Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-16; Planning Commission; ; AV 98-07 - RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALLThe City of Carlsbad Planning Department A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application complete date: August 18, 1998 P.C. AGENDA OF: December 16,1998 Project Planner: Greg Fisher Project Engineer: Michele Masterson SUBJECT: AV 98-07 - RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL - Request for an appeal of the Planning Director’s decision to deny an Administrative Variance for a decorative wall to exceed the maximum allowed height of forty two inches (42”) in the front yard setback of a single family lot located at 7245 Carpa Court in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. I. COMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 4412, UPHOLDING the Planning Director’s decision to DENY AV 98-07, an Administrative Variance for an overheight decorative wall, based upon the findings contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION The applicant, Ms. Ryan, is requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the Planning Director’s denial of an Administrative Variance request to allow an existing overheight sixty inch (60”) tall decorative block wall within the front yard setback on property at 7245 Carpa Court. Ms. Ryan asserts that there are probably hundreds of similar overheight walls in the City of Carlsbad, and she believes this variance denial is an unjust decision based on the fact that others have built overheight walls in her neighborhood. A Building Permit is not required for free standing wall under six feet in height. However, an Administrative Variance is required to allow a wall over 42” in the front yard setback. The overheight wall was constructed without the benefit of an Administrative Variance. Staff recommends that the Planning Director’s decision to deny AV 98-07 be upheld by the Planning Commission due to the fact that the necessary findings to support the request cannot be made. 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND In July of 1998, a violation of Carlsbad Municipal Code 21.46.130 was cited by a City Code Enforcement Officer on the property located at 7245 Carpa Court. The officer was responding to a telephone complaint from a neighboring property. The following is a chronological history of the code enforcement case: On May 5, 1998 a “STOP WORK” notice was issued to Mary Ryan. A wall was in process of being constructed in the front yard setback that exceeded 42” in height. The “STOP WORK” AV 98-07 - RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL December 16, 1998 notice advised Mary Ryan to lower the wall to a maximum height of 42” or stop work until a variance for the overheight wall is obtained from the Planning Department. On May 28, 1998, a letter was sent to Mary Ryan informing her that the wall had to be lowered to 42” in height no later than June 4, 1998. On June 9, 1998, the Planning Department received a variance application from Mary Ryan requesting permission to construct a block wall over 42” in height in the required front yard. On June 15, 1998, the Senior Building Inspector sent a Certified Return Receipt Notice of Violation because the wall that was under construction when a stop work was placed on May 5, 1998 had continued being constructed and was now complete. This notice gave Mary Ryan until June 29, 1998, to obtain all permits and inspections or to lower the wall to 42” in height. On July 8, 1998, the code enforcement office inspected the wall and observed that it was complete and over 42” in height in the required front yard setback. On July 21, 1998, code enforcement issued Citation No. C1016 to Mary Ryan for violation of Carlsbad Municipal Code, Section 21.46.130. The enforcement of City Code violations is not done on a selective basis. In Carlsbad, it has historically been done on a complaint basis only. Mary Ryan’s neighbor had complained to the Code Enforcement Department. When a complaint is made concerning an illegal wall or any other Municipal Code Violation, then such complaint will be investigated and a violation will be issued if warranted. It should be noted, that the City does not have the man power nor is it policy to issue code violations on a selective or random basis, but rather on a complaint basis. To summarize, Section 21.46.130 of the Municipal Code states that “no fence, wall, or hedge over forty-two inches (42”) in height shall be permitted in any required front yard setback.” The property contains one single family home with an existing five foot tall (60”) wall located within the 20 foot front yard setback. The wall is constructed of concrete masonry and extends approximately 50% across the width of the lot. Because the Municipal Code does not allow walls to exceed a height of forty-two (42”) inches in a front yard setback, and because this wall exceeds the maximum allowed height by eighteen inches( 187, the property owner was informed of this violation and directed to remove the wall or bring the wall into conformance with City code. Rather than removing or altering the existing wall, the property owner applied for an Administrative Variance (AV 98-07). This Administrative Variance was denied by the Planning Director on July 21, 1998 because all necessary findings to support the variance could not be made, as discussed below. AV 98-07 - RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL December 16, 1998 1. There ARE NOT 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 other properties are similar in shape, size and topography. The front yard is sufficient in size to enable the wall to be built outside the front yard setback. Furthermore, the wall which is for decorative or security purposes does not constitute relief from unusual difficulties or unnecessary hardships associated with the property in question. 2. 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, in that no other property in the vicinity has an approved wall or fence over 42 inches in height within the front yard setback. Although, there are other walls exceeding the maximum allowed height in a front yard setback within the same neighborhood, none of these property owners possess building permits or variances for such walls. Therefore, none of these property owners possess a property right for their nonconforming walls. 3. The granting of this variance WOULD NOT 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, in that the overheight wall in the front yard does not interfere with adequate sight distance nor does it significantly affect the light and air circulation of the neighboring properties. 4. The granting of this variance WILL NOT adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan, in that the subject property is designed Residential Low-Medium (RLM) General Plan Land Use designation and walls are a typical component of residentially designated areas. IV. ANAJIYSXS A. ninp Issues Based on the following four questions, can the findings required for granting a wiance be made? 1. Are there 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? 2. Is the requested 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? AV 98-07 - RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL December 16,1998 Parre 4 3. Will the granting of this variance 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? 4. Will the granting of this variance adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan? B. Discussioe 1. Extrao r dinary or Exceptional Circumstances There are no exceptional circumstances associated with the property. The property is similar in shape, size and topography to other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The front yard is sufficient in size (depth) to enable the wall to be built outside of the front yard setback. Furthermore, the wall which is for decorative or security purposes does not constitute relief from unusual difficulties or unnecessary hardships associated with the property in question. 2. Preservations of a Substantial Property Right Although, there are other walls exceeding the maximum allowed height permitted in a front yard setback on properties within the same vicinity and zone, none of these property owners possess variances for such walls. Nor have complaints been filed with Code Enforcement regarding such overheight walls. Therefore, the property in question is not being denied a property right that is possessed by other properties in the same vicinity. 3. Detrimental to the Public Welfa Permitting the wall would not 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, in that the overheight wall in the fiont yard does not interfere with adequate sight distance nor does it significantly affect the light and air circulation upon the neighboring properties. 4. A 1 The General Plan will not be adversely affected in that the subject property is designated Residential Low-Medium (EM) by the Carlsbad General Plan and walls are a typical component of residentially designated areas. In summary, the property in question does not have any unique or extraordinary circumstances upon which to justify support of the overheight front yard wall, 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. 4412 to uphold the Planning Director’s decision to deny Administrative Variance (AV 98-07). AV 98-07 - RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL December 16,1998 V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Administrative Variance (AV 98-07) for the Ryan Residence Decorative Wall was denied and is, therefore, exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15270 of the State CEQA Guidelines. In the event that the Planning Commission approves the applicant’s appeal of AV 98-07, then the Administrative Variance must be sent back to staff for environmental processing. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. GF:eh:mh Planning Commission Resolution No. 4412 Location Map Appeal letter from applicant, dated July 27, 1997 Reduced Exhibit Exhibit “A”, dated December 16, 1998. .. RYAN RESIDENCE DECORATIVE WALL AV 98-07 i760) 753-5925 FAX July 27,1998 To: Planning Commission - City of Carlsbad From: Mary Ryan - 7245 Carpa Ct. Carlsbad Ca. 92009 Re: Administrative Variance Denial - Ryan Residence Decorative Wall To the Planning Commission, I wish to appeal the decision by the Administrative Director and will submit my payment of $400.00 dollars at this time. There are probably hundreds of similar walls in the city of Carlsbad, and I firmly believe this is an unjust decision based on the fact that others have built and enjoyed their yard landscape and have had no complaints from anyone. Only one person in the whole city has objected and it happens to be my neighbor across the street! It’s a sad world! Also I would like to bring to your attention that a side set back violation was approved by the city at 33 17 Cadencia street for a garage structure. This neighbor is being allowed to enjoy his yard while I am being denied. My violation of 11’ is very minor in comparison. Sincerely,