Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-04-21; Planning Commission; ; AV 91-12A - HILL RESIDENCEDATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: I. STAFF REPORT APRIL.21, 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT - APPLILflON COMPUTE DATE: Edg- JULY 27. 1992 STAFF PLANNER: VAN LYNCH - AV 91-12CA) HILL RESIDENCE - Appeal of the Planning Directois decision denying the request for an Administrative Variance for a reduced side yard setback, for a storage structure, from the required 8' to 2' at 3317 Cadencia Street in the Planned Community (PC) Zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. RECO"F.NDA~ON That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3511, UPHOLDING the Planning Directois decision denying Administrative Variance No. 91- 12(A) based on the findings contained therein. II. PROJFXX DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The original requested administrative variance was for an eight foot retaining wall in the side yard setback and for a reduced sideyard setback, from eight feet to two feet, for a storage structure. See attached staff report dated December 2, 1992 for full discussion of the project. The Planning Director denied the request for the Administrative Variance on October 14, 1992. The applicant subsequently filed for an appeal of the decision on October 21,1992. On December 2, 1992, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's appeal of the Planning DirectoJs decision to deny the variance. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Directois decision to deny AV 91-12 because in staffs opinion, the findings necessary to grant the variance could not be made. At the hearing on December 2, 1992, the Planning Commission was able to make the findings for the overheight wall and approved the request for an 8' retaining wall in the side yard setback. However, the commission continued to a date uncertain, the request for a reduced sideyard setback for a storage structure. This was to allow the applicant time to consult with an expert as to the appropriateness of the storage structure to solve a sub- surface water condition. AV 91 -12(A) HILL RESIbENCE APRIL 21,1993 PAGE 2 The applicant was given notice on December 21, 1992 and on March 3, 1993 to address the sub-soil condition of the property. As of April 12, 1993, the applicant has not submitted any reports to the Planning Department regarding this situation. m. Can the four findings for an Administrative Variance be made, specifically; 1. 2. 3. 4. Iv. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; That such variance is 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; That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located; That the granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. ExceDtional or extraordinarv circumstances or conditions 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 because surrounding lots have similar topography. The lots in the area are graded such that every parcel has a slope to the adjacent lot. The lot is also similar in size and shape to adjacent lots in the area and has ample developable area. There are other locations within the area that have ground water conditions. These properties have not used enclosed structures to resolve the ground water condition. The subsoil condition does not constitute an unnecessary hardship. Preservation and eniovment of a substantial RroDertv right 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 because no other properties in the area have in the required side yard setback. All properties in the surrounding area must with the Zoning Ordinance. n. AV 91-12(A) HILL RESIDtdCE APRIL 21,1993 PAGE 3 Materialh detrimental 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 reduced setbacks, would in turn reduce structure separation and amount of light available to properties and diminish available space for emergency access. The granting of the Administrative Variance will set a precedence and other properties may request the same privilege as granted to the property in question. Commehensive General Plan The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because the site is developed with a single family home in a residentially designated area. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is Categorically Exempt Per Subsection 15305(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, which exempts variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. VI. SUMMARY The applicant is unable to provide the Planning Commission with a report that states that the improvements made to the property are an appropriate means of solving a sub-surface water condition. There are preferred options to rectifying a sub-surface drainage problem that do not require structures needing a variance. AU four findings must be made in the affirmative prior to approving a variance. Since three findings cannot be made for the approval of the Administrative Variance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision and deny the request. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3511 2. Original Staff report AV 91-12, dated December 2, 1992, with attachments VL:lh:vd MARCH 9,1993