Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 Minor Adjustment 2013-06 Enderle Wall1TY 0 MEETING DATE: JANUARY 28, 2014 ITEM # 6 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: MINOR ADJUSTMENT 2013 -006 APPLICANT: VINCE FEEHAN ENDERLE GARDENS PROPERTY OWNER ASSOCIATION 14241 ACACIA DR. TUSTIN, CA 92780 PROPERTY ROBERT CLARK DONNA HOPSON OWNERS: 17331 JACARANDA AVE. 17332 JACARANDA AVE. TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780 LOCATION: 17331 JACARANDA AVE. & 17332 JACARANDA AVE. REQUEST: A REQUEST FOR A MINOR ADJUSTMENT TO INCREASE AND REMODEL EXISTING THIRTY -SIX (36) INCH HIGH WALLS LOCATED WITHIN THE PRIVATE PROPERTY FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA TO A HEIGHT OF FORTY - THREE (43) INCHES, FINISH WITH STUCCO AND PILASTERS. 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 28, 2014 MA 2013 -006 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission Adopt Resolution No. 4247, denying Minor Adjustment 2013 -006 to allow block walls taller than three (3) feet within the front yard setback of single family residences located at 17331 and 17332 Jacaranda Avenue. APPROVAL AUTHORITY: Sections 9299b and 9299b(1)(c) of the Tustin City Code gives the Planning Commission the authority to evaluate and grant requests for minor adjustments to increase the maximum permitted wall height by no more than 20 percent. DISCUSSION: Site and Location The subject properties are zoned Single - Family Residential (R1) and located at the entry to the Enderle Gardens residential community. Enderle Gardens is a unique senior citizen residential community with sixty -two (62) single - family homes. Uses surrounding the subject property are multiple - family residential to the north, single family residential to the south and east, and offices to the west. PC Report January 28, 2014 MA 2013 -006 Page 3 The community entry was designed with three (3) feet high block walls with signage at each side of the street and a median island (See Figures 1 and 2). Background Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9271(i)(1)(b) states that no fence or wall shall exceed three (3) 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). The subject properties are located at the northeast and southeast corners of Yorba Street and Jacaranda Avenue. The two properties have community entry walls along the corner cut -off and within the front yard setback area that are 36- inches high for the north wall and 32- inches high for the south wall. The existing walls comply with the current code requirements because they are no taller than three (3) feet (Figure 2). Figure 2 — Existing Walls I � Figure 2 — Existing Walls PC Report January 28, 2014 MA 2013 -006 Page 4 According to City records, block wall permits for the subject properties were issued in the mid -1960s when the subdivision was being built. Application The Enderle Gardens Property Owner Association has submitted a request for a minor adjustment for approval to modify the existing walls by increasing the wall height to forty -one (41) inches, add forty -three (43) inch tall pilasters, and apply a stucco finish. In addition, the existing Enderle Gardens signage would be polished, varnished and installed in a higher position on the proposed walls (Figures 3, 4 and 5). #I SITE PLAN -17331 JACARANDA ENDERIE GARDENS > )\ mmxcwRU sx'WXOe X NI6N 9aroq� <—L+- < 3 sssuMW Qe RWRLgnuxE DAU: I OnIY�Oy 1 1 ¢ __ S r� WT'S IXQ W.W XfKNI.GIPfY.I[I ll' a IJ NFNi145RR/JIa GF Z N CORtlf�r. A. p51ANLE iPLM IIIASi[q °Wi1N t9 N'[t9 µ'mXLRfiFW ".f., Wi°W�py♦tySY roT N[I4µi: XY �C' ' R•a15iANLf iROM M14SiFR ON WIN WALLSRXUVIIA51[R � G°i°Si°R RWXgW 1 IOhMne IO PORYw Mx 6'1 N, IF j C.p FMMMP 1 Z f ■ FIRIH ° • °•M IDMRR°MGR ro51PEWeL61Y I � o fit` r r lecoa KCI.M YORBA PC Report January 28, 2014 MA 2013 -006 Page 5 Much of the existing subject walls are located within the front yard setback area, and along the property lines of the private residences. The proposed wall modification would include adding courses of brick to the existing wall pilasters and applying a stucco coating. During the review process, staff suggested that the applicant may want to consider maintaining the thirty -six (36) inch wall height and install pilasters taller than thirty -six (36) inches. The pilasters could be considered as an architectural feature, which can project slightly beyond the allowed