Zoning Administrator Meeting - August 21, 2025: Fence Height Variance Approval for 501 Archer Street

August 21st, 2025 zoning administrator meeting to order.

My name is Levi Hill.

I'll be serving as zoning administrator for today's meeting.

Also in attendance is Principal Planner Riveri and recording Secretary Argonbright.

Mr.

Argonbright, will you please remind the public how to participate in today's meeting?

Yes.gov forward slash agendas.

Remote commenters will be muted until it is their turn to speak, and a timer will be shown on the screen.

If you are connected on Zoom, the timer is accurate with no delay.

In the chamber, we recommend keeping phones and devices needed to prevent audio interference with the meeting.

Thank you for participating in your city government.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing and hearing none.

With that, I'll now open the meeting up to public comments for items not on today's agenda.

Uh if there are any members of the public that wish to speak on items not on the agenda, please approach the podium or if participating online, use the raise hand function.

Applicant Terry and Tom Clark, owner Terry and Tom Clark.

Yes, thank you, zoning administrator.

And this is defined in our zoning ordinance.

Um along McClellan Avenue.

And currently, even though this image doesn't show it because it's an old image, currently there is a single family dwelling on site with landscaping, retaining walls, and hardscape.

The reason for the variance today is that the topography at 501 Archer Street presents a challenge to the owners.

The grade at the back of the dwelling cuts into the slope, creating a 55-inch difference between grade at the building's back corner and the grade at McClellan Avenue.

So I'm pointing to the grade that is lower at the building's back corner and the grade that is higher at the street level.

This is a photo looking toward the back of the dwelling and showing that 55-inch grade difference, showing that the dwelling is 55 inches lower than the street on the left side.

Um looking down at the property at the back corner and looking at that 55-inch retaining wall.

The owner expressed lack of privacy due to the house being lower than the street.

And as pointed out, 501 Archer Street is a reversed corner lot.

Staff visited the site and also did some background research into the property file and found that there was a topographic survey that was prepared when the home, the new home at 501 Archer was built.

And that survey shows the property line and the line of the back of the sidewalk.

The fence is built where the green line shows right now, the dashed green line.

The fence is built at the back of the sidewalk.

However, the property line shown in orange is about five feet away from the fence.

And so it appears that the fence was built in city property outside of 501 Archer Street.

In order to approve of fence height variance, the zoning administrator must make the following findings.

The first is a general variance finding that because of special circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, strict application of the requirements of this ordinance, deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity, and under an identical zoning classification.

This finding can be met because the site presents topographical challenges that create a 55-inch grade difference between the back of the dwelling and the street.

So the dwelling sits 55 inches lower than the street.

The retaining walls on the property keep the earth from sliding onto the property.

The home is lower than its surroundings, which poses privacy concerns to the owners.

As shown in the photo that I showed earlier, one can look at the windows of the house if the fence was four feet tall.

And strict application deprives the owner, strict application of this zoning requirement of a four-foot fence would deprive the owner of the privilege of having privacy that other properties in the vicinity enjoy.

Staff found that the additional fence height would not cause harm or damage to the neighborhood, nor would it affect property values.

General variance finding number three is that granting the application is consistent with the purposes of this ordinance and will not constitute a grant of special privilege, inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district.

And staff found that the location, topography, and surroundings do deprive the owner of the same privileges of privacy and lower exposure, lower exposure enjoyed by other owners in the vicinity.

However, um, so as to not constitute a grant of special privilege, a condition of approval is recommended that would require that the fencing be installed at 501 Archer Street and not on city property.

The zoning administrator must also make some specific fence height variance findings for approval.

The first one is that there is a significant grade difference where the house is lower than the street.

And by the way, the following findings, only one must at least one must be made.

And so this determination can be made because the dwelling sits 55 inches lower than the street.

The grade drops abruptly, and there is a retaining wall that's keeping the earth from sliding toward the house.

The third special finding is that the fence does not appear as a visual barrier and does not impede the sight line for vehicles.

This determination can be made.

The fence is set back approximately 35 feet from the point of intersection of the front and side property lines at the street corner of Archer and McClellan.

Therefore, the fence does not appear as a visual barrier and does not impede sight line for vehicles.

And then there's these other set of special findings, and only one of them must be met.

That there is a physical hardship with one of the following.

The topography of the site.

This criterion can be met.

The topography presents physical hardship that places the dwelling 55 inches lower than the street.

That there is a hardship with the trees or rocky outcroppings on the site or in the immediate vicinity.

This criterion cannot be met.

There are no rocky outcroppings on site, and the trees on site do not present a physical hardship.

That there's a physical hardship with the irregular non-rectangular shape of the site.

This criterion cannot be met.

The site has a regular rectangular shape.

That there's a physical hardship with the non-conforming lot width, lot depth and dimensions of the site.

This criterion cannot be met.

The lot width and depth conform to the R15 district minimum lot dimension.

Finally, that there is a physical hardship with the location of existing structures on site.

This criterion cannot be met.

The location of the existing home on site does not present the physical hardship.

And therefore, staff recommends that the zoning administrator approve the variance application to allow a six-foot-tall fence in the reverse corner side yard at 501 Archer Street, with the conditions in the resolution, in addition to this special condition that the fencing shall not exceed six feet in height and shall be installed within the boundaries of 501 Archer Street.

The fencing shall also be no closer, no closer than 30 feet to the point of intersection of the front and side property lines at the street corner.

This approval does not permit the fence to be located on city property.

