REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT
Title
Public Hearing: Continuance for Action on a Variance (PLN24-00514) to Locate a Six-Foot Wrought Iron Fence Within the 10-Foot Street Side Setback and Within the 20-Foot Front Setback Proposed at 572 Woodhams Road
Report
REPORT IN BRIEF
File No.(s): PLN24-00514
Project: Variance to locate a six-foot wrought iron fence within the required 10-foot street side setback and 20-foot front setback.
Applicant: Thuy Hoa Nguyen
Owner: Thuy Hoa Nguyen
General Plan: Very Low Density Residential
Zoning: Single-Family (R1-6L)
Site Area: 10,825 square-foot
Existing Site Conditions: The property is developed with a one-story single-family residence.
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Single-Family Residential
South: Single-Family Residential
East: Single-Family Residential
West: Single-Family Residential
Issues: Consistency with the City’s General Plan and conformance with the City’s Zoning Ordinance
Staff Recommendation: Deny the application for a variance to locate a six-foot wrought iron fence within the required 10-foot street side setback and 20-foot front setback proposed at 572 Woodhams Road
BACKGROUND
On October 4, 2024, Thuy Hoa Nguyen (“Owner” and “Applicant”) filed an application for a Variance to permit a six-foot wrought iron fence that was erected without benefit of a permit or zoning approval within the required 10-foot street side setback and 20-foot front setback. There is an active City code enforcement case for the proposed fence at this property.
City records indicate the residence was constructed in 1963, and historical imagery indicates that the exterior has not been significantly altered since 1968. The subject site is a street parcel and is zoned Single-Family (R1-6L) with a General Plan land use designation of Very Low Density Residential.
Variance
Consistent with Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) Chapter 18.124, the applicant applied for a Variance to locate a six-foot wrought iron fence within the required street side and front setbacks.
According to SCCC 18.34 (Table 3-1), single-family zoned properties shall maintain a maximum three-foot (3’) fence height within the required 10-foot street side setback area along the street side property line and within the required 20-foot front setback area. All other areas of a parcel can have a fence up to six feet in height with an additional one foot of lattice. The six-foot fence encroaches into the street side yard setback by 10 feet and a few feet into the front setback. Where located, the fence is only permitted to be a maximum of three feet in height.
DISCUSSION
The site consists of a single-family residence. The residence has not been significantly altered since being constructed in 1963. The residence is approximately 2,890 square feet and is on an approximately 10,825 square-foot lot. The minimum lot size for a Single-Family R1-6L lot is 6,000 square feet. The proposal would be unique to this property, as other properties have maintained the required setback and height for fences on this block. See Attachment 5 for the photographs of the site and vicinity. The site includes a seven-foot-tall wooden fence (including a one-foot lattice) that predates the added wrought-iron fence (Attachment 3). The existing residence sits about 20-feet from the front property line and 16-feet from the street side property line (consistent with the zoning setback).
The site does not have any unusual circumstance that create non-conforming street side and front setback that would necessitate a six-foot wrought iron fence to be located within the required setbacks.
The applicant intends to keep both fences for additional security, indicating that they have had multiple attempted burglaries, trespassing and loitering incidents, several car accidents at the four-way stop at the corner of their yard, and illegal dumping. It is the Planning Division’s determination that fences should located to meet the required maximum height in the required 10-foot street side setback and 20-foot front setback.
The existing placement of the fence is out of character compared to the rest of the neighborhood. Allowing the fence at the property line, immediately behind the sidewalk results in this particular property having a zero-foot street side setback for a six-foot wrought iron fence. The house is situated approximately 16-feet from the street side property line, where a 10-foot setback is the requirement. It is reasonable that the applicant could locate the six-foot wrought iron fence in place of where the wooden fence is located to maintain all SCCC rules and regulations.
Consistency with the General Plan
The General Plan designation for the project site is Very Low Density Residential. This classification is intended for residential densities of up to ten units per gross acre. Development is typically single‐family in scale and character, with a prevailing building type of single‐family detached dwelling units. Development in this classification maintains a feeling of suburban living with setbacks between structures, parking, large, landscaped yards and tree lined streets. The proposed project would expand the scale of the existing single-family residence and is inconsistent with the following General Plan Policies and Goals:
5.3.1‐P29 Encourage design of new development to be compatible with, and sensitive to, nearby existing and planned development, consistent with other applicable General Plan policies.
5.3.2‐G4 Respect for the existing character and quality of adjacent neighborhoods from new residential development and redevelopment.
The proposal is inconsistent with the pattern of development in the neighborhood. An encroachment for a six-foot wrought iron fence in the street side setback at zero feet and a few feet within the front setback would be out of character with the surrounding area and disrupt the streetscape that has been created by standardized and established setback requirements. In addition, having two fences of identical height so close to each other is also incompatible with the pattern of development in the neighborhood.
Zoning Conformance
The zoning designation for the project site is Single-Family (R1-6L). The intent of this zone is to protect and preserve the residential characteristics of existing single-family neighborhoods and to provide a suitable environment for family life. The proposed project does not comply with the SCCC Section 18.34.040, Table 3-1, which requires a maximum three-foot height fence in the required 10-foot street side setback and 20-foot front setback.
Pursuant to SCCC Section 18.124.010, variances shall only be approved when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of this Zoning Code denies the owner of the property privileges enjoyed by other property located nearby and in an identical zone. Specific findings are required and associated conditions are applied that would work together to guarantee that the Variance shall not constitute an approval of special privilege(s) inconsistent with the limitations upon other property in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located.
The required findings are as follows:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property or existing buildings (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification;
a. The property at 572 Woodhams Road does not have unusual conditions, the lot is larger than the minimum lot size and the residence is similarly sized to surrounding single-family homes.
2. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification;
a. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the enjoyment of the property, the homeowner could locate the fence to meet the 10-foot street side setback while still meeting the zoning code requirements.
3. Approving the Variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated; and
a. The subject property is like many other street properties in the R1-6L zoning district. The granting of this encroachment would be a special privilege as the property is comparable to many R1-6L zoned lots in this neighborhood and throughout the City.
4. Granting the Variance will not adversely affect the interests of the public or the interests of residents and property owners in the vicinity of the subject property in question.
a. The granting of the variance would adversely impact the general interests of the residents or property owners in the vicinity of the subject property because placing the fence at zero-foot street side setback may introduce visual impediments for the users of the neighboring driveway and on Forbes Avenue. Locating the fence at zero-foot street side setback may disrupt the harmonious streetscape for the neighborhood that residents have enjoyed for years from established setback requirements.
Conclusion
In reviewing the SCCC and the proposed project, staff finds that the proposed fence located at zero feet within the required 10-foot street side setback and encroachment into the required 10-foot street side setback and 20-foot front setback site would not meet the findings for a variance. The proposed project is located at 572 Woodhams Road which does not have any unusual or special conditions that do not apply to surrounding properties. The fence could be relocated to meet the 10-foot street side and 20-foot front setback requirements which would allow the project to move forward without a variance. The granting of this variance would be a special privilege as this property’s layout exists for many R1-6L zoned lots in this neighborhood and throughout the City. The granting of this variance, moreover, is adverse to the general interests of the residents or the property owners because the project may introduce visual impediments and disrupt the harmonious streetscape enjoyed by residences created by well-established setback requirements. Therefore, staff does not support the granting of the variance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff’s recommendation is that the Planning Commission deny the Variance application. CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a) provides that “CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.”
If, however, the Planning Commission votes to approve the Variance, the project would be categorically exempt per Class 3, Section 15303 (e) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, which allows for the construction of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including “[a]ccessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.”
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the City for processing the requested application other than administrative staff time and expense typically covered by processing fees paid by the applicant.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Planning Commission agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santaclaraca.gov <mailto:clerk@santaclaraca.gov> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
A public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site on November 21, 2024. As of the writing of this report, planning staff has not received public comments for this application.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the request to a date uncertain, for which will be noticed by mail to property owners within 300 feet of the project site.
Staff
Prepared by: Meha Patel, Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Lesley Xavier, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Resolution to Deny
3. Zoning Code Fence and Classic Code Fence Regulations
4. Development Plan
5. Photos from Code Enforcement of the Fence
6. Correspondence