height, thus avoiding the need for a minor adjustment. The applicant decided to pursue the proposed minor adjustment. SITE PLAN -1]332 JACAMNDA —� - -y qq� ENDERI£GARDENS �� �••I W ONG WAU 5W.DE y L S'DXG N,T LONG !I s�Ik N TO5[M1AG IIXf ___... T Q 1 IHGGY WALLNfIGM, GPP[D,10 A1' PROPfR1Y 11ME •� 3 0 I ADD is- %16'[LXGfiE PIVSifR, NEWRVSIERANOGP W QZ TOPPED WNN 5 r X VIWOENUMf P f8 a O a TOTAINEGN: 43- F 1 MCCl KNISH ON IN I 6WALLSANO PIWTER .N A. DRTANCE FROM PIIASTFR � y GPIO 25' p I a 4�� R•DIETMIEE(ROM RUSIFR GPTO jIQjj�' �E IY � 1 a`P c `TIpY'(k X R'�6i T. o` OE<1PTfJ \ YORBA Much of the existing subject walls are located within the front yard setback area, and along the property lines of the private residences. The proposed wall modification would include adding courses of brick to the existing wall pilasters and applying a stucco coating. During the review process, staff suggested that the applicant may want to consider maintaining the thirty -six (36) inch wall height and install pilasters taller than thirty -six (36) inches. The pilasters could be considered as an architectural feature, which can project slightly beyond the allowed height, thus avoiding the need for a minor adjustment. The applicant decided to pursue the proposed minor adjustment. PC Report January 28, 2014 MA 2013 -006 Page 6 PROPOSED SIGN AND WALL CHANGES I asfy.f w4.1, R M I'°Pwd`1 - uinkn w"V 1' +, iK Y.a lun4 w ed uaV i ytpgq.y p."nf un ms . .Z N G'{'Wngy l„ +.tlw cl� ,.fl ,.�A ' i3' Yrdwn t!s end n4.. qi. n' l � h:yA= Gu.M ah d•�ennf I asfy.f w4.1, R M I'°Pwd`1 - uinkn w"V 1' +, iK Y.a lun4 w ed uaV i ytpgq.y p."nf un ms . .Z N G'{'Wngy l„ +.tlw cl� ,.fl ,.�A 6a i.F'asM. S4Yft1WlA - vv] u.a.nn. n.e i I ti� . � 9..pr YFoH�ww1A y.,n�4A-b✓ w;1wy K ti.cw. no ] 1 I l Tlw P'Uj.'n Re nerl. sL�a The proposed pilasters are sixteen (16) by sixteen (16) inches in area, forty -three (43) inches high and are proposed to be located at the end of the walls within the existing landscape planting area, with a portion of the pilaster encroaching into the public right - of -way by approximately 12" x 16 ", or one half of the pilaster area (Figure 6). The applicant has provided details and a photograph mock -up of the proposed pilaster location, illustrating the extent to which it encroaches into the public right -of -way. 16" I I I I I J. � ENDERLE I '41 GARDENS I 16' I PROPERTY 116" I I Q 4?h. I I CRY OF TDSTIN I PROPERTY i PROPER 16" LME SCALE: 318 ". 1' ENDERLEGARDENS 17331 JACARANDA 17332 ) ACARANDA Figure 6 — Pilaster Site Plan Detail and Mock -up PC Report January 28, 2014 MA 2013 -006 Page 7 The Public Works Department does not support private property elements to encroach into the public right -of -way for various liability reasons. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed project and indicated that the proposed pilaster encroachment into the public right -of -way would not be supported. ANALYSIS: Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9271(i)(1)(b) states that no fence or wall shall exceed three (3) 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 throughout the R1 zoning district. Notwithstanding, staff believes the facts of the case do not support the findings for a minor adjustment, there are several purposes for restricting wall heights in traditional R1 Districts including life and safety response, pedestrian aned vehicular line of sight, aesthetics, consistency of building lines, and orderly development. In addition, 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. The proposed walls at their proposed locations raised several concerns as follows: • Public pedestrian and vehicular safety - Maintains line of sight: Walls taller than three (3) feet within the front yard setback 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. 