Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 MA 06-001ITEM #4 Report to the Fanning Commission DATE: JULY 10, 2006 SUBJECT: MINOR ADJUSTMENT 06-001 PROPERTY OWNER: PRESIDIO COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION LORDON MANAGEMENT COMPANY 17772 E. 17TH STREET, SUITE 204 TUSTIN, CA 92780 APPLICANT: JOHN S. TKACK, PRESIDENT PRESIDIO HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION 2650 DAVIS DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92782 LOCATION: PRESIDIO TRACT COMMON AREA (POOL) 2650 DAVIS DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92782 GENERAL PLAN: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL (PCR) MEDIUM - LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED (ML SFD) GST, ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: THE PRESIDIO TRACT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IS REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE FENCE HEIGHT SURROUNDING THE COMMON AREA POOL BY TWENTY PERCENT (20%). RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4029, denying Minor Adjustment 06-001 to authorize the height extension up to twenty percent (20%) above the maximum permitted height of the perimeter fence around the Presidio Tract pool located at 2650 Davis Drive. MA 06-001 July 10, 2006 Page 2 BACKGROUND The project site is located within the Presidio Tract of the East Tustin Specific Plan and is designated as Planned Community Residential (PCR) by both the Zoning Code and the General Plan Land Use designation. Medium to Low Density Single Family Detached (ML-SFD) homes are permitted uses in the Presidio Tract. There is a Homeowners Association (HOA) that is responsible for maintaining all common areas within the Presidio Tract including the shared pool area. The HOA has increased the height of the existing wrought iron perimeter pool fence above the maximum allowable height of six feet eight inches (6'8") permitted in the East Tustin Specific Plan and the City of Tustin Zoning Code. According to the applicant, extension of the fence height was to address safety issues associated with vandalism, non-member use, and ongoing illegal activities in the pool area. The fence height extension was done without City approval and has since become an active Code Enforcement case. The HOA is now requesting a Minor Adjustment to allow for a twenty percent (20%) increase in the allowable height to permit the fence extension. Section 3.13.2.C. of the East Tustin Specific Plan allows administrative adjustments for "An increase of not more than 20% of the permitted height of a fence or wall, subject to city approved structural design." Furthermore, pursuant to Section 9299.b. of the Tustin City Code, the Zoning Administrator can approve, conditionally approve, or deny a request for a minor adjustment to increase the height of a fence not more than twenty percent (20%). In order to minimize the cost and delay involved with the processing of potential appeals, the Zoning Administrator may forward matters directly to the Planning Commission for consideration and action in accordance with the same section. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The community pool is located at 2650 Davis Drive, near the center of the Presidio Tract, and is not visible from the public right-of-way. The extension of the fence consists of vertical wrought iron spikes attached to the top of the fence and in line with the existing wrought iron bars. Near the top of the spikes is a single horizontal wrought iron bar reinforcing the vertical members. All of the new wrought iron members have been painted to match the existing fence. Due to varying topography the fence height is of slightly different heights at points, but does not exceed eight feet (8) in height. The applicant provided the following arguments in support of their application: 1. The perimeter wrought iron fencing around the Association Common Area Pool has proved to be an easy access point for children, vandals, and non- members of the Association. In some locations, it allows for person(s) to MA 06-001 July 10, 2006 Page 3 scale the fence to an area where the ground on the other side is higher and, therefore, easy to jump. The existing pilasters the wrought iron is affixed to currently and has always been above the 6'8" height limit at 77' at the highest point. As constructed, the wrought iron extensions are not higher than those pilasters. 2. The addition was considered and processed based on the Association's concern for safety due to the area being open to a pool/spa, regular vandalism, and property damage. The previous fence height allowed easy access to private property by unauthorized persons, and illegal activities began to occur. The property is maintained and owned by a corporation of homeowners, and the City is not providing the maintenance or replacement of any components within the community walls. The extensions are not visible to non -owners of the properties and would not be in view to the public. ANALYSIS The arguments provided by the applicant identify trespassing as the major justification for the fence height extension. However, the Tustin Police Department does not have any records of police reports filed at the subject address. There have been no reported incidents of trespassing or vandalism at the project site. In addition, the fence height extension is not supported by all residents of the Presidio Tract Community. There have been numerous complaints by residents to the City's Code Enforcement Division regarding the height extension of the pool fence. The fence height extension is not continuous around the whole perimeter of the fence and stops at the entrance gate. This gap in the fence height extension provides a spot where the fence