Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutV 322; Frederick Nerlinger; Variance (V). /? STAFF REPORT DATE : April 22, 1981 TO : P1 ann ing Commi s s ion FROM : Planning Department SUBJECT: v-322, NERLINGER - Request for a variance to allow construction of two condominium units within the 5 foot building setback required from private driveways. This request is made in conjunction with a request for a 4- unit minor condominium permit on a .26 acre lot on the south side of Chinquapin Avenue between Garfield Street and the AT&SF Railway in the RD-M zone. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a variance to the zoning ordinance to reduce the setback of a building off a private driveway from the required 5-feet to zero feet on a 4-unit condominium project on property as described above. The parcel has a substandard width (50.56 feet), and a long and narrow shape. (The length to width ratio is 4.4 to 1). The General Plan has designated this and surrounding parcels for high density development (20-30 du's/acre) which allows for 5 to 7 units on this lot. The proposed project would include only 4 units which is below the maximum allowed density. As shown on Exhibit "A", the applicant is proposing to have a driveway with a minimum width of aO-feet, and a 5-fOOt sideyard setback. In addition, the development standards of the condominium ordinance would require that there be a minimum 5- foot building setback from private driveways. The resultant difference is a buildable width of 20.56 feet. The applicant has indicated that this width is insufficient for the quality of units planned, and for this reason requests a variance from the ordinance to waive the required 5-fOOt building setback from the private driveway. 11. ANALYSIS 1) Can the four mandatory findings for a variance be made in this case which are as follows: a) Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and zone? h b) Is the granting of this variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone? c) Will the granting of this variance be detrimental to the pub1 ic we1 fare? d) Will the granting of this variance adversely affect the General Plan? 111. DISCUSSION The subject property is .26 acres in size with a width of 50.54 feet and a length of 222.80 feet. This substandard width, in con junction with the extreme length, severely restricts any imaginative designs which must also meet the requirements of the condominium ordinance. As a result of the unusual shape, staff feels that the finding of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances can be made in this case. Additionally, staff feels that the granting of this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right in that this variance would enhance the applicant's opportunity to build an aesthetically attractive and liveable condominium project within the design criteria required by the condominium ordinance. Without the granting of this variance, it is felt that the design options are so severely limited (a maximum 20-foot wide buildings and garages) as to restrict the property right of adequate and reasonable development of the lot. The value of the setback requirement is that a buffer zone is created between the units themselves and the travel lanes of a private drive. Additionally, this setback decreases the potential of vehicle conflicts when one is exiting from a garage directly into the driveway lanes. With respect to this project, staff feels that this S-fOOt setback is not necessary given the low volume of traffic that would be generated by the four units in the project. As a result, it is felt that the granting of this variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to the occupants of the project who would directly utilize the driveway. Additionally, the granting of this variance will not adversely affect the General Plan as the project is in compliance with zoning, density, and other residential development criteria, and surrounding parcels are presently developed or projected for development similar to this. -2- In s unmary, staff was able to find si four mandatory findings for approval IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW fficient facts to make the of a variance. This project is exempt from environmental review per Section 19.04.070( f) (4a) of the Environmental Ordinance. V. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1800, APPROVING V-322, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. ATTACHMENTS 1) PC Resolution No. 1800 2) Background Data Sheet 3) Location Map 4) Disclosure Form 5) Exhibit "A", dated March 23, 1981 PJK:ar 4/8/81 -3- REQUEST AND ICCATION: Variance for setbacks on private drive, south side of Chinquapin Avenue, east of Garfield. LM;ALDESCRPITON: to Map %#a# 1803 filed August 25, 1974. The northeas-ly 50.56 feet of Lot 5 in Block T according 206 - 080 - 17 Assessors Parcel Number: 24cres . 26 No. of Lots 1 General Plan Land Use Designation RH 20-30 Density Allowed 20-30 Density PraposeCa 15.38 Existingzone RDM Proposed zone N/A surrounding zoning and Land use: zoning North RDM south mq East RDM West ' R-1 Land use MFD SFD 0 I SFD SED School District CAHLSBAD Water District CAHLSBAD Sewer District mBAD mu's Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated (mer: Obtained as part of a minor condaninium application 1 EWI- IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued Log NO.. E.I.R. Certified, blted Other, Exerrrpt per 19.04.070(f) (4a), per Notice of Exemption dated 4/1/81 K 1 LOCAT ION I \, .- I APPIJCANT: AGENT : ,. 1. s' '-- I .! j' /. j .. MEMBFZS :I --I_ -- I -- (Attach more sheets if necessary) .. we ci'eclarc? nix~cr penalty of pcr jury ihnt the information contaj nci? in this cMs- cl.osurci is truc aid correct and that: it. will remain true and correct and may hc- xcliccl upon as' hcitiy true and corrcct uiiti.1 amcndcd. .I W .. . .. e. 1