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 on the sidewalk or car in the street. With respect to the north project site, the subject wall may block the line of sight of drivers seeing pedestrians on the sidewalk. Line of sight to oncoming vehicles does not seem to be as much of an issue in this location because the median island at the PC Report January 28, 2014 MA 2013 -006 Page 8 entry dictates that oncoming traffic only comes from east of the driveway. In addition, the north wall is located near an existing fire hydrant. The additional height and pilaster could impact the visibility of fire hydrant by Fire response personnel. The emergency response personnel may have difficulty quickly locating the fire hydrant if they are coming from the north on Yorba Street. With respect to the south project site, the existing driveway is approximately thirty (30) feet from the existing wall and line -of -sight may not be of great concern in this instance. However, an increased wall height would create a more prominent visual feature, lessening the engagement between the public street, including pedestrians and drivers, and the residential homes and Enderle Gardens community. • 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 open front yards and homes setback from the street. In general, allowing walls taller than three (3) feet within the front yard setback at the community entry would disrupt the visual character of an open R1 neighborhood and create a closed neighborhood setting. • Set precedence — The approval of the requested minor adjustment would set precedence for the R1 zoning district because the circumstances of the properties are common throughout the R1 zone; therefore, the issue becomes no longer a question about a minor adjustment, but rethinking the fence height restriction on a citywide basis. In addition, the granting of the minor adjustment as mentioned would impact 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 determining a standard for particular properties that may not be acceptable from an aesthetic or safety perspective in other situation. Minor Adjustment Section 9299c(3) (Minor Adjustments Required Findings) of the Tustin City Code (TCC) specifies that applications for minor adjustments from the strict application of the terms PC Report January 28, 2014 MA 2013 -006 Page 9 of the Zoning Code may be made and granted when the following two (2) circumstances are found to apply: • Circumstance 1: That the proposed adjustment is found to be in conformance with the General Plan. • Circumstance 2: 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: "We are situated across Yorba from increasingly busy commercial buildings. Over the years traffic and noise have grown substantially, and we struggle to maintain the peace and quiet of our Senior Community. Higher walls would help in controlling this problem. In addition, this small height change would allow us to increase the visibility of our entry lettering. The pilasters would better show that we are an upscale, updated, viable residential development —a healthy look for Tustin. Our entry on Jacaranda is a one -way street on either side of the entry island, and the increase in height of the walls and pilasters would in no way impede safety. Many other properties close to Enderle Gardens along Yorba enjoy walls, pilasters, and landscaping which for years have not conformed to the strict application of the 36" zoning ordinance, and it would be unreasonable to ignore those facts. For example... at 14192 Yorba, for years has had a 42" wall with lots of shrubs and trees in front. Attached are pictures of some of those properties which do not conform to the ordinance limitations." Staff Response: The proposed minor adjustment is not found to be in conformance with the General Plan in that the following policies and goals are not adhered to: • Policy 2.2: Maintain consistency between the Land Use Element, Zoning Ordinances, and other City Ordinances, regulations and standards. • Goal 4: Assure a safe, healthy and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses. PC Report January 28, 2014 MA 2013 -006 Page 10 • Policy 4.6: Maintain and enhance the quality of healthy residential neighborhoods, and safeguard neighborhoods from intrusion by nonconforming and disruptive uses. • Goal 6: Improve urban design in Tustin to ensure development that is both architecturally and functionally compatible, and to create uniquely identifiable neighborhoods, commercial and business park districts. • Policy 6.4: Preserve and enhance the City's special residential character and ..small town" quality by encouraging and maintaining Tustin's low density residential neighborhoods through enforcement of existing land use and property development standards and the harmonious blending of buildings and landscape. Allowing the proposed minor adjustment would not be consistent with the zoning ordinance in that no walls higher than three (3) feet may be located within the front yard setback