HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-12-21; City Council; Resolution 70911
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12 a
>U
o I- 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL FROM A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND DENYING VARIANCE - HORTON (V-341) TO REDUCE THE STREET SIDEYARD SETBACK FROM TEN FEET TO ONE AND ONE HALF FEET, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ISLE DRIVE AND HILLSIDE. APPLICANT: SKIP HORTON CASE NO.: V-341
WHEREAS, on September 22, 1982 the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 2021 recommending to the City Council that
Variance - Horton (V-341) be denied; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad did on
December 7, 1982 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider
the recommendations of the Planning Commission and to receive all
recommendations and hear all persons interested in or opposed to
said variance; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad, California as follows:
A. That the above recitations are true and correct.
€3. That the findings of the Planning Commission in
Resolution No. 2021 constitute the findings of the City Council
in this matter.
C. That Variance - Horton (V-341) is hereby denied
based upon the facts set out in the Planning Department Staff
Report dated September 22, 1982 and Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2021 attached as Exhibit A and incorporated
herein.
///
///
1
2
3
4
a
9
10
11
12 2
t 0 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
D. This action of denial is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply:
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
The time within which judicial review of this
decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other
paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the
appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day
following the date on which this decision becomes
final; however, if within ten days after the decision
becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008 . "
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 21st day of De&r , 1982, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES : Council ?@nkers Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Prescot
NOES : None
ATTEST :
Yk ALEMA L. RJ&TEPdKRAN&9City Clerk
KAREN R. KUtkZ, Deputy City Clerk
3
. I# *'
r" . 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
JC
3.3.
12
12
14
15
ZE
3-7
3E
19
2c
23
22
22
24
- 25
26
27
20
RESOLUTION NO. 7091
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2021
RESOLUTION-OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE
THE STREET SIDEYXRD SETBACK PROM 10' TO 1 1/2' GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ISLE DRIVE AND
HILLSIDE.
CASE NO.: V-341
APPLICANT: SKIP HORTON
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to
Lot 100 of Carlsbad Tract 72-18, Unit No. 2, APN 207-211-
05.
?it:
ias been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the
'laming Commission; and
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request
3s provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 22nd day of
;eptember, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
>y law to consider said request; and
WKEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and
:onsidering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons
lesiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
relating to V-341.
OW^ THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
:ommission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
1') That the foregoing recitatrons are true and correct.
3) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
3
I,
Commission DENIES V-341, based on the following f indings;
?itid inas 5- :
I) That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same vicinity and zone since the property has more buildable area than other similar corner lots as indicated
in the staff report. '///
Y9
, .-
".-
Qr
J,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
22
13
14
15
16
3.7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2):That the subject property is not being denied a substantial -. property right possessed-by other properties in the same vicinity as there are no structures located within the street
side yard setback on other properties and there are other
locations on the lot where the buildings could be constructed which would not require a variance.
The reduction of the side yard setback would set an undesirable precedent since no other lots in the vicinity and zone have such a reduction of setbacks.
That the granting of such variance could be materially
detrimental to the public welfare as 20' of driveway is required to store an automobile in front of the garage and the granting of this variance could potentially encourage
encroachment of parked vehicles into the public right of way and because the proposed structure could create adverse visual impacts to the neighborhood.
.PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
the 22nd day of September, 1982, by the following votec to wit:
AYES: Chairman Farrow, Commissioners Marcus, Rornbotis
NOES: , None.
Schlehuber, Jose, Friestedt and Kawlins.
ABSENT: None ~
ABSTAIN : None
LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER
PC RES0 NO. 2021 a2
..
DATE :
TO :
FROM :
SUBJECT:
STAFF REPORT
September 22, 1982
Planning Comrnission
Land Use Planning Office
V-341 - HORTON - Request for a variance of the Zoning
Ordinance to reduce the sideyard setback from 10' to 1
1/2' on property located at th6northwest corner of Isle
Drive and Hillside Drive in the R-1 zone (4225 Isle Drive).
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a variance of Section 21.10.040 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required street sideyard
setback from 10' to 3'. The intent of the applicant is to
construct a 20' x 20', three story garage/recreation room. The structure would be located approximately 3' from the street
sideyard property line at its closest point and approximately 5' from the property line at its widest point. Plans indicate
both a proposed double-wide, rolling garage door and a possible
parking area at the lowest level of the structure.
11. ANALYSIS -
Planning Issues
1. Can the four mandatory findings for a variance be made as they relate to this case? Specifically:
8
b.
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?
I!
C.
d.
Discuss ion -
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?
The main issue with this request is whether there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that apply to this
I.
property that do not generally apply to other properties in this
vicinity. The applicant has indicated that both the configuration of the lot and the location of the existing house
and swimming pool have made construction of a building difficult
without intruding into the sideyard setback.
A field check of the site revealed that although the southwest corner of the lot is elevated approximately 20' above street level, the lot is relatively flat, has a normal buildable area, and has other locations upon it to locate a recreation room without a variance. Also, there is an existing 2-car garage
which provides adequate storage area for a single family house in a residential zone. Actually, the property has more
buildable area than other similar corner lots because of a narrower right-of-way; at this location, the property line is set back only 5 1/2 feet from the curb edge instead of the normal 10 feet. Based on these facts, staff cannot make the required finding that exceptional or extraordinary conditions exist on this property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity.
A second issue is whether the applicant is being denied a
property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity.
No other prope'rties in the vicinity have existing structures
which are located within the street side yard setback. Staff feels therefore, that this property is not being der,ied a substantial property right shared by other properties in the same vicinity and zone.
While the granting of this variance would not affect the General
Plan, there is concern that it would be detrimental to the public welfare. Staff is concerned with the visual impact a 27' high structure will have in a residential neighborhood when built 3' from the sidewalk. Another possible problem is that due to the decreased sideyard setback, any automobiles stored in the
driveway would encroach into the public right-of-way.
Staff feels that the granting of this variance, with its visual
impact and t$e potential of having an automobile overhang into
the public eight-of-way could be detrimental to the public safety and the public welfare and could set .a very undesirable
precedent. Attached to this report are two letters of opposition from nearby residents reflecting these concerns.
The applicant has already excavated a portion of his property in anticipation of approval of this variance; however, it was done without a grading permit or any set of approved plans.
In surninary, staff feels that the request does not meet the four
recommend approval of this project.
.-
. required findings for a variance and, thercfore,'cannot
-2-
.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW -
This project is exempt from environmental review per Section
19.04.070 (F)(4)(A) of the Environmental Ordinance.
V. RECOWMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Cornmission ADOPT Resolution No, 2021, DENYING V-341, based on the findings contained
therein.
ATTAC €IN ENTS
1. PC Resolution No. 2021
2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet
4. Disclosure Form
5. Exhibit "A", dated August 16, 1982
6. Letter of opposition froin Ronald Clarke, dated September
14, 1982 '7. Letter of opposition from John Fitzgerald, dated September
14, 1982
AML : hw 9/22/82
!
-3-
..
ASE
.