With that, that ends my presentation.

And the applicant said that he was going to be online.

Do you have any questions?

Thank you, Ms.

Fervery for that report.

Excellent.

Do you have one question?

And this uh if this is more appropriate for the applicant, that's fine too if they're online.

Uh you mentioned the special condition of approval that we would require the relocation of the fence.

Has the applicant been made aware of that condition and have they agreed to that condition of approval?

He was made aware.

Um, however, he um is still not clear about the location of the fence versus the location of the property line.

And so I can't say that he's agreed to the condition.

Okay, thank you.

I'll present that question to him.

Uh, I think that's the only question I have for now.

Is the applicant available online?

And would they like to speak?

Uh yes, you are uh allowed to speak and should be able to unmute yourself.

Um we hear you.

Hello, we can hear you.

Yes, hello.

Um, yeah, no, we weren't aware of the issue until about an hour or two ago when we just got an email.

We're actually traveling out of state right now, so that's why I can't be there.

Um we just built the fence which copied the neighbor's fence, which is in the same exact location that was just built a while ago.

So that's why we did what we did.

So is there a way we can get um an encroachment permit possibly uh to proceed with this?

So there is uh for development in the right-of-way, there is an encroachment permit process.

Uh this has, I don't believe this has been reviewed by our public works or traffic engineering staff at this point in time.

Uh we can uh there's uh that's uh possible option that can possibly be incorporated into the condition of approval.

Um we do not typically uh support uh encroachments like fences from private property onto the public right of way, though.

So that uh would be a contingency on that, I would note.

Um but yeah, I just wanted to make sure you're at least aware of the condition in case uh if approved is included in today's action.

Um do you have anything else you'd like to add?

He's still online.

I yes.

Yeah, do you have any other information you would like to add before we go out to general public comment?

No, I I don't think so.

Um I'd just like to know the way to go about it.

Uh the possible encroachment permit process.

That's all, but I'm sure I can get that online somehow or talk to the city.

Of course, yeah.

City staff would be happy to follow up with you if that's uh an option that's available.

Okay.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um that I'll now open the meeting up for public comment on this item.

Uh, if you'd like to speak on this item, please uh approach the podium.

Uh and if you're viewing or participating online, please use the raised hand function.

Yes, sir.

And if you'll please state your name for the record if you're comfortable doing so.

My name's Patrick Hennessy.

I live at 861 McClellan Avenue, directly across the street from this property at French on 501 Archer.

He has a big problem with dog walkers.

We do too.

Uh encroaching on our property.

That's why he built the fence.

And I think that four feet is not high enough to keep people from peering into his property and actually trying to get onto the property and letting their dogs run onto the property.

A six-foot fence pretty much eliminates all those possibilities.

So I really am for him getting the variance.

I guess that's really all I've got to say.

So thanks a lot.

Thank you for your comment.

Hi, excuse me, my name is Jenny Babbitt, and I live at 990 McClellan, which is like two full blocks up the street.

Um, first, there's a really thorough report, and I appreciate everyone's considerations on it because it's an awkward property.

It always has been, and they've made great improvements to it.

Um, and and I could see where the guidelines for it all are very confusing as well, since it goes straight with the name.

I understand what Tom was thinking.

But um I'm I'm grateful that everyone's considered whatever you can because they do have an awkward situation.

The dogs are a great challenge for all of us because everyone's walking at the dog park and they're pretty invasive.

And the deer as well, that everyone greatly appreciates.

Um there's a challenge.

They jump over four foot and my hit into that lower area would be rather dangerous.

So anyway, I just greatly appreciate everyone thinking about how they can work with the owners.

It's an opera property, and it's they've done so much to it, and it's unfortunate they're in a fishbowl with all the encroachments that we get.

So thank you, everybody.

Thank you for your comment.

Sir, anyone online who'd like to speak.

The applicant by remind the public that information on how to participate remotely by Zoom or telephone is found at monterey.gov forward slash agendas.

And if you're adjoining by telephone, dial star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute.

Uh there are still no other hands raised.

Thank you.

Uh thank you everyone for your public comments.

Uh very informative.

Uh I have read the staff report.

I've also reviewed the draft resolution, and uh, after hearing from the applicant and taking public comment, I do agree with the staff recommendation.

Uh specifically, I find that there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property that result in changes and uh resulting from changes in topography from 501 Archer Street and McClellan Avenue.

The dwelling of 501 Archer sits approximately 55 inches lower than McClellan Avenue.

Strict application of the four-foot fence height standard would deprive 501 Archer Street of the privacy afforded by a six-foot-tall fence.

Um, and lastly, the proposal is subject to conditions of approval as known in the draft resolution as conditioned granting the fit fence height variants is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties in the vicinity or the same zoning district.

And as it relates to the specific findings required for fence height variances, I find that the required criteria of Monterey City Code Section 38-153 C eight A and C7C can be made, and that there is a significant grade difference where the house is lower than the street, and the proposed fence will not present a visual barrier or sightline issue, and that there is a physical hardship related to the topography of the site.

With that, I hereby approve the variance application VA250149 with the conditions of approval as reflected in the draft resolution and the addition, uh including the special condition of approval as written in the draft resolution with the amendment that uh an alternative means of instead of relocating the fence is approval of an encroachment permit if issued by the public works department of the city of Monterey.

With that, decisions of the zoning administrator are appealable to the planning commission within 10 days of this meeting.

Applications for appeal can be found online and at the planning office.

But there being no further business, this meeting is adjourned.