of R1 zones, it would create unsafe situations in that the line of sight for pedestrians may be impacted and tall walls at the community entry would not enhance the quality of neighborhoods as taller walls would divide communities. The applicant stated that traffic and noise have impacted their neighborhood, however it is unlikely that a 20 percent increase, or seven (7) inches, in wall height would significantly alleviate any impacts currently being experienced by the community. The applicant also stated that the increase in height and additional pilasters would increase the visibility of the entry lettering and show that Enderle Gardens is an updated, viable residential development. Improving community identification is not a special circumstance that would justify approving the requested minor adjustment. There are other design options that could be implemented to improve community identification while still complying with the Tustin City Code including better sign lighting, a new sign within the landscape median, varying and contrasting finish material, etc. The applicant has identified other properties within the subdivision tract that have walls within the front yard setback. No legal building permits have been established for walls exceeding three (3) feet within the front yard setback of properties within R1 zoning. The granting of the requested minor adjustment 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. In addition, the proposed pilaster location would encroach into the public right -of -way. The Public Works Department would not allow the private property element to encroach into the public right -of -way. Approval of the pilaster encroachment into the City's right - of -way would be an additional privilege not typically available to R1 properties. PC Report January 28, 2014 MA 2013 -006 Page 11 FINDINGS: In determining whether to approve Minor Adjustment 2013 -006 allowing the existing walls within the front yard setback to be increased by 20 percent to forty -three (43) inches, the Planning Commission must determine whether or not the proposed use is in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9299. The granting of Minor Adjustment 2013 -006 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 circumstances due to increased traffic and noise on Yorba Street, one -way drive configurations, and desire for an updated look. 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 in that there is no evidence of the need for a sound wall to mitigate noise and that the increase of seven (7) inches in wall height does not appear to alleviate much of the traffic noise. 2) The proposed minor adjustment would allow privileges that are not legally permitted or attainable by other property owners within the R1 District. Therefore, the granting of the requested minor adjustment 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 minor adjustment would set precedence for the R1 zoning district because the circumstances of the properties are common throughout the R1 zone. Therefore, the issue becomes no longer a question about a minor adjustment, but rethinking the fence height restriction on a citywide basis. 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 including but not limited to 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 approaching, which could lead to an accident. 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. PC Report January 28, 2014 MA 2013 -006 Page 12 Obstructions within the line of sight would impair the decision point for the driver if there is an oncoming pedestrian. b. Single- family residential (R1) Districts have continuity of front yard open spaces. The neighborhood has been designed to look and feel like a low density community, with open 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 would divide communities in otherwise orderly single family neighborhoods, inconsistent with General Plan Goals 4 and 6 and Policies 4.6 and 6.4 to encourage preserving and enhance Tustin's special residential character through enforcement of existing land use and development standards. c. 