Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-10-17; Planning Commission; ; AV 90-04 - THOMPSON WALLDATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: I. GW STAFF REPORT OCTOBER 17,1990 PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT AV 904 - THOMPSON WALL - Request for an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny a request for a retaining wall over six feet in height in the side and rear yard setback at 1809 Oak Avenue. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3123 UPHOLDING the Planning Director's decision to DENY AV 90-4, based upon the findings contained therein. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND In September of 1984 a single-family residence was constructed at 1809 Oak Avenue. Prior to the construction of the residence, a retaining wall was permitted and installed along the eastern and southeastern property lines, allowing fill in the rear yard of the site. While the building permit application showed a maximum wall height of six feet, the wall was actually installed at a maximum height of nine feet four inches. No records exist of either a final inspection of the wall or any code enforcement action at the time of installation. A 6 foot high fence currently sits on top of the wall, the combination totalling 15 feet, 4 inches. In September of 1985, a swimming pool was constructed in the southeast comer of the rear yard. Over time, the combined weight of the swimming pool and fill has weakened the existing retaining wall and cracks are evident. Consequently, in July, 1989, the applicant applied for a second retaining wall permit, maximum 7'4" in height, to install behind the existing wall for reinforcement. At this time, the Planning Department planchecker notified the applicant that a variance was needed for both the existing wall and the proposed reinforcement wall. On April 10, 1990, an Administrative Variance was applied for and on August 21, 1990, the Planning Director determined that the required findings could not be made. Below is a discussion of these findings. The applicant subsequently requested an appeal of this determination on August 22, 1990. 111. ANALYSIS Can the findings required for a variance be found, more specifically: 1. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions, applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity? AV 90-4 - THOMPSON I, LL OCTOBER 17,1990 PAGE 2 2. Is this variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity? 3. Will the granting of this variance be materially detrimental to public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity? 4. Will the granting of this variance adversely affect the comprehensive general plan? DISCUSSION Extraordinary or Excer>tional Circumstances Exceptional circumstances do not exist in this area. The increased height of the existing retaining wall has allowed a larger side and rear yard and a pool has been constructed within this side yard, however the topography over this lot is similar to the surrounding residences which do not have overheight retaining walls. While the swimming pool would have to be removed or reduced in size to lower the existing retaining wall, this was not considered by staff as an extraordinary circumstance. Preservation of ProDerty Right The increased retaining wall height has allowed a larger flat area in the side and rear yard than would have occurred with the permitted six foot high wall. This consequently allowed a swimming pool to be installed in the southeast corner of the lot. As discussed above, the lowering of the existing wall would require removal or reduction in size of the swimming pool, however there is adequate room in the rear and opposite side yard to accommodate a swimming pool and usable yard space. Because of these facts, the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity. Materiallv Detrimental to Neighboring ProDerties While the granting of this variance would allow the retaining wall to remain in place and subsequently be reinforced to increase stability, the construction of a 15 foot, 4 inch high wall and fence is a material detriment to adjacent lots to the east. This impact has been accentuated by grading for the 7 lot single family subdivision to the east (CT 85-13, Canyon Place) which has created a 10 foot slope at the base of the wall/fence combination. As such, this hding cannot be made. Affect on General Plan Since the area is designated for residential uses of low to medium density and the retaining wall is for the single-family dwelling, neither approval nor denial of this variance will adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. - AV 90-4 - THOMPSON U OCTOBER 17,1990 PAGE 3 rv. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW According to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act no environmental review is required for projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves. The Planning Director has therefore issued a Notice of Exemption on September 14, 1990. In summary, considering the similar topography of neighboring lots, the adequacy of space in the rear and side yards for a swimming pool or other recreational amenities and the impacts to the neighbors to the east, the findings required for a variance cannot be made. Staff therefore recommends denial of AV 90-4. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3123 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Attachment "A" - Letter from applicant dated August 22, 1990 5. Exhibit "A" dated October 17, 1990. September 13, 1990 MG:h