The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1981-04-22; Planning Commission; ; V 322 - NERLINGER·• STAFF REPORT DATE: April 22, 1981 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: V-322, NERLINGER -Request for a variance to allow construction of two condominium units within the 5 foot building setback required from private driveways. This request is made in conjunction with a request for a 4- unit minor condominium permit on a .26 acre lot on the south side of Chinquapin Avenue between Garfield Street and the AT&SF Railway in the RD-M zone. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a variance to the zoning ordinance to reduce the setback of a building off a private driveway from the required 5-feet to zero feet on a 4-unit condominium project on property as described above. The parcel has a substandard width (50.56 feet), and a long and narrow shape. (The length to width ratio is 4.4 to 1). The General Plan has designated this and surrounding parcels for high density development (20-30 du's/acre) which allows for 5 to 7 units on this lot. The proposed project would include only 4 units which is below the maximum allowed density. As shown on Exhibit "A", the applicant is proposing to have a driveway with a minimum width of 20-feet, and a 5-foot sideyard setback. In addition, the development standards of the condominium ordinance would require that there be a minimum 5- foot building setback from private driveways. The resultant difference is a buildable width of 20.56 feet. The applicant has indicated that this width is insufficient for the quality of units planned, and for this reason requests a variance from the ordinance to waive the required 5-foot building setback from the private driveway. II. ANALYSIS 1) Can the four mandatory findings for a variance be made in this case which are as follows: a) Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and zone? -- b} Is the granting of this variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone? c) Will the granting of this variance be detrimental to the public welfare? d) Will the granting of this variance adversely affect the General Plan? III. DISCUSSION The subject property is .26 acres in size with a width of 50.54 feet and a length of 222.80 feet. This substandard width, in conjunction with the extreme length, severely restricts any imaginative designs which must also meet the requirements of the condominium ordinance. As a result of the unusual shape, staff feels that the finding of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances can be made in this case. Additionally, staff feels that the granting of this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right in that this variance would enhance the applicant's opportunity to build an aesthetically attractive and liveable condominium project within the design criteria required by the condominium ordinance. Without the granting of this variance, it is felt that the design options are so severely limited (a maximum 20-foot wide buildings and garages) as to restrict the property right of adequate and reasonable development of the lot. The value of the setback requirement is that a buffer zone is created between the units themselves and the travel lanes of a private drive. Additionally, this setback decreases the potential of vehicle conflicts when one is exiting from a garage directly into the driveway lanes. With respect to this project, staff feels that this 5-foot setback is not necessary given the low volume of traffic that would be generated by the four units in the project. As a result, it is felt that the granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to the occupants of the project who would directly utilize the driveway. Additionally, the granting of this variance will not adversely affect the General Plan as the project is in compliance with zoning, density, and other residential development criteria, and surrounding parcels are presently developed or projected for development similar to this. -2- In summary, staff was able to find sufficient facts to make the four mandatory findings for approval of a variance. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from environmental review per Section 19.04.070(f)(4a} of the Environmental Ordinance. V. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1800, APPROVING V-322, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. ATTACHMENTS 1) PC Resolution No. 1800 2) Background Data Sheet 3) Location Map 4) Disclosure Form 5) Exhibit "A", dated March 23, 1981 PJK:ar 4/8/81 -3- B2-\CKGRXJNDDATASHE:er CASE 00; V-'322 APPLICANr: • FEDERICK :NERI.INGER REQUEST AND IOCATION: Variance for setbacks on private drive, south side of Chinquapin Avenue, east of Garfield. I.,EG,\I, DESCRIPl'IOO: _'Ih_e_no_rthea_. __ s_ter_._1_y_5_o_.5_6_:e:_ee_t_o_f_· _ID_t __ s_in_· _B_iock ___ T_acco __ rdin_·_g_ to Map 118# 1803 filed August 25, 1974. • Assessors Parcel NurmJer: 206 080 17 Acres __ •2_6 __ _ No. of Lots -------1 / GENERAL PIAN .AND ~ General Plan land Use Designatic;>n RH 20-30 Density Allowed 20-30 -------------Density Proposed --=15_.:.;;;3;.;:;.8 ___ _ Existing zone ---=RDM=-=------------- Surrourrling Zoning and Lam Use: Proposed Zone _____ N .... /=A'---- Zoning North m1 -~----- South RDM ----- East RDM West R-1 CARLSBAD CARLSBAD CARISBAD Lani Use MFD SFD SFD SFD PUBLIC FACILITIF.s EDU's I I School District water District Sewer District -----------------------=---- Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated ----------------- (Other: Cl>tained as part of a minor condoorinium application ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ____ Negative Declaration, issued ________ Log No.• _____ _ E.I.R. Certified, d1ted -------------- 0th Exanpt per 19.04.070(f) (4a), per Notice of Exemption dated 4/1/81 er, LOCATION ·MAP )- -----. c.H-. _I_NQ_t..JA_Pi--~--· ____ A._v_r::: ____ ~ i ~ {ft 11 Jt.1•lm:T' "'-"•.,...,, :!>i'i G-f l l\4G..t.lA.PtN AV-e:.-• • CASE NO. Y·.32'- APPLICANT fJ£i;;rL1tJ~Pa Jl jl ! 1. I ·, -If a!tc:r the onnnti.on you h.wc sul>mi Lt,:cl hus i>e<' --·cvicwc<l, it is determined thut further ..... J:"ormul:ion is required, you will be L Jvisad. APPI,ICJ\N'l': 11/€,<t.1,V<Je,e-,£FlatMSte,~----------------llF1mc (individun.l, partncr~.hip, jr.JinL VC'ntu're, cor1ioration, syndication) .J2..'IO &f,~e..,~1TE tl eMtS"Mv, &?16 Yl«?8 BU£incst;; J:.c.ldJ:.'C?S~ . • t'zt4} 7Zf~M.-;....,.,.._,'BB ____ _ Telephone tl!lunber AGENT: __ag./2Mle,,c "G.lttt1,1e&&U6 Name .. --3.!f.g_ ~-A'~e, .,Crc= Al. ·&Je~S,t!ui4 &,1.1F. 9z~t:,e Busirms,,; l\c.drcss' ' MEMBER.";.:, lj(:[0 _.t....tlc«:«s-'.k,<~1M6"~~-- Nar.:Q '!.individuc1l, partn~r. joint venture, corporation, syndica~ion) .:J'lo 0/1.K llve., ~,;tF Ill &e, s-~~a &vF. 9Z008 Busir.ess Address • ( .......... Zt-'"4 ___ ).....,1'"-=2,_._cr __ -o:;._4.....,,9.~8"-------· • (714) 7Zet-o188 'releI.tf.,;,ne Number Telephone Humber Tel cr,hone l!umbe>r Telephone Null'.ber (Attach more sheets if necessary) I/We declare! under penalty of pcrjur¥ t.hat the infm:mation contaj ncct in tM.~ dl!;- cloimrt! is true an;l corr.cct ;ind that: it. will remain true and correct ,:md may be~ xelic<l upon ai;· bc.:in•,i true ancl correct u11tj_l amended.