PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
May 3, 2017
TO:
Hearing Officer
SUBJECT:
Minor Variance #11850
LOCATION:
351 California Terrace
APPLICANT:
Annette Bull
ZONING DESIGNATION:
RS-6 (Single-Family Residential, 0-6 lots per acre)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
LDR (Low-Density Residential)
PREPARED BY:
Carlos Chacon
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Environmental Determination and the Specific
Findings in Attachment A to disapprove Minor Variance
#11850.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Minor Variance: to allow a solid white vinyl fence (fence) and
driveway gate with a height of five feet ten inches in the street side
yard setback, where the maximum permitted is four feet. A Minor
Variance is required for a wall, fence, or gate that exceeds the
maximum allowable height in the street side yard setback.
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
This project has been determined to be exempt from environmental
review pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental
Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21080(b)(9); Administrative
Code, Title 14, Chapter 3 §15303, Class 3, New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures. Class 3 consists of the construction
of or installation of accessory structures. The existing primary use
of the site will remain a single-family residence and the legalization
of a five foot ten inch after the fact fence on the property is a small
structure ancillary to the primary use.
BACKGROUND:
Site characteristics:
The subject site is a 9,427 square foot rectangular shaped corner
lot located on the southwest corner of Arbor Street and California
Terrace. The site is developed with a 2,543 square foot, two-story,
single-family residence and a detached 477 square foot two-car
garage.
Adjacent Uses:
North –
South –
East –
West –
Residential (Single-Family Residence)
Residential (Single-Family Residence)
Residential (Single-Family Residence)
Residential (Single-Family Residence)
Adjacent Zoning:
North –
South –
East –
West –
RS-4 (Single Family Residential, 0-4 lots per acre)
RS-4 (Single Family Residential, 0-4 lots per acre)
RS-4 (Single Family Residential, 0-4 lots per acre)
RS-4-HD (Single Family Residential- Hillside Overlay, 0-4
lots per acre)
Previous zoning cases:
None
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant, Annette Bull, has submitted a Minor Variance to exceed the maximum fence/wall
height requirement. The Zoning Code limits the height of a fence or wall along the corner side
yard setback to no more than four feet in height. An existing five-foot ten-inch high solid fence
has been constructed along the Arbor Street (corner yard) frontage and the applicant is
requesting to legalize the fence, which exceeds the maximum permitted four-foot height by one
foot and ten inches. A Minor Variance is required to deviate from fence and wall development
standards of the RS-4 (Residential Single-Family) zoning district.
ANALYSIS:
Pasadena Zoning Code Section 17.40.180 states that a fence or wall in the RS or RM-12 zoning
district cannot exceed a maximum height of four feet, when located within five feet from the
corner side property line. The project consists of the legalization of an existing five-foot ten inch
high solid fence has been constructed along the Arbor Street (corner yard) frontage. The
existing fence is located along the northern property line of the subject site with a total linear
length of 71 feet including an 18-foot driveway sliding gate. The applicant has submitted a
Minor Variance application to exceed the maximum height limit of a fence along the corner side
setback by an additional one foot ten inches.
As indicated in the Minor Variance application submitted by the property owner, the applicant is
requesting to exceed the allowable height of a fence because the subject property is situated
along Arbor Street which is utilized as a thoroughfare for access to Lower Arroyo Park. The
applicant has expressed that there is a high concentration of pedestrian traffic walking along the
sidewalk on Arbor Street looking into the subject property and into the windows of the existing
dwelling unit due to the close proximity to the Rose Bowl and that Arbor is one of the first streets
that allows access to Orange Grove, , which results in lack of privacy for the homeowner. In
addition, the property owner states that she has observed transients leaving trash and debris on
the corner side of the property due to lack of a security wall. Before this fence was erected, the
Hearing Officer
May 3, 2017
2
Minor Variance #11850
351 California Terrace
owner had a four foot picket fence up to the rear section of the house. The property owner has
also indicated that her dog is able to see the people walking by due to the short height of a four
foot fence which causes the dog to bark incessantly and disturb the neighbors. The owner
stated that this rendered her side yard unusable. The owner states that the additional one-foot
ten-inches are necessary to provide full enjoyment of her side and rear yard. Furthermore, the
applicant has expressed concern for her safety when her husband travels and is frequently not
home and states that the short fence does not provide any security from potential intruders and
thefts from surrounding loitering transients.
