HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-05-23; Planning Commission; ; V 357 - NATIVE SUNAPPLrc--1ON SUBMiTTAL DATE:
MARCH~, 1984
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 23, 1984 @
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Land Use Planning Office
SUBJECT: V-357 -NATIVE SUN -Request for a variance from the
Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a six
foot high wall within the front yard setback on
property located on the north side of Ocean Avenue
between Mountain View Drive and Pacific Avenue.
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution
No. 2298 DENYING V-357 based on the findings contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a variance to Section 21.46.130 of
the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a six foot
masonry wall in the front yard setback. The wall would run
approximately along the front property line of the subject
property. The applicant is proposing the wall at the requested
height to keep in line with the security concept of the project.
III. ANALYSIS
Planning Issues
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 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 health and welfare?
d) Will the granting of this variance adversely affect
the General Plan?
Discussion
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance which would
allow construction of a six foot masonry wall approximately along
the front property line. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits fences
and walls over 42 inches in height within the front yard setback.
Before the request is granted it must meet the necessary findings
for a variance. Staff cannot make two of the four findings.
First, there are no unusual circumstances that exist on this
property that do not generally apply to other properties in the
same vicinity. The applicant feels that since the subject
property takes access through a private drive, the geometric
layout lends itself to being a private community within itself.
Staff does not agree. The project does not take access through a
private drive, rather it takes access through a driveway as do
other projects in the vicinity. Also, the topography of the
project is relatively the same as the apartment projects to the
east and the single family residences to the south. Thus, staff
feels no unusual circumstances exist on the site, that do not
exist in the vicinity.
A second issue is whether the applicant is being denied a
substantial property right enjoyed by other property owners in
the vicinity. The applicant states that properties to the south
have walls over 42 inches high within the front yard setback.
Staff made a field check of the vicinity and found only two
homes in the vicinity had walls over 42 inches in height. Only
one of these, the wall located at 2445 Ocean Street, runs along
the front property line. Staff has found that this wall was
built illegally without a building permit or variance. Illegal
construction does not establish a precendent. Staff is in the
process of notifying this property owner to correct this zoning
violation.
Overall, staff feels it cannot make the necessary findings for a
variance and therefore, recommends denial of V-357.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from environmental review per Section
19.04.070(F){4)(A) of the Environmental Protection Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2298
2) Location Map
3) Background Data Sheet
4) Variance Supplemental Sheet
5) Disclosure Statement
EVR:bw
5/8/84
-2-
.-
._QCA TION MA.>
SITE
PACIFIC OCEAN
NATIVE SUN V-357
BA.CKGIOJND MTA SHEET
CASE 00: V-357 -------
APPLICANT: Native Sun
REQUEST AND IOCATICN: Allow 6' high masonry wall within front yard setback on
the north side of Ocean Avenue between .lt>untain View Drive and Pacific Avenue.
LEX:iAL DESCRIPI'ICN: All that portion of lot 2 and a portion of lot 3 in Section
1, 'Ibwnship 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base Meridian according to
Official Plat Map filed in the County of San Diego. APN: 203-01-14
Acres 7.40 Prq,osed No. of Lots/Units N/A -----------
Land Use Designation
GffiERAL PLAN AND ZCNDX;
RM-H --------
Density Allowed 10-20 du/ac -----------Density Proposed N/A
Existing Zone R-3 ---------Proposed Zone N/A -----------
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
zoning
Site R-3
North R-A
South R-3
East R-3
West as
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Land Use
Vacant
Lagoon
SFR
Apartment
Pacific Ocean
School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad sewer Carlsbad EDU's -----
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated N/A _____ ...._ _________ _
ENVIRCNMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
__ Negative Declaration, issued __________ _
E.I.R. Certified, dated --------------
0th er, Exempt per Section 19.04.070(F)(4)(A)
PPLE.""lENI'AL INFOR."iATION FORM
VARIANCE
1) Gross Acres (or square footage, if less than acre) 6.544
2) Zale -----------------------------------R-3
3) General Plan Land use Designaticn ___ R_e_s_i_d_e_n_t_1_· _a_l_-_M_e_d_i_u_m_H_. 1_· g ___ h_D_e_n_s_i_t_y_
4) By law a Variance may be a_R?roved cnly if certain facts are found to exist.
Please read these requirements carefully and explain h:lw tre proposed
project meets each of these facts. Use additicnal sheets if necessary.
a) Explain wcy there are excepticnal or extraordinary circumstances or
o:::nditicns awlicable to the property or to the intended use that do not
apply· generally to tre other: property or class· of u~ }n tre ~ vicinity
and zcne: This is· a development of 14 condominiums which take
access to and through a private drive before entet'lnq a public
roadway. Thus, the geometric layout lends itself to being
a private community within i ts·e!f.
b) Explain why such variance is necessary for the preservaticn and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in
the same vicinity and z~e but which is denied to the prc_,perty in question:
Adjacent properties to the west have 5.5' privacy walls
along their front right-of-way lines. Other homes in the
area encroach within the required setbacks from street R.O.w.
Our Variance is not evert for encroachment, but for a heiqhth
allowance of 30".
c) Explain why the granting of such variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or
irnp.rovemet1ts in such vicinity and zcne in which t~ property is located
Th~ variance will in nd way naturally be detrimental to the
public -The public will still have all benefits it had prior
to ·ssuance of the variance. The roperties in the area will
them in any way from the benefits they enjoy on their own prop-
erties·today;
d) Explai..'l why tre granting of such variance will not adversely affect tre
conp:cehensive general pl.an: The variance is more for a landscape/sec-
urity measure which would not adversely affect: the general plan
which is a density, unit type (detached, attached units, etc.)
permitted use (commercial, recreation, residential, etc.)
monitor.
If after the information you have submitted has been reviewed, it is determined
~hat further information required, you wiil be so ad,--~-
APPLICANT:
AGENT:
MEMBERS:
NATIVE SUN INVESTMENT GROUP
Name (individual, partnership. joint venture, corporation-syndication)
•110 Escondido Avenue, Suite 103, Vista, CA 92083
Business Address
941-1155
Telephone Number •
Roberto. Sukup
Name
same
Business Addres~
same Telephone Number
Michael R, Mahoney
Hame ·(individual, partner, joint_
venture, corporation, syndication)
same
Business Address
same
Telephone N\Jillber
John B. Lyttle
same
3~siness Address
same
Telephor.e Member
Home J.ddress
Telephone Number
Home .Address
Telephone ~iu.'.\ber
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I/We dec:la:e u~de:r_penalty of perjury that the information contained in this dis-
closure is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be·
relied upon as being true and correct until a~ended.