Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-01; Planning Commission; ; AV 92-06 - TAKAYAMA FENCE! - APPLICATIC~ .A COMPLETE DATE: MARCH 22. 1994 PROJECT PLANNER MICHAELGRIM PROJECT ENGINEER JIM DAVIS gP’ STAFF REPORT DATE: MARCH 1, 1995 TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECP AV 92-06 - TAKAYAMA FENCE - Appeal of the Planning Director’s decision to partially deny a request for an Administrative Variance to allow an overheight wall in the front, side and rear yard setbacks of the single family property at 1095 Palm Avenue, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3738, PARTIALLY OVERTURNING the Planning Director’s decision and lQPPROVlNG selected portions of AV 92-06 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. XI. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIF’TION On January 18,1995, the Planning Commission heard the applicant’s appeal of the Planning Director’s decision to deny a portion of a variance for an overheight wall within the front, rear, and side yards of his property at 1095 Palm Avenue. The Planning Director had, on October 18, 1994, granted an Administrative Variance for a portion of the Adams Street side yard overheight fence. While no additional action was undertaken on this approval, the Commission did consider the other overheight portions of the walls. After review of the specific circumstances surrounding the appeal, the Commission determined that there were grounds for a variance that would allow more overheight walls than had been granted by the Planning Director. The Commission then directed staff to derive findings enabling additional relief. The crux of the relief is the applicant’s ability to measure wall height from either the inside or outside perspective, whichever is higher. Typically, walls height is measured from the lower perspective. The Commission’s grounds for granting additional relief are based upon the elevation differences surrounding the property. Along the Adam Street side of the front yard, the elevation difference between Adams Street and Palm Avenue allows a slightly increased AV 92-06 - TAKYAMA I DICE - MARCH 1, 1995 PAGE 2 front yard wall height without interfering with vehicular sight distance. Along the rear and interior side yard, the subject property being higher reduces the privacy of the neighboring properties, without the additional wall height. Along portions of the rear yard, the elevation difference could possibly interfere with the ability to provide a minimum five foot bamer around the subject property's rear yard pool. The Planning Director has already issued an administrative variance for that portion of the Adams Street side yard wall, up to a height of five feet above the street side grade. This variance was allowed for only that portion of the wall which was behind the front yard setback line. Therefore the Commission's actions would not affect the Planning Director's approval and would involve the following: 0 The granting of a variance to Section 21.46.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (C.M.C) for those portions of the Adams Street side yard wall (Wall A on Exhibits "A" & "B", dated March 1, 1995) that extend from the five foot height to the existing height AND the granting of a variance to Sections 21.46.130 and 21.46.100 of the C.M.C. for portions of the Adams Street front yard wall (Wall B on Exhibits "A" & "B", dated March 1, 1995). The granting of a variance to Section 21.46.130 for the portions of the rear yard and the interior side yard walls (Walls C & D on Exhibits "A" & "B", dated March 1, 1995) to allow an increased height equal to the grade difference between the subject property and the adjacent property. This results in a six foot high wall as measured from the subject property or the adjacent property, whichever is higher. 0 A variance is not granted for those portions of the front yard walls (Walls E & F on Exhibits "A & "B", dated March 1, 1995) that are over three and one half feet in height. Even though the Planning Director and, upon approval of this action, the Planning Commission have granted variances for additional wall height, the existing wall will need to be lowered in some areas. This is roughly illustrated in Exhibit "A", dated March 1, 1995 and will be verified in the field through the building permit inspection process. With the current street improvements, the front yard walls meet the required sight triangle, sight intersection distance, and sight stopping distance. With the eventual, full street improvements, however, the Adams Street side wall must be lowered to meet the sight intersection distance. Therefore, staff is recommending that a portion of the wall (Wall B on Exhibits "A and "B, dated March 1, 1995) be removed. I ' AV 92-06 - TAKYN r'wCE MARCH 1, 1995 PAGE 3 1x1. FNWRONMENTAL RMEW Since the project involves the construction of a wall which is accessory to the main structure on the property, the Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from environmental review per Section 15303(e) of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. A Notice of Exemption was issued on October 19, 1994 and filed in the Office of the County Clerk, San Diego County on October 26, 1994. AITACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3738 2. Location Map 3. Exhibits "A" - "B", dated March 1, 1995.