Loading...
PC 8.a. Appeal Minor Exception 15-003 257 La Cresta DriveMEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: &* TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: MATTHEW DOWNING, ASSISTANT PLANNER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO. 15-001; MINOR EXCEPTION 15-003; LOCATION - 257 LA CRESTA DRIVE; APPELLANT - KRISTIN HAMMOND DATE: MAY 19,2015 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 15-001 and approving Minor Exception 15-003. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: None. BACKGROUND: PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO. 15-001 MAY 19,2015 PAGE 2 On April 22, 2015, the Community Development Director approved Minor Exception Case No. 15-003 for the installation of an eight foot (8') fence near the rear property line of 257 La Cresta Drive. The fence is proposed be a solid privacy fence with a four inch (4") trim on top (Attachment I). On May 1, 2015, the appellant submitted an appeal of this determination to the Planning Commission (Attachment 2). ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Municipal Code Arroyo Grande Municipal Code ("AGMC) Section 16.48.070 governs fences, walls, and hedges within the c'I~~. Subsection A.2. specifically regulates these structures in residential districts as follows: "A wall, hedge, or fence not more than six feet in height may be maintained along any interior side yard, rear yard, or street side yard; provided that such wall, hedge, or fence does not extend into the required front yard. Subsection 16.04.070.C. of the AGMC defines fence as "an artificially constructed barrier of any material or combination of materials erected to enclose or screen areas of land". Due to the applicant's desire to build a barrier for screening purposes, the barrier is considered a fence and therefore subject to the regulations of AGMC Subsection 16.48.070.A.2. Due to the applicant's desire to build a wall beyond the six foot (6') height limitation, a Minor Use Permit - Minor Exception is required. Minor Exception The purpose of the Minor Exception is to provide flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of the Development Code in those circumstances where such adjustment will be compatible with adjoining uses. Subsection 16.16.100.B.l. of the AGMC further states the following: "a maximum height of any fence, wall, or equivalent screening may be increased by a maximum of two feet where the topography of sloping sites or a difference in grade between adjoining sites warrants an increase in height to maintain a level of privacy, or maintain the effectiveness of screening, as would generally be provided by such fence, wall, or screening in similar circumstances" (emphasis added). As part of the original application, the applicant indicated a desire for the eight foot (8') fence to enhance his property's privacy. This purpose is in line with the allowances of the AGMC due to the sloping topography of the site and neighborhood. Site Topoqraphy The improved surfaces of the subject property are on a flat terrain. However, property in the rear of the existing improved surfaces slopes in multiple directions. The topography of this area all slope steeply to the southeast into the backyards of residences on Pradera Court. The subject property also drops in height from the improved areas of the site, before sloping upward near the rear lot line, where portions PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO. 15-001 MAY 19,2015 PAGE 3 of the appellant's property sit at approximately the same elevation as the applicant's property and allow clear visibility into the applicant's residence. (Attachment 3). ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are presented for the Planning Commission's consideration: e Adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 15-001 and approving Minor Exception Case No. 15-003; * Modify and adopt the attached Resolution denying Appeal Case No. 15-001 and approving Minor Exception Case No. 15-003; - Do not adopt the attached Resolution, take tentative action to approve Appeal Case No. 15-001, and provide direction for staff to return with an appropriate resolution including findings for denial of Minor Exception Case No. 15-003; or Provide direction to staff. ADVANTAGES: Denial of the appeal and approval of the requested minor exception would allow the applicant to construct an eight foot (8') privacy fence along the rear lot line to reduce the amount of visibility the neighboring property has into his residence as a result of recent improvements at the rear of the appellant's property. This is an area where site topography is such that it is possible for a person of average height to see above a six foot (6') fence into the improved portion of the applicant's rear yard and further into the residence. DISADVANTAGES: The requested eight foot (8') fence would restrict a portion of the valley views from the adjoining site to the southwest due to the fence's placement along the rear lot line of the applicant's property and the orientation of the appellant's property generally to the southeast. However, reducing the proposed fence's height or permitting an eight foot (8') fence closer to the applicant's home would have impacts to the applicant's privacy and view. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff has reviewed the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and determined that it is categorically exempt per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines regarding minor alterations in land use limitations. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: A notice of public hearing was mailed to all property owners within 300' of the project site, published in the Tribune, and posted on the City's website and at City Hall on Friday, May 8, 2015. Staff has received two (2) comment letters in opposition of the proposed fence (Attachments 4 and 5). PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO. 15-001 MAY 19,2015 PAGE 4 Attachments: 1. Fence depiction and location map 2. Appeal form and letter from Kristin Hammond 3. Photo simulations 4. Appeal form and letter from Patty Welsh 5. Appeal form and letter from Donald and Alice Rogers 6. Letter from Frank and Lissa Gandolfo RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE DENYING APPEAL CASE NO. 15-001 AND APPROVING MINOR EXCEPTION CASE NO. 15-003; LOCATED AT 257 LA CRESTA DRIVE; APPLIED FOR BY FRANK GANDOLFO; APPEALLED BY KRISTIN HAMMOND WHEREAS, on April 13, 2015, the applicant submitted an application for Minor Exception No. 15-003 for the construction of an eight foot (8') fence at the rear lot line of his property, citing privacy issues due to sloping terrain; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 2015, the Community Development Director approved Minor Exception No. 15-003 based upon the findings for approval of the permit; and WHEREAS, notices of the Community Development Director's determination were mailed to all property owners within 300' of the project site to alert them of the approved request to deviate from fence height standards; and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2015, an appeal of the approval was filed with the Community Development Secretary by Kristin Hammond; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Arroyo Grande Rules and Procedures for Implementation of CEQA and has determined that the project is exempt per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines regarding minor alterations in land sue limitations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande has reviewed the project at a duly noticed public hearing on May 19, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing, that the following circumstances exist and findings can be made: Minor Exception Findings: 1. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship; Strict enforcement of limiting the rear yard fence height would not allow adequate and customary privacy between the subject property and adjacent properties due to sloping terrain of the site near the rear property line. Increase in maximum fence height is allowed under Municipal Code Section 16.16.100.B. 1, which states "In any district, a maximum height of any fence, wall, or equivalent screening may be increased by a maximum of two feet where the topography of sloping sifes or a difference in grade between adjoining sites warrants an RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 2 increase in height to maintain a level of privacy, or to maintain the effectiveness of screening, as would generally be provided by such fence, wall, or screening in similar circumstances. " 2. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district; The project site varies from nearby properties in the neighborhood due to the depth of the rear yard, and the sloping terrain near the rear property line. In addition, the property is configured in such a way that the rear yards of adjacent properties are able to see activity beyond that which would be blocked by a standard six-foot (63 fence. 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the same district: The strict or literal interpretation of the six foot (63 fence height limit will deprive the property owners the same level of privacy enjoyed by properties in the same zoning district due to the extent of the rear yard and sloping terrain of the neighborhood. 4. The granting of the minor exception will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; The granting of the minor exception would not constitute a grant of special privilege due to site specific characteristics including extent of rear yard into sloping terrain and significant degree of slope. 5. The granting of a minor exception is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan and the intent of Title 16 of the Municipal Code; The objectives of the General Plan are implemented through the Municipal Code and the proposed project is consistent with the purpose and infent statement of the Minor Use Permit-Minor Exception provisions in the Municipal Code which provide flexibility to allow adjustments to development standards that are compatible with adjoining uses, specifically increases in fence height to maintain a level of privacy where the topography of sloping sites necessitates such an increase. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Arroyo Grande hereby denies Appeal Case No. 15-001 and approves Minor Exception RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 3 Case No. 15-003 based on the above findings and subject to the conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. On motion by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and by the following roll call vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 19'~ day of May 2015. RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 4 ATTEST: DEBBIE WEICHINGER, SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION AS TO CONTENT: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR LAN GEORGE, CHAIR RESOLUTION NO. PAGE 5 EXHIBIT "A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MINOR EXCEPTION 15-003 257 LA CRESTA DRIVE This approval authorizes the construction of an eight foot (8') fence at the rear lot line of the property located at 257 La Cresta Drive. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The applicant shall ascertain and comply with all State, County and City requirements as are applicable to this project. 2. The project shall occur in substantial conformance with the application and plans on file in the Community Development Department. 3. This permit shall automatically expire on May 19, 2017 unless a building permit is issued and substantial construction has commenced. Thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant may apply to the Community Development Director for an extension of one (1) year from the original date of expiration. 4. The applicant shall agree to indemnify and defend at hislher sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees because of the issuance of said approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of hislher obligations under this condition. BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 5. The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits prior to installation of the eight foot (8') fence. ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DECISION TO PLANNING COMMISSION (pie) ,/OYQ (Address) (CltY) (ZIP Code) Project Appeal Name and Case Number 15 -003 Project ApprovedlDenied by Community Development Director on Project Location 257 AS C~est~%r. Reason for Appeal ?lease See ctCJiecched Signature / Ma~l~ng Address //b 7 Fra'gGC e f. Arfou0 &@~d< ,,& v@o - u Telephone City of Arroyo Grande Planning Commission, This letter is a formal written appeals for the proposed project, Project Number: Minor Exception 15-003. Dating back to 2002, the original year I purchased my property, located at 1169 Pradera Ct., Mr. Gandolfo approached me with a proposed annex letter, requesting I release my ownership in a portion of my property to him. I declined this proposal at the time. He again approached me several times in 2003 with same proposal. He requested i release this property to him stating it was adjoining an open spaced hillside shared by him. Again I declined this proposal. I purchased this piece of property for the secluded, privacy, and the pristine views of the Huasna Valley from the hillside. I have always had the intent to develop a quiet, seating area to relax and enjoy the area with my family. Mr. Gandolfo became frustrated and angry with my decision not to release a portion of my property to him, which began a tense neighborly relationship. in approximately October of 2014 my fiance and soon to be step-son began projects on the hillside. In order to support a sporting hobby of my step-son. During this time Mr. Gandolfo has harassed them verbally, accusing them of having no right to occupy the ~ ~ property. Mr. Gandolfo has gone as far as involving the ~rro~o~rande Code Enforcement Division. the Arrovo Grande Fire De~artment, the Arrovo Grande Building - Department, and the Mayor. He has also called fdr a City kngineer to respond and inspect the work we have completed. Records will show all of these incidents have been unfounded, and no laws, fire, or building codes have been violated. Mr. Gandolfo has inquired about my fiance's employment, and his place of employment. This has come as a bit of a concern due to security reasons for our family. Since my fiance works in a profession were public security, safety, and confidentiality are a high priority. We are a private, quiet family, and have had no disputes with our neighbors. I have paid for an independent, certified surveyor to locate and properly mark the property markers; which were set in 1988, when the lot lines were drawn. I paid for all weed abatement, and poison oak removal on my property. It should be noted that the poison oak was invasive to my property from other bordering properties. I have also paid to install 6' tall 4"x4" posts outlining my property following the set property markers. While this work has been underway, Mr. Gandolfo has been calling each above mentioned