When analyzing a Minor Variance application request, staff must be able to make the required
findings identified in Section 17.61.080 of the Zoning Code. The first finding requires that staff
make a finding to determine if there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the development of this site that do not apply generally to sites in the
same zoning district. In this case, homeowners within this single-family neighborhood are
exposed to similar conditions and/or circumstances such as trash and debris left in the yard, as
a result of multiple factors associated with being a corner lot. This situation is not unique to the
subject site as presented to staff by the applicant. Furthermore, similar properties share the
same topographical conditions of the subject site. As such, because these conditions and
circumstances are not exceptional in any single-family residential neighborhood in the City, staff
does not consider it exceptional or extraordinary. In addition, the minimum lot size for property
located in the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family) zoning district is 7,200 square feet. The subject
site’s lot size is approximately 9,427 square feet. The minimum lot width for RS-4 zone lot is 55
feet. The subject lot width is 67 feet, rectangular in shape and complies with minimum lot size
and lot width requirements. There are corner lots of similar size and width in the immediate
neighborhood, so this particular property is not unique or different. As such, staff determined
that there are no exceptional or extraordinary conditions applicable to subject site that would
make it unique, that would warrant the approval of a Minor Variance for fence height.
A second required finding that staff must consider is that the granting of the application is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right by the applicant,
and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. The abutting single-family
residence immediately east of the subject site also shares fairly similar topographical conditions
and circumstances of the subject site. They both have an similar corner side yards and rear
yards. However, the neighboring property located on the southeast corner of Arbor Street and
California Terrace has a three-foot high block wall along Arbor Street and is in compliance with
the Zoning Code. At that site, additional height and privacy was obtained with the planting of
vertical landscaping. It is staff’s assessment that the planting of landscaping behind the fence
and on the subject property will create an additional buffer that will screen out the potential for
visual intrusion from individuals walking along the sidewalk.
As such, granting this application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship.
As analyzed by planning staff, there are multiple alternative remedies available to the applicant
to obtain the necessary privacy, similar to the abutting neighboring properties to the immediate
west of the subject site, while still complying with the Zoning Code.
Based upon the above analysis, staff is unable to make the required findings to support a
recommendation for approval of a Minor Variance to allow a fence to exceed the four-foot height
limit and thus recommends that the Hearing Officer disapprove the Minor Variance application
for the fence height of five feet ten inches.
Hearing Officer
May 3, 2017
3
Minor Variance #11850
351 California Terrace
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This project has been determined to be exempt from environmental review pursuant to the
guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21080(b)(9);
Administrative Code, Title 14, Chapter 3 §15303, Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures. Class 3 consists of the construction of or installation of accessory structures.
The existing primary use of the site will remain a single-family residence and the legalization of
a five foot ten inch fence on the property is a small structure ancillary to the primary use.
REVIEW BY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS:
The proposal was reviewed by the Building & Safety Division, Design and Historic Preservation
Section, Fire Department, Public Works Department, and Department of Transportation and no
comments and/or conditions were received.
CONCLUSION:
It is staff’s assessment that the findings necessary for approving the Minor Variance request to
allow the legalization of the existing five foot ten inch high solid fence to exceed the allowable
four-foot height by one-foot and ten-inches cannot be made. There are no exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the development site that does not
apply generally to sites in the same zoning district that warrant the approval of this request.
Granting this Minor Variance application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right by the applicant, since the proposal will be inconsistent with the
existing development pattern enjoyed by the neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends that
the Hearing Officer disapprove the application with the findings in Attachment A.
Hearing Officer
May 3, 2017
4
Minor Variance #11850
351 California Terrace
ATTACHMENT A
SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR MINOR VARIANCE #11850
Disapproval of Minor Variance – To allow a five-foot ten-inch high solid fence to exceed the
maximum allowable height of four feet.
1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
development site that does not apply generally to sites in the same zoning district. The
minimum lot size for property located in the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family) zoning district
is 7,200 square feet. The subject site’s lot size is approximately 9,427 square feet. The
minimum lot width for RS-4 zone lot is 55 feet. The subject lot width is 67 feet. The subject
property is rectangular in shape and complies with minimum lot size and lot width
requirements. There are similar corner lots of similar width and lot size in the immediate
neighborhood, that observe all the provisions of the zoning code, as they relate to fence
height. As such, staff is of the opinion that there is no exceptional or extraordinary
circumstance that applies to this site.
2. Granting the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship. The abutting single-family residence immediately east of the subject site also
shares fairly similar topographical conditions and circumstances similar to the subject site.
This neighboring abutting property located on the southeast corner of Arbor Street and
California Terrace has a three-foot high block wall along Arbor Street that is in compliance
with the Zoning Code. Additional height and privacy was obtained with the planting of
landscaping. Therefore, granting this application, is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and will not prevent unreasonable
property loss or unnecessary hardship because the abutting neighbor immediately to the
east of the subject site is able to enjoy their property with a block wall at three-feet built in
compliance with the Zoning Code.
Hearing Officer
May 3, 2017
5
Minor Variance #11850
351 California Terrace