Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-06-05; Planning Commission; ; AV 90-13 - KHADEM RESIDENCE/- STAFF REPORT ,- . APPLICn1 ION COMPLETE DATE: March 8.1991 DATE: JUNE 5, 1991 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AV 90-13 - IOEM RESIDENCE - Request for an appeal of the Planning Directois decision to deny an administrative variance for a decorative fence to exceed the maximum allowed height of 42" in a front yard setback. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3256 UPHOLDING the Planning Director's decision to DENY AV 90-13, based upon the findings contained therein. II. PROJECX DESCRIPTlON AND BACKGROUND In mid November of 1990, a violation of Carlsbad Municipal Code 21.46.130 was sighted by a City inspector on property located at 7327 El Fuerte Street while inspecting the property for compliance with a Hillside Development Permit. The property owner was informed of this violation and directed to remove the fence or reconstruct it in conformance with City code. Rather than pursue altering the fence, the property owner applied for a variance. Section 21.46.130 states that "no fence, wall, or hedge over 42 inches in height shall be permitted in any required front yard setback". The property contains one single family home with an existing fence that varies from 4' to 7', located within the 20 foot front yard setback. Because the Municipal Code does not allow walls or fences to exceed a height of 3'6" in a front yard setback, and because this fence exceeds the maximum allowed height by 3'6" in some instances, it needs to be removed or redesigned so as to not exceed a height of 3'6' unless this requested variance is granted. The fence is constructed of wrought iron with a series of stucco pillars placed in between. It extends the entire width of the front property and steps down from north to south on a gradual slope. 1 AV 90-13 - KHADEM REhOENCE JUNE 5,1991 PAGE 2 rn. ANALYSIS Planninn Issues 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 and zone? 2. Is this variance 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? 3. Will the granting of this variance be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone? 4. Will the granting of this variance adversely affect the comprehensive general plan? Extraordinarv or Exceptional Circumstances There are no exceptional circumstances associated with the property. The property is similar in shape and topography to other properties in the same vicinity and zone which contain no illegal walls or fences. The fence is not needed as a result of any physical constraints the property may contain because the fence does not retain any soil nor change the property's existing topography. Preservation of a Substantial Property Right Although there are several walls or fences exceeding the maximum allowed height permitted in a front yard setback on properties within the same vicinity and zone, these properties in the same vicinity and zone do not possess property rights (building permits or variances) for their walls or fences to exceed the maximum permitted height. Therefore, the property in question is not being denied a property right that is possessed by other properties in the same vicinity. AV 90-13 - KHADEM REhlDENCE JUNE 5,1991 PAGE 3 Detrimental to the Public Welfare Permitting the fence will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located because the fence does not obstruct site distances for motorists exiting the property or motorists traveling along El Fuerte Street. In addition, the fence is primarily open and does not substantially obstruct the circulation of air nor the penetration of light. Adversely Affect the Comprehensive General Plan The General Plan will not be adversely affected because the property consists of one single family home which does not substantially impact any elements of the General Plan, nor the General Plan as a comprehensive document. Section 15270(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act states that no environmental review is required for projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves. In summary, the property in question does not have any unique or extraordinary circumstances which would allow the proposed fence, nor is the applicant being denied a property right that other property owners possess in the same neighborhood. Because two of the four findings necessary for granting a variance cannot be made, staff recommends adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 3256 denying Administrative Variance 90-13. AlTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3256 2. Location Map 3. Attachment "A" - Letter from applicant 4. Exhibit "A" May 14, 1991 DR:rvo:lh