HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-07; Planning Commission; ; AV 88-5 - KYLEc
DATE :
TO :
FROM:
SUBJECT:
-
APPLICwl'ION SUBMITTAL DATE:
APRIL 28, 1988
STAFF REPORT
SEPTEMBER 7, 1988
PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AV 88-5 KYLE - Appeal of Planning Director's denial to allow an existing ten foot high retaining wall within
the required side yard setback on property located at 7219 El Fuerte Street in the PC Zone and in Local
Facilities Management Zone 6.
I.
That the
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission UPHOLD the decision of the Planning Director and ADOPT Resolution No. 2769 DENYING AV 88-5 based on the findings contained therein.
I1 .
The applicant is appealing the Planning Director's denial of a
request to allow an existing ten foot high retaining wall to remain within the required side yard setback on property located at 7219 El Fuerte Street.
The subject property slopes up from El Fuerte Street. A large
level pad composed of fill material has been created for the
house. The original fill created a 20 foot wide level side yard
which then sloped for an additional 20 feet to the side yard property line. Subsequent to the construction of the pad and the
house, the applicant in an attempt to correct a perceived erosion problem constructed a retaining wall on the property line and filled the side yard sloping area to create a level side yard approximately 40 feet wide. The retaining wall increased height from approximately 2 feet to ten feet at its highest point near El Fuerte Street.
Section 21.46.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) requires side yard walls or fences to not exceed six feet in height.
Approximately 48 feet of the subject 98 foot long retaining wall
exceeds the six foot limitation. Section 21.51 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code establishes the procedures and required findings
.. 1.
AV 88-5
Pase 2
for Administrative Variances which would apply to increased wall or fence heights. The Planning Director determined that the required findings could not be made and on May 17, 1988 denied AV
88-5. The applicant is now appealing the Planning Director's
decision.
111. ANALYSIS
Plannins 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 recommend that three of the four mandatory findings
be made to grant a variance in this case. There are no
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not
apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. The surrounding properties are residences on lots with similar topography within the same zone, and they have the same zoning code requirements. The need to control erosion around the footings of a fence does not constitute special circumstances. This problem is faced by many residents of hillside lots.
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. Erosion control measures, in conformance
with the provisions of the zoning code (e.g. a 6' retaining wall which conforms to the zoning code; terraces; fence footing
AV 88-5
Pase 3
protection, etc.) could accomplish the desired result of halting
the loss of earth.
The granting of this variance will 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 because all development within the vicinity is required to conform to the Municipal Code. The presence of a block wall up to 10 feet high
on the property line is detrimental to the adjacent homeowner
with regard to visual aesthetics.
The General Plan for this area will not be adversely affected
because the residential density will not be increased,
In conclusion, there are ways of solving the erosion problem that are compatible with the City standards and will still allow the owner to enjoy his hillside property. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the applicant's appeal of the Planning Director's denial of AV 88-5.
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. 2769
2. Location Map
3. Disclosure Statement
4. Justification for Variance
5. Applicant's Letter in Opposition
7. Letters from Residents
GW: af
August 25, 1988
I GENERAL PLAN
RESIDINTIAL
LOWMEDICM DENSITY(O.4) LOW DEhSlTY (0. I 5 1
MEDIUM DENSITY (4.8) MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY (8.15) HIGH DENSIn (15.23)
RL RLM
RMH RM
RH COMMERCIAL IKTENSWE REGIONAL RETAIL (eg PLW CmlnO Red) RR~ EXTENSNE REGIONAL RETAIL (cg Car Countw Culsbad) Rs REGIONAL SERVICE c COMMCSITYCO.MMERCIAL S SEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
CBD CENTRAL BLSINES DISTRICT 0 PROFESSIONAL RELATED
PI PUVNED ISDCSTRIAL G GOVTRVMENT FACILITIES
RC RECn€ATION COMMERCW C PUBLIC CTIUTIES
TS m4kTL SERVICES COM.HERCIAL
E J
P Plu" I OS OPEN SPACE SRR NOS RESIDENTIAL RESERVE
ZONING
P-C PIANMD COMMUMTY ZONE R.A RESIDENTIAL AGRICL'LTt'RAL ZObT R-E RLRU RESIDEhTLU ESTATE ZONE R. I Oh5FA.WLY RESIDE.YTM. ZONE R.2 TT'O.F.&HILY RESlDENlW ZONE
RESMNTU
R.3L LLHITED MULTI-F&HILY RESIDENTIAL ZOhT ~-3 McLnpLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE
RD.M RESIDEhTW D01SITY~MLITIPLE ZONE
RMHP REStDEhTW MOBILE HOME PARK ZONE RD.H RESIDEm DENSITY.HIGH ZONE
R.P RESID€\TLU PRONSIONM ZOhT RT RESIDEKllAL TOLWST ZONE RW RESIDEhTLU WATEMAY ZOXE
0 c. 1 c.2 c .T c-m m P"
F.P L.C os P.U
COMMERCIAL OmCE ZONE MIGHBORHOOD COMMERCW ZONE GENZRN COMMERCW ZOhT COMMERUAL-TOLWST ZOhT .ZONE
t I KYLE
4
City of Carlsbad
AV 88-5