remains at its existing height and defeats the purpose of extending the fence. The entrance gate also provides an access point where trespassers could step on the door handle and climb over the fence where it has not been extended. Furthermore, at most points along the fence, the extension is above the existing pilasters. FINDINGS California Government Code Section 65906 and the Tustin City Code require the City to make two positive findings to approve a minor adjustment. In determining whether to approve the Minor Adjustment for the proposed fence height extension, the Planning Commission must determine that the proposed use constitutes a special circumstance unique to the land based on hardship where the strict literal interpretation of the zoning code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area. In addition the Planning Commission must determine that the proposed Minor Adjustment would not be a granting of special privilege inconsistent MA 06-001 July 10, 2006 Page 4 with limitations placed on other properties in the vicinity. A decision to deny this request may be supported by the following findings: 1. The proposed minor adjustment does not identify any special circumstance unique to the site based on hardship. Topography of the land is not a special circumstance because the height of the fence is measured from grade level and would allow for the same fence height limitations as flat land. 2. The project site is not deprived of any of the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity that would warrant an extension of a fence above the maximum allowable in the zoning district. There is no unnecessary hardship associated with the property that disadvantages it from other properties in the area. 3. Approval of the proposed minor adjustment would be granting a special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitations placed on other properties in the area. Surrounding properties experience the same limitations as the project site and will still have to comply with the zoning code. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the proposal is a self-imposed hardship, that the applicant's argument does not meet the required findings needed to support a Minor Adjustment, and that approval of Minor Adjustment 06-001 would be a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4029 denying Minor Adjustment 06-001 to extend the height of an existing perimeter pool fence located in the Presidio Tract at 2650 Davis Drive by up to twenty percent (20%) above the maximum allowable height. i� Ryan Swiontek Assistant Planner Attachments: A. Submitted Plans B. Resolution No. 4029 Elizabeth A. Bins Community Development Director ATTACHMENT A Submitted Plans Y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT lb SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM Variance/Minor Adjustment California Government Code Section 65906 and the Tustin City Code require the City to make two positive findings to approve a variance or minor adjustment. Please answer the following questions to provide evidence in support of the necessary findings. Please attach a separate sheet if necessary. 1. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES Are there special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classification? The perimeter wrought iron fencing around the Association Common Area Pool has proved to be and easy access point for children, vandals and non members of the Association. In some locations, it allows for person(s) to scale the fence to an area that the ground on the other side is higher therefore easy to jump. The existing pilasters the wrought iron is affixed to currently and has always been above the 68•' height limit at 77 at the highest point. The addition of the wrought iron extensions are not higher that those pilasters. 2. SPECIAL PRIVILEGES How would the variance or minor adjustment, if granted, assure that the adjustment thereby authorized would not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated? The addition was considered and processed based on the Associations concern for safety due to the area being open to a pool/spa, regular vandalism and property damage, current fence allowed easy access to private property by unauthorized owners, illegal activities began to occur. The property is maintained and owned by a Corporation of homeowners and the City is not providing the maintenance or replacement of any components within the community walls. The extensions are not visible to non owners of the properties and would not be in view to the public. I hereby acknowledge that all of the information contained in this supplemental application is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correctly represented. I hereby grant the City the authority to place a public hearing notice on the property for which the variance or minor adjustment is requested, if required. � •23 bb 4Lanet's Signature Date Applicant's Signature (if different) Date 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 • 714-573-3140 • FAX 714-573-3113 LOKDON MANAGEMENT CO. DIVISION OF LORDON ENTERPRISES, INC. RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT June 14, 2006 Ryan Swiontek City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 RE: Presidio Homeowners Association Dear Mr. Swiontek: REC��VE F GUMU�� ; r't I would like to convey the rationale for the action by the Board of Directors to install extensions at their pool fence. It was not their intention to willingly violate a city ordinance or to set precedence, but a response to a serious situation. The extensions along the side of Ruth Kahn's property will be removed, however something needs to be constructed over the gate, which is one of the access points. Currently there exists