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 along Yorba Street, impacting street view /aesthetics and dividing communities. a. The proposed wall with pilaster on 17331 Jacaranda Avenue would be constructed adjacent to an existing fire hydrant and would impact the visibility of the fire hydrant; thereby could impact fire response to the area. �i�ellS Edmelynn V. Hutter Senior Planner Attachments: A. Location Map B. Land Use Fact Sheet C. Submitted Plans and Photographs D. Resolution No. 4247 Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director ATTACHMENT A LOCATION MAP LOCATION MAP MA 2013 -006 17331 & 17332 JACARANDA AVE. ATTACHMENT B LAND USE FACT SHEET LAND USE APPLICATION FACT SHEET 1. LAND USE APPLICATION NUMBER(S): MINOR ADJUSTMENT 2013 -006 2. LOCATION: ENDERLE GARDENS 3. ADDRESS: 17331 & 17332 JACARANDA AVE 4. APN(S): 401 - 231 -02 AND 401 - 232 -04 5. PREVIOUS OR CONCURRENT APPLICATION RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY: TRACT NO. 4974 6. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: RESIDENTIAL EAST: RESIDENTIAL WEST: OFFICE 7. SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATION: NORTH: PC RES SOUTH: R1 EAST: R1 WEST: PR 8, SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: NORTH: PC RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WEST: PC COMMERCIAL /BUSINESS 9. SITE LAND USE: A. EXISTING: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL B. PROPOSED: SAME C. GENERAL PLAN: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL D. ZONING: RR =1 PROPOSED GP: SAME PROPOSED ZONING: SAME DEVELOPMENT FACTS: 10, LOT AREA: 10,115 & 8,000 S.F. 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: 20FEET NO CHANGE SIDE: 5 FEET NO CHANGE REAR: 5FEET NO CHANGE 16. WALL SETBACKS REQUIRED PROPOSED FoR WALLS FRONT: 20 FEET 13 INCHES GREATER THAN 3 SIDE: 0 FEET 0 FEET FEET HIGH REAR: 0 FEET NO CHANGE ATTACHMENT C SUBMITTED PLANS AND PHOTOGRAPHS a 0 z a o: Q U Q m m V-4 Z w I_- N Ed a W =(D s o Zo z Z z° 3= J J z Q 4 y L n m m �n Cu W O 3 b a r a 3 W Z Z xv. m rg0 2 ZD w $t FW N rn a ¢ a y a z W Q ll rl U y 3Y¢ HI u u a � Z w d w ou Z ¢ Q 2 O p W 3 W y W= W 3 au�, a a o L. ct = E5 u. p N os os� 3 o0 00 El w x i 4D w 2 ¢ m °¢ u o •and VONdadJvr o 3 W � c N } W W i � o � Z s w $t w �i y � w a u u a � Z w d w ou Z ¢ x 3 • 0 L. ct = a p 3 c El w x i 4D w 2 01 5.? °¢ I- 3 I \ \ \ cli § \ CL F- Ln L9 � » � § ( © § E § § / } § k ] § z 2 _--§-G---§------ § K § & s � k k 13 \ k 7 ( \ / u ¥ « F § \ ■ ' A¥ ¥ON¥H¥)b % + , � � $ , , � ■ /a # / /]0 ®\ \ - ■ £ [q [� § § \ \ �k o �k § § _ i N W Z TQ i v. ae 0 9 m m �o N m a 3 3 a x �^ r a J N� O � i rc i IIj � I J ' N ' D W �P3 `7 0 �Naeo W ;� � k: 3 UU f O ar n �C�RO li ai � o � Pa e I Ii L 2 o< F° >< a bra\ ,1. F C Y E IO fn N _o 3a N c y u 0 `.t a r9 O ,� 16" 1 I l I ENDERLE I GARDENS- I 16" PROPERTY 116" I 12" I I I CITY OF TUSTIN I I PROPERTY PROPERTY 1 6" ------ ___ -_ - -- ___. LINE SCALE: 3/8" = 1' ENDERLE GARDENS 17331 JACARANDA 17332 ) ACARANDA 0 L eY312N^ Jim t I � 733 a _1 aeardn�c� \� %�= � \� /\ "170 . . . . . . . . . . / , tn: Cc \ �� j K •; \� %�= � \� /\ "170 . . . . . . . . . . / , tn: Cc ATTACHMENT D RESOLUTION NO. 4247 RESOLUTION NO. 4247 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING MINOR ADJUSTMENT 2013 -006, A REQUEST FOR A MINOR ADJUSTMENT TO INCREASE THE EXISTING ENDERLE GARDENS ENTRY WALLS THAT ARE THIRTY -SIX (36) INCH HIGH WALLS TO FORTY -THREE (3) INCH HIGH WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK WHERE ONLY WALLS THREE (3) FEET IN HEIGHT OR LESS ARE ALLOWED. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Minor Adjustment 2013 -006 was filed by Vincent Feehan of Enderle Gardens Property Owners Association, a request for a minor adjustment to increase an existing thirty -six (36) inches high walls to forty -three (43) inches high, located at 17331 and 17332 Jacaranda Avenue, within the required front yard setback where only walls three (3) feet in height or less are allowed. B. That the subject property is designated as Single Family Residential (R1) on the City of Tustin Zoning Map. C. That Table 1 of TCC Section 9220 states that the front yard setback for properties designated as R1 is twenty (20) feet. D. 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. E. That pursuant to TCC Section 9299b(1)(c) minor adjustment for an increase of not more than twenty (20) percent in the maximum height of a wall is allowed if findings can be made to support the request. F. 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. G. That the applicant indicated the subject properties' close proximity to Yorba Avenue and exposure to noise and traffic is a special circumstance applicable to the property and that other properties within the general vicinity have constructed the same type of block wall. Resolution No. 4247 January 28, 2014 Page 2 H. That the proposed minor adjustment is not found to be in conformance with the General Plan in that the following policies and goals are not adhered to: • Policy 2.2: Maintain consistency between the Land Use Element, Zoning Ordinances, and other City Ordinances, regulations and standards. • Goal 4: Assure a safe, healthy and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses. • Policy 4.6: Maintain and enhance the quality of healthy residential neighborhoods, and safeguard neighborhoods from intrusion by nonconforming and disruptive uses. Goal 6: Improve urban design in Tustin to ensure development that is both architecturally and functionally compatible, and to create uniquely identifiable neighborhoods, commercial and business park districts. • Policy 6.4: Preserve and enhance the City's special residential character and "small town' quality by encouraging and maintaining Tustin's low density residential neighborhoods through enforcement of existing land use and property development standards and the harmonious blending of buildings and landscape. Allowing the proposed minor adjustment would not be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan Policy 2.2 in that pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, no walls higher than three (3) feet may be located within the front yard setback of R1 district. Allowing deviation from the Zoning Ordinance without proper findings would conflict between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in that land use standards are not enforced uniformly. Single- family residential (R1) Districts have continuity of front yard open spaces. The neighborhood has been designed to look and feel like a low density community, with open 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 would divide communities in otherwise orderly single family neighborhoods, inconsistent with General Plan Goals 4 and 6 and Policies 4.6 and 6.4 to encourage preserving and enhance Tustin's special residential character through enforcement of existing land use and development standards. Resolution No. 4247 January 28, 2014 Page 3 That the granting of Minor Adjustment 2013 -006 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 circumstances due to increased traffic and noise on Yorba Street, one -way drive configurations, and desire for an updated look. 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 in that there is no evidence of the need for a sound wall to mitigate noise and that the increase of seven (7) inches wall does not appear to alleviate much of the traffic noise. 2) The proposed minor adjustment would be 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 minor adjustment would set precedence for the R1 zoning district because the circumstances of the properties are common throughout the R1 zone. Therefore, the issue becomes no longer a question about a minor adjustment, but rethinking the fence height restriction on a citywide basis. 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 including but not limited to 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 approaching, which could lead to an accident. 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 the Resolution No. 4247 January 28, 2014 Page 4 line of sight would impair the decision point for the driver if there is an oncoming pedestrian. b. 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 along Yorba Street, impacting street view /aesthetics and dividing communities. c. The proposed wall with pilaster on 17331 Jacaranda Avenue would be constructed adjacent to an existing fire hydrant and would impact the visibility of the fire hydrant; thereby could impact fire response to the area. J. 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 Minor Adjustment 2013 -006, a request for a minor adjustment to increase the existing thirty -six (36) inch high walls to forty - three (43) inches high 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 28th day of January, 2014. STEVE KOZAK Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 4247 January 28, 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. 4247 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 28th day of January, 2014. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary