Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-22; Planning Commission; ; AV 85-08 - BEILBYAPPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE: OCTOBER 18,1985 c5v I STAFF REPORT DATE : JANUARY 22, 1986 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AV 85-8 - BEILBEY - Request to allow a six foot high grapestake fence to encroach eleven feet within the twenty foot frontyard setback on a lot located on the north side of Juniper Street between Garfield Street and the AT&SF Railroad in the R-3 zone. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2531 DENYING AV 85-8 based on the findings contained therein. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is appealing the Planning Director's denial of an administrative variance to allow a six foot high grapestake fence eleven feet into the twenty foot frontyard setback on a property located as described above. The fence has been in existence at its present location for approximately eight years. Staff could not locate any record of a building permit for the subject fence. This item was referred to the Planning Department by the zoning enforcement officer who received a complaint about an illegal fence in the frontyard setback at this location. The applicant applied for an administrative variance, but staff was unable to make the necessary findings and had to deny the request. The applicant is now appealing staff's denial of the administrative variance. 11. 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 generally to other property in the same vicinity and zone? c d Discussion 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? Will the granting of this variance be detrimental to the public welfare? Will the granting of this variance adversely affect the General Plan? Staff cannot make the four mandatory findings required to grant a variance. The zoning code states that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances must exist that do not generally apply to other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The applicant feels the subject property is extraordinary because the patio to her condominium faces the street and to require a 42 inch high fence would not give her the security and privacy she desires. The staff feels this is not an unusual circumstance since no other owner within the project or other property in the vicinity has a fence located more than five feet into the twenty foot setback. A second issue is whether the applicant is being denied a substantial property right enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. Staff does not believe that the applicant is being denied a substantial property right enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. The single family homes and apartments to the west of the subject property have less than a twenty foot setback from Juniper Street. However, both of these properties front on Garfield Street and are only required to have a 10' street sideyard setback from Juniper Street. As shown by Exhibit requirement, even though some architectural pop-outs in the apartment project and porches on the single family homes appear to violate the 10' setback requirement. The two single family homes on substandard lots, directly across from the subject property, have 18' rather than the required 20' frontyard setback. However, it appears that both of these structures were built long before the city incorporated and created any zoning standards. I' An I the bulk of these buildings comply with the 10' setback -2- 3 Staff also believes that the granting of this variance would be detrimental to the public welfare. The granting of this variance would establish an undesirable precedent since it would encourage people to construct fences that did not comply with the setback requirements and then apply for a variance to legitimize the fence when the city became aware of the situation. In conclusion staff cannot make the four findings necessary to grant a variance and recommends that the Commission deny the applicant's appeal of the Planning Director's denial of this administrative variance. I11 . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that this project is exempt from environmental review based on Section 19.04.07 of the Environmental Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2531 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Statement 5. Exhibit "A" dated October 18, 1985 ER/ar 3 4 CASE m: AV 85-8 -ST MD LOCATION: mest to allow a six foot high fence to encroach eleven feet within the twenty foot frontyard setback on a lot located on the north side of Juniper Street between Garfield Street and the AT&SF Railroad. LBGAL DESCRIPTION: An undivided 1/16 interest in lot 1 of CT 73-30 of Map 7961 filed June 12, 1974 APN: 204-240-55-15 Acres -87 Proposed No. of Lots/Units N/A Land Use Designation R-H Density Allowed 15-23 Du's/~c Density Proposed N/A Existing Zone R-3 Proposed Zone N/A Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Site R-3 North R-3 South R-3 East R-3 WSt R-3 Iarrd use condos condos SFR SFR PUKLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated N/A Negative Declaration, issued E.I.R. Certified, dated - Other, Exempt per Section 19.04.07 '* LOCATION MAP CHERRY ST site JUNIPER AVE HEMLOCK AVE 1 I BEllBEY I AV 85-8 I 0 0 0 0 I/We daclce 'under prulty of perjW th8t the infonmtion contained in thi8 dis- cloruro is .true and correct and that it will romain true and corroet and may k. reliod upon as being true and correct until azmnded. .. .- EXHIBIT A 7 / "t 5-0' JC 40 ' .-. _."_ - ." .... ". 1 ""... - .._ ;1 h ...