entities to report violations, which have been unfounded. He has been verbally harassing my fiance, and taking pictures of him while completing this project. Currently our seating area is not complete. However, it will soon be completed. By Mr. Gandolfo installing an 8' tall fence it will clearly obstruct a portion of the view we have anticipated enjoying. It is clear this is being done in a retaliatory manner in order to prevent us from enjoying the property we rightfully own. A fence at this height will not serve any purpose other than impeding our view. Mr. Gandolfo currently has a-fence providing privacy to his developed yard, which is positioned at a higher elevation than our seating area. The area Mr. Gandolfo is proposing to fence would not provide any type of total yard enclosure, or privacy. It is clearly being built for height in order to obstruct our view, and detour any further use of our property that he has been asking I release to him. Therefore, I oppose Mr. Gandolfo's proposed project of building an 8' high fence. ATTACHMENT 3 ATTACHMENT 4 APPEAL CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO PLANNING COMMISSION L (Name) (Date) ;/<I ~~j~,~J~nn , dL Y542/iii (Address) (City) (Zip Code) Project Appyl Na and Case Number i-rn,41"C l,, 15tk !W hc~lk I A \J303 Project Locat~on 257 G Pfe5-k~ - Reason for Appeal , - ,? ,i 1 j ,/" 'V I,( h,&/ signature L,&9 - ,#. , - ". " i - Telephone RECEIVED CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Commission of Arroyo Grande This letter is to serve as my objection to the proposed minor exception 15-003 At 257 La CrestaDr. Let me start by saying this is not a fence the Gandolfo's plan to put up, it is a wall, and a vindictive wall at that. According to Websier a fence is : a barrier, as of wooden or metal post, rails, wire, mesh ect, used as a boundary for means of protection or confinement. Def~tion of a wall: an upright structure of wood, stone, brick ect.. . serving to enclose, divide, support or protect. Bully: a person who hurts, frightens or tyrannizes over those who are weaker or smaller. Bk. Gandolfo is not asking to enclose or support anything, he is asking for a WALL that is not compatible with our neighborhood and will restrict views for myself as well as others. I purchased my home 15 years ago partially because of the views I can enjoy -from different areas of my property, and this wall will take some of that enjoyment away from me. If ihis were a standard 6' fence, we would take it in stride knowing that is his right, but this is just Mr. Gandolfo being vindictive. This is not going to solve any problems, if anything it will just keep things raw and residents unhappy. When Mr. Gmdolfo called my home I told him to go talk to my neighbors, and tcy to work something out, he said he had already called the city on them. He does not try to work with neighbors, he calls every authority he can. Let's see he has had the city engineer out twice, code enforcement out many times, fire dept, police dept, the building inspector, has been h to talk to Mr. McFall about the issue and said he was going to contact Mr. hill. When all that failed he asked for an 8' wall. Mr. Gandolfo stated to me on Feb 25" when he called my house, he plans on putting up an 6' fence at the back of his house, along with this 8' wall. I feel the 6' fence will keep any one from having a view into his house, as he claims this wall is for privacy. Mr. Gandolofo's property is at a higher elevation than Ms. Hammonds and mine, and you can not see inside his home from either location. To allow an 8' wall right next to her fence will block the views Ms. Hammond hopes to enjoy from her back yard. To give you a little back round on Mr. Gandolfo, he is a bully and he thinks he rules all that he can see from his home. He has called the police ibr kids using skate boards on the street in front of his house, because of glare coming off the neighbors car parked in THEIR driveway, he does not want people parking on the street in front of his house, he has harassed a direct neighbor until they cut down a tree on their property that blocked HIS view of Strother park, yet he thinks nothing of constructing an 8' wall to block views from others. I could go on and on of the joys of having him live in our neighborhood. In fact the problem Mr. Gandolfo has had with 1169 Pradera Ct, goes all the way back to when he purchased his home. He even tried to get Mr. Ed Dorhan to redraw the lots lines to appease him way back when, Ed refused, and Frank now takes it out on the current homeowners. Most neighbors will not say anythg to the city about Mr. Gandoiofo, because they will then have to live with the fall out. I on the other hand am just sick and tired of all the crap Mr. Gandolfo does, and it is time to stand up to the bully. We are a pretty tight knit community that look out for each other. Another neighbor on Pradera Ct that is affected was not able to give input do to health issues. Most of all please realize this will not end with just this wall, he will then ask for side walls, or complain