Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-02-06; Planning Commission; ; AV 90-04 - THOMPSON WALL" " STAFF REPORT GW 2 DATE: FEBRUARY 6,1991 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AV 904 - THOMPSON WALL - Request for an appeal of the Planning Directois 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. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3186 APPROVING AV 904 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. PROJE(TT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND On August 21, 1990, the Planning Director determined that the findings required for a variance could not be made and, therefore, denied Administrative Variance No. 90-4. The applicant subsequently appealed this determination to the Planning Commission and this appeal was hear on November 7, 1990. During the hearing, it became apparent that the applicant was willing to mitigate many of staff's concerns and that the Commission felt there were exceptional circumstances on the property. The hearing was therefore continued to allow staff to derive findings and conditions for possible approval. Since that time, staff has worked with the applicant to reach an acceptable solution. 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? 2. Is the variance necessary for preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners 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? AV 904 - THOMPSON WALL FEBRUARY 6, 1991 PAGE 2 DISCUSSION ExceDtional Circumstances/Preservation of ProDerW Rights The subject property has approximately three to nine feet of fill in the side and rear yards in the western portion of the lot. One year after the installation of the overheight retaining wall and the filling of the lot, a pool was installed approximately five feet from the retaining wall. The wall has been in place for over six years and the pool would have to be removed to lower the retaining wall to a conforming height of six feet. While this may appear to be a self-imposed hardship, the property has been subsequently sold and the new owner has alleged that he was unaware of the existing non-conformity at the time of purchase and, removal of the pool would cause a financial hardship. At the November 7, 1991, public hearing regarding this administrative variance, the Planning Commission heard testimony from neighboring property owners as well as the owner of the subject property. Staff was consequently directed to work out a solution with the applicant and owner whereby the wall could remain but the impacts could be mitigated. Since the retaining wall has been in place for some time and it is necessary to support an existing pool there exists an exceptional circumstance. The preservation of the wall is necessary for the preservation of the pool and adjacent yard, therefore this finding can be made as well. Materially Detrimental to Neinhborinn ProDerties As stated previously, the surrounding property owners testified on November 7,1990 that the retaining wall was not materially detrimental to their properties. Despite this fact, a variance runs with the land and future property owners might object to the bare, overheight retaining wall. To mitigate this impact, staff has worked with the applicant to develop a preliminary landscaping plan that will screen the wall from nearby properties. As shown on Exhibit "A" dated February 6, 1991, three types of vines could be planted to grow over the wall. The dominant species, Cissus Antartica (commonly Kangaroo Treebine) is a green vine that grows up to ten feet in length. Color could be added by the Distictus Buccinatoria (commonly Blood Red Trumpet Vine), which has orange-red flowers and lavender flutes. The Ficus Pumila (commonly Creeping Fig) has tremendous coverage potential and could cover both the retaining wall and the wooden fence. These species selections and planting location have been reviewed by the City's consulting landscape architect, however, a condition has been placed on this approval requiring that the final landscape screening plan be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of any building permit. The approved planting must be in place concurrent with the installation of the stabilizing retaining wall mentioned below. To add to the softening of the retaining wall, an earth-tone stucco finish will be applied to the entire wall. -4 AV 904 - THOMPSON WALL FEBRUARY 6, 1991 PAGE 3 The existing retaining wall is close to failing as cracks are evident. To prevent possible failure and subsequent detriment to the downslope properties, the applicant will construct a second retaining wall, directly behind the existing wall with a maximum height of seven feet, four inches (as shown on Exhibit "A" attached to Resolution No. 3186). This wall will have been designed by a registered engineer and will not be visible. Since the wall as conditioned will be adequately screened and reinforced, no material detriments to the neighboring properties will result. 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 residence, no adverse affects to the comprehensive general plan will result. According to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act, repair and maintenance of existing private structures is exempt from environmental review. The Planning Director has, therefore, issued a Notice of Exemption, dated January 14, 1991. In summary, considering the existing exceptional circumstance and the proposed mitigation of the detrimental aspects, the findings required for a variance can be made. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3186 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Notice of Exemption 5. Exhibit "A", dated February 6, 1991. MG:h January 14,1991 " " BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: AV 904 APPLICANT: THOMPSON WALL REQUEST AND LOCATION: REOUEST FOR AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY A REOUEST FOR A RETAINING WALL IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK OVER SIX FEET IN HEIGHT AT 1809 OAK AVENUE. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 3 OF MAP 13203 IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. APN: 205-080-80 Acres .26 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 0/0 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RLM Density Allowed 0-4 du/ac Density Proposed 0-4 du/ac Existing Zone R-1 Proposed Zone R-1 Surrovnding Zoning and Land Use: zoning Land Use Site R-1 RESIDENTIAL North R-1 RESIDENTIAL South R-1 RESIDENTIAL East R-1 RESIDENTIAL West R-1 RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's 0 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, Date N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Conditional Negative Declaration, issued E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, NOTICE OF EXEMPTION. DATED JANUARY 14. 1991 d