Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-12-02; Planning Commission; ; AV 91-12 - HILL RESIDENCE-, APPLICATION COMPLETE DATE: July 27. 1992 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: I. STAFF REPORT DECEMBER 2,1992 PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT AV 91-12 HILL RESIDENCE - Appeal of the Planning Directois decision denying the request for an Administrative Variance to allow an eight foot retaining wall in the required side yard setback and for a reduced side yard setback, for a storage structure, from the required eight (8) feet to two (2) feet at 3317 Cadencia Street in the planned Community (PC) Zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3465 UPHOLDING the Planning Directois decision DENYING an Administrative Variance No. 91 - 12 based on the findings contained therein. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval of an Administrative Variance to allow an eight foot retaining wall in the required side yard setback, and for a reduced side yard setback from eight feet to two feet for a storage structure attached to the house. The City received a complaint from the public regarding the. structure. The property is in a single family neighborhood and is zoned Planned Community. The property has 16,276 square feet of area with 12,562 square feet that is not constrained by the slopes created during the development of the subdivision. The 2:1 slope on the eastern side of the pw has been cut back and an eight foot retaining wall was built. This left a flat area between the house and retaining wall about 14 feet in width, which was covered with concrete. The applicant then built the roof structure that is attached to the house and spans across to a short wooden wall built on.top of the retaining wall. This storage structure is 45 feet in length, 14 feet wide, 12 feet tall and covers 630 square feet of area. The property owner claims that all of the structures noted above were constructed sequentially to rectify a sub-surface drainage problem. @ .- AV 91-12 - HILL RESIDENCE DECEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE 2 A building permit was obtained for the retaining wall. However, it was subsequently discovered that the building permit was issued in error because the wall .did not conform to Zoning Ordinance section 21.46.130 which states "On an interior lot a wall or fence not more than six feet in height may be located anywhere to the rear of the required front yard." In the time frame that the pennit was issued, the Planning and Engineering departments did not review all building permits. Currently both Planning and Engineering review all relevant building permits, so it is unlikely that this type of error would be duplicated. Concrete slabs do not normally require city permits and they are permitted within setback areas. The attached roof structure which covers the sideyard has been built without required building permits. The applicant claims that the purpose for the retaining wall is to prevent ground water, from upslope of his property, from seeping into his home, specifically the sunken living room which is about 4 inches lower than the rest of the floor. Were the wall's purpose only to reduce ground water, there would be no benefit to cut a slope back the additional distance and increase the wall height to eight feet. The retaining wall built to eight (8) feet has created a larger buildable sideyard than would have been created if the wall had been built at six feet high. It appears that the original purpose for the eight foot retaining wall was not to reduce ground water but to create a larger pad for a larger storage structure. The applicant states that the structure in the sideyard is to shed rainwater from the sideyard area to help with the alleged ground water problem. Staff believes that if there is a water problem the concrete pad alone would seem to do the same job without violating setback requirements. The applicant has submitted a transmittal from the Olivenhain Water District requesting inspection of his property to see if there were any leaks .from District water lines. The response was that any water appeared to be from over-irrigation upslope or from rain water and not leaking District pipes. No other proof of an excessive water problem has been submitted to the Planning Department. Construction of surface structures such as retaining walls and storage facilities are not normally considered acceptable engineering solutions to rectify sub-surface drainage problems. There are preferred options available to the property owner. For example, the source of the water should be determined. It may be possible to fix the problem at the source especially if the problem is a leak, in either the Hill's water system or in that of a neighbor's. It could also be associated with a neighbor's over watering practice. If the solution is not at the source, then it may be necessary to install sub-surface barriers and/or drains. The applicant should retain a qualified engineer to review the problem and recommend solutions. There is no evidence that the structures the applicant has constructed are either needed or are effective. 6 c AV 91-12 - HILL RESIDENCE DECEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE 3 111. 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; The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. DISCUSSION Excemional 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 lot complies with minimum required dimensions and has no unusual constraints such as topography which differentiate this lot from others in the vicinity and zone and which mandate construction in the required yards. The lots in the area are graded such that every parcel has a slope to the adjacent lot. The lot is also similar h.size and shape to adjacent lots in the area and has ample alternative buildable area so the sideyard is not the only place on the lot that is buildable. The applicant has not submitted any evidence that the structures are necessary to correct a sub-surface drainage problem. Preservation & eniovment of a substantial DroDerty 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 eight foot retaining walls or structures in the required side yard setback. All properties in the surrounding area must also comply with the Zoning Ordinance. There' are preferred options available to the applicant for solving an alleged sub-surface drainage problem which do not include the structures for which the applicant has requested a variance. AV 91 -12 - HILL RESIDENCE DECEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE 4 Materiallv 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 could set an adverse precedent since other properties may request the same privilege as granted to the property in question. ComDrehensive General Pian 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, which exempts variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. VI. SUMMARY There are preferred options to rectifying a sub-surface drainage problem that do not require structures needing a variance. All 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. 3465 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Administrative Variance Letter of Denial, dated October 14, 1992 5. Exhibits "An-"B', dated December 2, 1992. VL:lh:vd OCTOBER 21, 1992