a liability issue with trespassers climbing over the fence, behaving badly, being loud, disruptive and disrespectful. Homeowners are finding broken glass, used condoms and the pool furniture tossed in the pool. This has become an untenable situation. Homeowners are reluctant to venture out to the pool. Their private property has been invaded by uncontrollable intruders. At any time any one of these intruders could potentially hurt themselves on Presidio Community property. I have spoken with a patrol company regarding providing service to monitor the pool area specifically. The Board is hoping to have city approval to allow the alteration to their pool fence due to the situation. I look forward to speaking with you do discuss how we can work to correct the situation. Sincerely, Kathy eese Community Association Manager PRESIDIO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Cc: John Tkach 1275 CENTER COURT DRIVE 17772 E. 17TH ST., STE. 204 31416 AGOURA RD., STE. 105 COVINA, CA 91724 • (626) 967-7921 TUSTIN, CA 92780 • (714) 505-1444 WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91361 • (818) 707-0200 14 P a33rab �; Pg O✓Oa k w O U 4 a 4 y vti r � J 4 m - Z O ALSfOlw 2 2 CCF w 4 pp g 'fib. xii M 4 .av A Lb el CRA Y' PLACE pp i © V V m 4 ® O KIMBALL PLACE 4 N L MAL 1 NVa P k = O 2 2 A i 'n L O u m n) N 1 q. ... 4 n O O a€yyuh..4 O �uc..�1ii•,•n �I OSFdUN f O PLACE ' a'E6•'T""� J FF U i C Y n•t�ui �. <SNpp Jf.. vP a n.. O d.A • y p�.p u� .n o N v R 6 P "n � y _ p V.�� .1• O Lj1 aN R � IN h O 02 14 a - e 4 NN � • p a33NOW : , a ge P i � r no N Droa O Y O iib i ej m ry Y MSIOIA {{.� tr� y i 1Vi 0 O � zii w y GRAY' PLACE t ! O O », C �C ; • t O a N P N+ 1. V NF P • bO i N r O O N N r a r O! { = Pu• gppv to N V KAIBALL PLACE b ye �1 O � E O a rv.r � N X O E� O ; �. ° �• CM.FCML{ C KACC (i 2mN � S Q is O• Y S O X F � baoi.�"' nC + N Y O O N �'iFjiyyi>L ,DISWAN�FgO°' PLACE 7 ` •44 1° N. p J • ^�2MY� Y VI AI.1 �si � O O�A ,e• N A� m lr V 6 � ? .. 33a0BIYYf 0✓Da ° n o N la) O02 �- 'UlilA+'�-ice' y s PA- Y4 ��fiRR �- 'UlilA+'�-ice' y s t[jt{Fii [&65 ,q b W — �o a3 ;�l , x �,o Me ^` u �ti - CLSI01• • p z z GRAY* MACE 5 § Q t O e C[ " N i �• • w w z O 4 b cowl KAMALL MACE n y O O "o Ln r aar .ZO N N O' P Fv � CM.rtCM1%l OP 2aN L O O 4 fOm' PLACE fg p F v yi."fin � O b oga .rn V& Oee V bA 2mo i us. n N v P? iA OSI �O v An d fp i aroa 33aoervvr `n I w Al 6Oi ,y t Asir 1'i %W�t".: •Ff iF��`s::}'�Uf'i,l�Ej�,itf�tt t t� i t 1i n`I CP ✓'.� �i�^f •_: st 8�» '� tl��tl� � �I,"I _ e � �t �'i it � �Y>tt •t � :x 3 ATTACHMENT B Resolution No. 4029 RESOLUTION NO. 4029 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING MINOR ADJUSTMENT 06-001 TO AUTHORIZE THE HEIGHT EXTENSION UP TO TWENTY PERCENT ABOVE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF THE PERIMETER FENCE AROUND THE PRESIDIO TRACT POOL LOCATED AT 2650 DAVIS DRIVE. I. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: A. That a proper application, Minor Adjustment 06-001, was filed by John S. Tkach (President Presidio Homeowners Association), requesting authorization to extend the height of the existing perimeter pool fence up to twenty percent (20%) above the maximum allowable height in the zoning district. The community pool is located at 2650 Davis Drive in the Presidio Tract within the Planned Community Residential (PCR) zoning district and the Planned Community Residential General Plan land use designation. B. That a public meeting was duly called, noticed, and held for said application on July 10, 2006, by the Planning Commission. C. That the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act). D. That Section 3.13.2.C. of the East Tustin Specific Plan allows administrative adjustments for "An increase of not more than 20% of the permitted height of a fence or wall, subject to City approved structural design." E. That pursuant to California Government Code Section 65906 and the Tustin City Code, the proposed project would require the City to make two positive findings to approve a minor adjustment. That the proposed project does not meet finding requirements needed to support a minor adjustment. F. That the Planning Commission has considered the mater and made the following findings: 1) The proposed minor adjustment does not identify any special circumstances unique to the site based on hardship. Topography of the land is not a special circumstance because the height of the fence is measured from grade level and would allow for the same fence height limitations as flat land; 2) The project site is not deprived of any of the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity that would warrant an extension of a fence above the maximum allowable in the zoning district. There is no unnecessary hardship associated with the property that disadvantages it from other properties in the area; and, Resolution No. 4029 Page 2 3) Approval of the proposed minor adjustment would be granting a special privilege that is inconsistent with the limitations placed on other properties in the area. Surrounding properties experience the same limitations as the project site, but remain subject to the zoning code. The Planning Commission hereby denies Minor Adjustment 06-001 to authorize an increase in the allowable fence height by twenty percent for the fence surrounding the common area pool at 2650 Davis Drive in the Presidio Tract. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 10th day of July, 2006. BRETT FLOYD Chairperson Pro Tem ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary 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 City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4029 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 10th day of July, 2006. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary