The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1988-07-20; Planning Commission; ; AV 88-02 - BERMAN4 & APPLICATIL.~ SUBMITTAL DATE: MAY 3. 1988 a STAFF REPORT DATE : JULY 20, 1988 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AV 88-2 BERMAN - Appeal of Planning Director's denial to allow a six foot high fence within the required front yard setback on property located at 4375 Stanford Street in the R-1-7500 Zone, in Local Facilities Management Zone 2. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission UPHOLD the decision of the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution No. 2760 DENYING AV 88-2 based on the findings contained therein. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is appealing the Planning Director's denial of a request for an Administrative Variance to allow a six foot high fence within the required front yard setback on property located at 4375 Stanford Street. The house is oriented with its front facing the northern property line. (See Exhibit "A".) The actual required front yard setback runs along the eastern property line adjacent to Stanford Street. The applicant informed staff that when he bought the house the developer informed him that the front yard setback ran along the northern property line and that he would be permitted to put up a fence along Stanford Street. When the applicant came to the Planning Department, staff informed him that his proposed fence exceeded the 42 inch height limit in the required front yard setback along Stanford Street and would require an Administrative Variance. The applicant then proceeded to build the fence prior to receiving approval or denial of the Administrative Variance. The required findings could not be made and the variance request was denied. The applicant is now appealing the Planning Director's denial of the Administrative Variance. AV 88-2 PAGE 2 111. ANALYSIS Plannina Issues 1. Can the four mandatory findings for a variance be made in this case? They are as follows: A) Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties 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 impact the General Plan? Discussion Staff cannot make the four mandatory findings required to grant a variance. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Although the house is oriented with its side facing the street, the lot has a larger back yard than most of the neighboring lots whose homes face directly onto Stanford Street. There have been no other applications for a variance for a six foot fence in the front yard setback in the vicinity. The requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question. The six foot fence would afford the applicant a greater area of privacy than neighboring residences enjoy. The granting of this variance could be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The six foot fence was constructed on top of two feet of additional fill which creates a significant negative visual impact on the adjacent lots. The surrounding neighborhood consists of single family dwellings maintaining a 20 foot front yard setback. Allowing this fence would set an undesirable precedent in the AV 88-2 PAGE 3 would set an undesirable precedent in the neighborhood. The fence also prohibits Utilities and Maintenance clear access to the sewer clean-out on the property. According to the Utilities and Maintenance Department, sewer clean-outs should not be allowed to be fenced in. They must be able to access them for emergency repairs. The General Plan for this area will not be adversely affected because the density will not be increased. In conclusion, staff cannot make the four required 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. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that the project is categorically exempt under Section 15303 (e) (New construction or conversion of small structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2760 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Statement 5. Justification for Variance 6. Applicant's Letter in Opposition 7. Letters in Support 8. Exhibit "A", dated May 2, 1988 WJD: dm 6/9/88 1 GENERAL PLAN ZONING I COMMf RCIAL RfJIDf NTIAL CBD CENTR+L BUSINESS DITTRICT 0 PROFESSIONAL RELATED PI PLWKED ISDI'STRIAL G GO\ERJWENT F.ACILITIES RC RECRE.ATIl>N COMMERCIAL L Pl BLlC LTlLlTlES SCHOOLS E kI.E\iENT.4RY H HIGH SCHOOL J JLNIOR HIGH US OPEN SPACE P PRn'ArE SRR SON RESIDENTLAL RESERVE RW RESIDENTZU WATERWAY ZOXE COMMERCIAL 0 OFFICEZONE c- I c. 2 C-M C -T P.M M OlHLR L.C LIMITED CONTROL F-P FLOODPLW OkTRLAY ZONE OS OPEN SPACE P.U PLTJUC LTlUTY ZONE "-- I BERMAN 4 city of carlsbad AV 88-2