about something else. This is what Mr. Gandolfo has done to this neighborhood for the 15 years I have lived here. I sincerely believe the reason this got approved was to get Mr. Gandolfo out of the cities hair, I think the city has had enough also. I don't think I should have to look out the back of my property to see a wall and I don't think any of you would want to have to deal with something like this. The neighbors who are getting the worst of this are very nice people who just want to enjoy their property without being harassed, photographed, taunted, their children yelled at for playing on their property. Privacy works both ways and he has not given them much privacy. He goes to the property line and gets in their face, and goes to the city hoping to get the city to back him up, and when all else fails he asked for this wall. He harasses and insults the homeowners and tlien cries he needs privacy. I have watched him from my bedroom, out there measuring the post they put in ect.. . Please don't let this bully of a neighbor put a 8' WALL up, if he wants a fence let him put a 6 foot fence up like normal people do. In closing Mr. Gandolfo has told many people other than me, he is trying to sell his house to move. Two of these persons, were the cities code enforcement officers. So he wants to build a wall and then leave, real nice guy eh! I urge you to come out to Pradera Ct and see where he plans on building this wall. It is a good ways kom his house, and right next to Mr. Hammonds property. Don't be fooled by what he is doing, come and look for yourselves. I have Ms. Hannonds permission to bring planning commissioners on her property to view the project and would be more than happy to meet at your convenience. Sincerely Patty Welsh 1 15 1 Pradera Ct CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DECISION TO PLANNING COMMISSION - (Name) 07 - (Date) (3 2 c,-i+ J ,f ;\ , . > 4, /:A I >'-I 20 . - - -. t' ' ", L II (Address) (city) (Zip Code) Project Appeal Name and Case d ,-. . , 4t (3 , - -\, '1 .s. .I,'? .\,,,/*I>,.. / -\ ,- &f,i i-i - l,. 6 -5 '.9 Project ApprovediDenied by Community Development Director Project ~ocationAj 5 A ,) (lL>z.7fG j,bL I.; Reason for Appeal Mailing , 'LL 7 Tc. h\.> ,/? ,?. ,? ...., ,,,- 6,' '.J 2.(c Address-3/,, - C,' /. ‘8 ( ('",A 73~~~~ -1 0 - ATTACHMENT 6 In response to Ms. Kristin Hammond's letter 4.1.201 5 We would like to thank the panel for taking the time and the patience of this very sensitive and important issue. An issue that is taking it's toll on both of us. The privacy of our home is at stake. The conflict began around February this year, when Kristin and her fiancee built a stand made of straw for bow and arrow practice. It was declared illegal because of city code. After that they began to build a structure, which they are still doing. This is all taking place on a steep hill behind our house. While they are working they are looking our way, they can see into our bedroom, living room and patio. As a result we have to keep our blinds closed. We are proposing to build a 8 ft fence in order to get our privacy back. In her letter Kristin objects this because she will lose her view. View is a luxury, but privacy is forever. Home without privacy is not a home! We have consulted a fencing contractor and according to his calculations and measuring, not knowing the height of the structure, he recommends the 8 ft fence to have our privacy. The city of Arroyo Grande also did research and came to the same conclusion, need of 8 ft fence. Frank and Liisa Gandolfo 257 La Cresta Dr. Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420 THE LATEST DEVELOPMENT. As of today, May 13 2015, the platform Kristin Hammond and her fiancee are building, has reached the top level of our fence. Now we have a full body view of a person standing there. Privacy gone, you can see that in an enclosed picture. Frank and Liisa Gandolfo 257 La Cresta Dr. Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420 Frank Gandolfo has a fine community and military background. - WWll and Korean Vet, one of the five brothers in WWII. - Scoutmaster and commissioner, Troop 54 WH - Counselor for Teenage Drug and Alcohol addicts. - CCC, fought fires in Montana - Local Stopped mugging at AG Coral parking lot year 2000, age 80 yrs. old. Stopped a train wreck in Grover beach Railroad Station. All true and public knowledge. He never exploited any above. Does this sound like a person that Kristin Hammond describes in her letter, and also Patty Welch. We have met Kristin Hammond only once briefly in 13 years. Her daughter has the same birthday as Frank, we brought her a birthday present when she was 1 yrs. old. For thirteen years Charles Ruiz has maintained the rear property including Kristin Hammond, no expense to her, and no thank you from her! Frank and Liisa Gandolfo 257 La Cresta Dr. Arroyo Grande, Ca 93420 I CHARLES DON RUIZ have been maintaining rear properties owners 257 La Cresta Dr 11 69 La Pradera for the last 13 years. Renumeration only from property owner of 257 La Cresta Dr, never from 11 69 Pradera.