The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutV 321; Kenneth Crisman Panhandle; Variance (V) (8)n STaFF REPORT DATE : February 25, 1981 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: MS-515 and V-321 - CRISMAN - Request for approval of a minor subdivision creatinq a panhandle lot and two variances of the zoning ordinance as follows: 1) A decrease in the minimum width of the pan- handle serving the lot from 20 feet to 15 feet; and 2) A reduction in the minimum lot width re- quirement from 60 feet to 46 feet on property generally located on the west side of Valley Street in the R-1-7500 zone. I. PROSECT DESCRIPTION As shown on Exhibit "A", the applicant proposes to subdivide a .51 acre parcel into two lots one of which will be a pan- handle lot. The resulting panhandle lot will have a net area of 12,411 square feet while the other lot will have an area of approximately 8000 square feet and have 46.3 feet of frontage on Valley Street. In order to create the proposed lots the applicant is asking for two variances from the zoning ordinance. First, the applicant is requesting to reduce the minimum panhandle width for a single lot from 20 feet to 15 feet. Secondly, the applicant requests to reduce the minimum lot width from 60 feet to 46 feet. The applicant is also relocating the existing single family residence from the front of the property to the rear. His intent is to reduce noise impacts created by the traffic associated with a school located across Valley Street. 11. ANALYSIS Planning Issues - MS-515 1. Can the necessary findings required for approval of a panhandle lot be made? ' 111. DISCUSSION - MS-515 Before the Planning Commission can approve a panhandle lot, the following findings must be made: 1) The property cannot be served adequately with a public street without panhandle lots due to unfavorable condi- tions resulting from unusual topography, surrounding land development, or lot configuration. Subdivision with panhandle lots will not preclude or adversely affect the ability to provide full public street access to other properties within the same block of the subject property. 2) Staff feels that the Planning Commission can make the first finding that this property cannot be adequately served by a public street due to unfavorable lot configuration. As shown on Exhibit "B" it appears very unlikely that a public street will be constructed within this block that could give access to the rear of the subject property. Secondly, the creation of this panhandle lot will not pre- clude or adversely affect the ability to provide full public street access to other properties within the same block. The other parcels surrounding the subject property all have adequate frontage on existing public streets. Staff can therefore make the required findings for approval of a panhandle lot. Planning Issues - V-321 1. Can the four mandatory findings of a variance be found in this case which are as follows: a) Are there exceptional or extraordinary cir- cumstances applicable to the property that do not apply to other property in the vicinity? Do other properties in the vicinity share a similar right which is denied to this property? comprehensive General Plan? b) c) Will this variance adversely affect the d) Will this variance be detrimental to other properties in the vicinity? DISCUSSION - V-321 As shown on Exhibit "All the subject property is nearly five times as deep as it is wide, with a single family residence located on the front of the property. This has resulted in the majority of the property being left vacant without access to a public street. Also as shown on Exhibit "B", -2- * directly to the north of the subject property there are two other panhandle lots that do not comply with the require- ments of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance. The creation of these lots was approved by Planning Com- mission on March 28, 1967. The two lots in the rear are served by a pair of panhandles with a combined width of 26 feet rather then the 30 feet required by the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance. Also both of the lots fronting on Valley Street have a width of 52 feet rather then the 60 foot minimum required by the zoning ordinance. Normally staff would not recommend approval of a minor subdivision creating a lot with a substandard width. How- ever, it appears that the city has already set a precedent in this block by approving a lot split that created two lots with substandard widths. Although the parcel fronting on Valley Street will only have a width of 46 feet at the front yard setback it widens to approximately 54 feet approximately 30 feet back from the front property line, which is com- parable to the 52 feet widths of the two lots to the north. The applicant also is requesting that the width of the panhandle be reduced from 20 feet to 15 feet. This reduc- tion is necessitated by the narrow width of the subject property. Originally the applicant proposed to provide a 20 feet wide panhandle, however, this would have required lot one to have a length of 154 feet and a width of 48.92 feet, The Carlsbad Subdivision Ordinance prohibits the creation of lots whose depth exceeds their width by three times. Furthermore, it is not possible to obtain a variance to the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. To avoid this problem the applicant is proposing to reduce the width of the panhandle and increase the width of lot one by five feet. This request has been discussed with the Fire De- partment and Engineering Department and has been found to be acceptable as long as no landscaping or other obstructions are permitted in the requested 15 foot panhandle. For the reasons mentioned, staff feels sufficient facts exist to make findings 1 and 2, Approval of these variances will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan because the density being pro- posed complys with the land use element of the plan. Also if the applicant complies with the conditions of approval for MS-515 the granting of these variances should not be detrimental to other properties in the vicinity. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that this project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 19.04.070(f) (4c and 4d) of the Carlsbad Muncipal Code. -3- V. RECOMME3TDWTION Staff recommends that the planninq Conmissfon adopt Reso- lution No, 1774 APPROVING NS-515 and Resolution No. 1775 APPROVING V-321, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. ATTACHMENTS Planning Commissions Resolution Nos. 1774 and 1775 Background Data Sheet Location Map Exhibit "A", dated January 8, 1981 MH: jt 2/11/81 ,CASE NO:%-51 5 - v-321 APPLICANT: XEN" AND PNmLA CRI- REQUEST AND UXATION: Minor subdivision and variances to create tsm lots one of which will have a width of 46 feet and the reduction of the panhandle Width - frcun 20' to 15' on the west side of Valley Street. LM;AL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Tract 244 of Thm Lands in the city of Carlsbad, according to Map No. 1681, filed Decanber 9, 1916. Assessors parcel mr: 205 - 130 - 31 Acres .57 No. of Lots 2 GENEmL PLAN AND ZONING rcLM General Plan Land Use Designation Density Allowed 0-4 Existing zone R-1-7 500 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: zoning North R-1 south R-1 East 0-s School West R-1 Density Proposed 4 Proposed Zone N/A Land use SFD SFD school SFD School District carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad mu's Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Decesnber 2, 1980 (Other : 1 ExwI- IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued Log No. E.I.R. Certified, dated other, Exemptper section 19.04.070(f) (4c and, 4d)