12 Parcel # 500 - 131 -23 I live within 300 feet of the newly constructed wall at 1151 TIM Lane Tustin, and I believe the wall adds to the beauty of the neighborhood and is consistent with several of the other walls constructed in the neighborhood (lot #8, lot #6, and lot #21) and I believe the wall should not have to be torn out, and should be left as is. Sign or, I believe the wall is a hinderance to the neighborhood and should be torn out. Sign ATTACHMENT G PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4244 RESOLUTION NO. 4244 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING VARIANCE 2013 -03, A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO KEEP AN EXISTING UN- PERMITTED FIVE (5) FOOT SIX (6) INCH TO SIX (6) FOOT HIGH WALL WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK WHERE ONLY WALLS THREE (3) FEET IN HEIGHT OR LESS ARE ALLOWED, ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1151 TIKI LANE. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That on July 18, 2013, permit number B2013 -0223 was issued for the subject property to build a block wall that would be 1) 19.6 linear feet and five (5) feet eleven (11) inches high along a portion of the side property line and 2) forty -five (45) linear feet and five (5) feet six (6) inches high across the front yard area to the corner of the garage. B. That the submitted and approved plans show that the proposed wall would be located twenty (20) feet eight (8) inches from the inside of the sidewalk, which is the property line, and that the sidewalk and street curved away from the residence. The wall was subsequently constructed but not as per plan and the five (5) foot six (6) inch wall encroaches into the required front yard setback by approximately twelve (12) feet. C. That a proper application for Variance 2013 -03 was filed by Andrew Denny, applicant, and Michele Denny, applicant and property owner, a request for a variance to keep an existing un- permitted five (5) foot six (6) inch to six (6) foot tall block wall, located at 1151 Tiki Lane, within the required front yard setback where only walls three (3) feet in height or less are allowed. D. That the subject property is designated as Single Family Residential (R1) on the City of Tustin Zoning Map. E. That Table 1 of TCC Section 9220 states that the front yard setback for properties designated as R1 is twenty (20) feet. F. That Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9271(i)(1)(b) states that no fence or wall shall exceed three feet within the front yard setback area. Resolution No. 4244 January 14, 2014 Page 2 G. That the fundamental purposes of the provision to not allow fences within the front yard setback area include, but not limited to: providing adequate line of sight to allow vehicles and pedestrians to access to and from properties; allowing police and fire emergency access without additional barrier; maintaining consistent building lines within residential neighborhoods; maintaining the aesthetics of single family neighborhoods; and maintain orderly development of single family homes, etc. H. That the applicants indicated that the shape of the curvature of the sidewalk, which curves inward toward the property is a special circumstance applicable to the property and that other properties within the general vicinity have constructed the same type of block wall. I. That a public meeting was duly called, noticed, and held for said application on January 14, 2014, by the Planning Commission. J. That the granting of Variance 2013 -03 would constitute the granting of a special privilege not afforded to other properties in the vicinity and identical zoning district of the subject property and no special circumstances existing on the subject property that deprive it of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. A decision to deny this request is supported by the following findings: 1) The subject property does not have special circumstance due to the front property line curving inward towards the residence in that numerous other properties have this curvature and is therefore not a unique lot shape. Allowance of a wall taller than three (3) feet within the front yard setback would be granting a special privilege not afforded to other properties with identical zoning districts. The existing neighborhood (Tract 4494) is characterized by single - story residences with two -car garages on minimum 8,400 square -foot lots. There are thirty -four (34) residences in the track, generally designed in an "L" shaped footprint with the garage located closer to the front property line than the rest of the house and all have similar site plan layouts. The tract circulation is designed in a loop pattern with the sole access into and out of the subdivision via Cindy Lane. There are three (3) knuckle intersections within the subdivision and are located at Cindy Lane and Tiki Lane, Tiki Lane and Elizabeth Way, and Elizabeth Way and Lefty Lane. The knuckle intersections have been incorporated into Resolution No. 4244 January 14, 2014 Page 3 the street design in order to provide adequate area for vehicles to negotiate the turns. Within the tract, there are other properties located near street knuckle intersections and where the front property line tapers closer to the residence similar to the subject property. Within the tract, six (6) properties out of the thirty -four (34) are located at knuckle intersections and the front property line tapers in toward the residence similar to the subject property. Outside of the subdivision, in other R1 zoning districts, there are other properties that are similarly located near street knuckles and have front property lines that taper in toward the house. 2) That other properties within the subdivision with existing walls taller than three (3) feet within the front yard setback do not have approved permits for said walls and therefore have not been allowed the privilege of constructing and maintaining said walls within the front yard setback. The subject property in its "non- permitted as- built' condition is enjoying privileges that are not legally permitted or attainable by other property owners within the R1 District. Therefore, the granting of the requested variance would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and identical zoning district. 3) That approval of the requested variance would set precedence for the R1 zoning district because the circumstances of the property are common throughout the R1 zone; therefore, the issue becomes no longer a question about a variance, but rethinking the fence height restriction on a citywide basis. In addition, the granting of the Variance would defeat the fundamental purposes of this provision thereby impacting life and safety responses; line of sights; aesthetics; consistency of building lines; orderly development, etc. Should this be a desired outcome, an impact analysis city -wide would be appropriate rather than one property determining a standard that may not be acceptable from an aesthetic or safety perspective. 4) That taller walls within the front yard setback would defeat the fundamental purposes of the code provision thereby impacting life and safety responses; line of sights, aesthetics, consistency of building lines, and orderly development, as follows: a. Walls taller than three (3) feet could block the line of sight for drivers leaving their driveway and create a safety hazard. Drivers may not be able to see pedestrians or other vehicles approaching, which could lead to an accident. Vehicles would also impede pedestrian walkway and potentially the street while waiting for gates to open to access the property. Line of sight or visual Resolution No. 4244 January 14, 2014 Page 4 clearance area in ensuring there are not impediments or obstacles are standard throughout the country. For passenger vehicles, it is assumed that the driver's eyesight is at 3.5 feet. Obstructions within a line of sight would impair the decision point for the driver if there is an oncoming pedestrian or car. b. Taller walls and gates within the front yard area can also impede fire and police emergency services by adding another barrier that emergency service personnel must overcome. c. Single- family residential (R1) Districts have continuity of front yard open spaces. The neighborhoods have been designed to look and feel like a low density community, with front yards and homes setback from the street. Allowing walls taller than three (3) feet within the front yard setback would disrupt the visual character of R1 neighborhoods and create "hopscotch" settings in an otherwise orderly single family neighborhood. d. Walls taller than three (3) feet within the front yard setback would change the character of the street and neighborhood in that instead of seeing homes along the street, drivers and pedestrians would see walls and fences. K. That this project is exempt pursuant to Section 15270 (Projects which are disapproved) of the California Environmental Quality Act. II. The Planning Commission hereby denies Variance 2013 -003, a request for a variance to keep an existing unpermitted five (5) foot six (6) inch to six (6) foot tall block wall within the required front yard setback where only walls three (3) feet in height or less are allowed. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 14th day of January, 2014. STEVE KOZAK Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 4244 January 14, 2014 Page 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4244 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 14th day of January, 2014. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary