HomeMy WebLinkAboutV 359; Development Consultants; Variance (V)t3l-l APPLICAT-N SUBMITTAL DATE:
MARCH 1, ,984
STAFF REPORT
DATE : May 23, 1984
TO : Planning Commission
FROM: Land Use Planning Office
SUBJECT: V-359 - DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS - Request for a variance of
the zoninq ordinance to construct a 10 foot tennis fence within one of the front yard setbacks of a through-lot at 7117 Obelisco Circle
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No.
2299, DENYING V-359, based on the findings contained therein.
11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a variance of Section 21.46.130 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of a 10 foot tennis fence within his front yard setback. Plans indicate the fence would be placed on top of a seven foot retaining wall and set back 7 feet from the front property line. The applicant intends to backfill dirt against the retaining wall to hide the wall and to plant a landscape buffer to obscure the 10 foot fence.
111. ANALY S IS
Planning Issues
1) Can the four mandatory findings for a variance be made as they
relate to this case? Specifically:
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?
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?
Will the granting of this variance be detrimental to the
public welfare?
Will the granting of this variance adversely affect the General Plan?
Discussion
There are two main issues with this request: (1) Are there extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that apply to this
property that do not generally apply to other properties in this area; and (2) is the applicant being denied a property right
enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity?
A field check of the site indicates that the applicant has a large -58 acre lot which slopes steeply to the west and extends as a through lot from Obelisco Circle in the front to Babilonia Street in the rear. The applicant believes the through-lot creates an unusual circumstance which does not permit the full utilization of his property because the lot has two front yards; however, the surrounding neighborhood contains numerous through-lots with similar sloping topography. The lot is large enough to accommodate the tennis court and the proposed swimming pool and recreation area proposed by the applicant. Modifications to the site plan would have to be made, but there is enough room. Staff cannot make the finding that there are exceptional or extraordinary conditions on the one-half acre lot.
The second issue is whether or not the applicant is being denied a property right possessed by other property owners in the vicinity.
than adequate to accommodate recreational uses, including a tennis court without the necessity of a variance. Further, a similar request for this fence on the same property was administratively denied on December 21, 1982. In addition, a similar variance request for a tennis court fence in the setback of Lot 681 of Obelisco Place, was denied by the Planning Commission as not satisfying the required findings for approval of a variance. Staff
believes the circumstances have not changed since the previous denial and that the second mandatory finding for a variance cannot be made.
As previously stated, the applicant's lot is very large and is more
While the granting of this variance would not affect the General Plan, there is concern that it would be detrimental to the general
public and injurious to other properties in the vicinity. Specifically, the visual impact of a 10 foot fence on top of a small retaining wall in the front yard setback would be considerable, not only on adjoining property but the area in general. The lot is located on one of the highest points in La
Costa and the fence would, therefore, be visible for a great d is tance .
In summary, staff feels the request does not meet the four required
findings for a variance and, therefore, cannot recommend approval of this project.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from environmental review per Section
19.04.070 of the Environmental Protection Ordinance.
-2-
Attachments
1, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2299
2, Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Disclosure Statement
5. Exhibit "A", dated May 7, 1984
AML : ad
5/9/84
-3-
-?
LOCATION MAP
I
DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS v-359
CASE NO: V-359
APPLICANT: DEVEUXMENT CDNSULTZ4PIS
REQUEST AND IDCATION: Variance to mnstruct a 10 foot fence within a front
yard setback
LEG?& DESCRIPTION: Lot 684 of La Costa Meadows Unit No. 4, acmrding to Map
7367 APN: 215-460-20
Acres . 58 Praposed No. of Lotsflnits N/A
Land Use Designation F&
Density Allowed N/A Density Proposed N/A
Existing Zone R-1-15,000 Proposed Zone N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Land Use
Site R-1-15,000 SED
North R-1-15,000 SED
South R-1-15,000 SED
East R-1-15,000 SED
West R-1-15,000 SFD
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Carlsbad
School District San Marms Water Costa Real Sewer Leucadia Ew's 1
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated N/A
- Negative Declaration, issued
E.I.R. Certified, dated -
Other, Exempt per Section 19.04.070 of the Eslvironmental Protection Ordinance
,urther information you will be so
APPLICANT : Sidney & Genevieve Crais H/W
Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, cor-xra tion, syndicatioa)
AGENT :
t
Telephone Number
Joe Smv Name
Telephone Nunbar .-
Name -(individual, partner, joint . Eome Address
venture, coqozation, syndication)
Bisiness Address
Tele2hone N-r Telephone Xumber
:?Lzle Home Address
S'siness ircidress
I/Wo declze u&er Penalty of
(Attach mora sheets if necessary)
perjury that the infomation contained
closure is trice and correct and that it will remain true and correct
relic2 upon as boing true and correct until amended.
BY
in this
and nay
dis-
be-
t Applican)\