Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-12-05; City Council; 5679; Request to amdne zone codeCITY OF CARLSBAD V J AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: DEPARTMENT: , ^ 79 December 5, 1978 Planning Initial Dept. Hd. J^/tf C. Atty. ;MJ2$ C. Mqr. f -—•• SUBJECT: REQUEST FROM PLANNING COMMISSION TO AMEND ZONE CODE REGARDING YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS - Statement of the Matter Recently the Planning Commission approved a variance request to permit the intrusion of a patio cover into a required rear yard setback (V-284) at an existing single-family residence in an R-l zone. The Planning Commission approved the variance based on the necessary findings of exceptional circumstances and enjoyment of property rights possessed by others. However, the Planning Commission was concerned about using the variance procedure to approve the request. Although the Planning Commission felt yard setbacks are necessary', they believe that in some instances intrusions into yards should be permitted. The Commission further felt that the variance procedure is costly, time consuming and technically an improper method to approve such intrusions. The Planning Commission therefore requests that the City Council direct staff to review this matter and prepare an ordinance amendment that would permit administrative approval of intrusions into required yards under certain restraints. Staff has given preliminary review to the issues and developed alter- natives for further study. See attached Memorandum to the City Manager. Ehxibits 1. Staff Report, dated October 11, 1978 2. Memorandum to the City Manager, dated November 14, 1978 3. Resolution No. 1474 Recommendation If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission that there is a need for administrative approval of some intrusions into required yards, the City Council should direct staff to prepare an ordinance and forward to the Planning Commission for hearing. Council action: 12-5-78 Council concurred with the Planning Commission re the need for administrative approval of some intrusions into required yards, and directed staff to prepare an ordinance and forward same to the Planning Commission for hearing. STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: CASE NO: APPLICANT: REQUEST: October 11, 1978 Planning Commission Planning Department V-284 Joseph E. Starich VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIRE- MENT FROM 17 FEET TO 9 FEET TO PERMIT INSTALLATION OF A PATIO COVER ON AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. SECTION I. BACKGROUND Location and Description of Property The subject property is generally located on the south side of Daisy Avenue between Wisteria Way and Primrose Way. The property consists of a single lot, nearly square at 85x105 feet, and approximately .20 acres in size, with a steep slope (down) at the edge of the rear lot line, and moderate slope (up) to the east side lot line. Existing Zoning Subject Parcel: North: South: East : West j Existing Land Use Subject Parcel: North: South: East : West : R-l-7500 R-l-7500 R-l-7500 R-l-7500 R-l-7500 Single family house Single family house Single family house Single family house Single family house (developer's model homes) Past History and Related Cases V-280, Andrew Gerhard. Resolution No. 1448. On June 28, 1978, the Planning Commission approved a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from 17' to 7'. In this case, the Commission found exceptional circumstances to justify this variance, namely, the unusual lot configuration and the abutment of the rear yard to the open space of a golf course. V-2'75/Mike 0'Kara. On February 8, 1978, the Planning Commission . approved a variance for a reduction in a rear yard setback (Resolution No. 1431) from the required 20" to 5', on two single family lots in the R-l-10,000 zone. The Commission noted in this case adjacent property had a reduced rear yard as approved through the PUD process. They also found that close proximity to the La Costa golf course afforded sufficient open area and distance between buildings.for these homes. View blockage was not considered an issue in this case because any development on the property would tend to obstruct the view of adjacent homes. V-269, Wayne Gossett. On July 27, 1977, the Planning Commission ' approved a request for an 8' encroachment into a 20' rear yard setback to allow a patio cover. The Commission found that unusual lot configuration prevented the preservation of a substantial property right, i.e. installation of patio covers. Additionally, the Commission found that the variation in surrounding lot grade levels provided adequate structure separation. V-241, Laurence W. Huffman. Resolution No. 1068. On June 11, 1974, the Planning Commission approved a request to reduce the required rear yard setback from 18.5' to 11.5' for construction of a patio cover. The Commission found that the request represented an "extra- ordinary circumstance" since the awning is technically considered as part of the house, although it provided openess and space between structures. It was further found that the variance was necessary for the preservation of property rights because the awning enhances the usefulness of an already existing patio. In addition, there are at least six building permits issued in the immediate area of the subject property for construction of patio covers. Included in this count is the property immediately to the west of the subject parcel. In all six cases, patio covers were erected without the need for encroaching upon the side or rear yards. SP-175(A), Altimira Concurrent with the present variance request, your Commission is also scheduled to consider a related request for the Altamira project. In this case, the proposal is in the form of an amendment to a specific plan to permit patio covers within the presently required 10' rear setback. Although no variance is needed in this case, the applicant is requesting a 2' rear yard setback. This request represents a significant attempt to reduce setbacks on small lots in Altamira for the purpose of installing patio covers. Environmental Impact Information Approval of this variance is categorically exempt from provisions of the Carlsbad Environmental Protection Ordinance. Specifically, this variance is exempt according to Section 19.04.090,(c),(4),(i), relating to minor side yard and setback variances. —2 — General Plan Information The general plan designates this property as Residential Low Medium, with a density of 0-4 dwelling units per acre. Public Facilities The variance, if approved, would have no impacts on sewer, water, streets, or other public facilities. Major Planning Considerations 1. What effect would the granting of this variance have on the surrounding area? 2. Can the necessary findings be made for the granting of this variance? SECTION III: DISCUSSION Variances are intended to be mechanisms for relief from zoning ordinances when special circumstances exist. Section 65906 of the Government code states: • 65906. Granting variances Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance shall be granted only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. In this case the applicant has a lot that is 105 feet deep. Normally R-l lots in Carlsbad are around 120 feet deep; but a 105 deep lot is not unusual. The subject lot is 85' wide. This requires a 17' rear yard. Normally R-l lots in Carlsbad are about 60 to 70 feet wide. This would call for a 12 to 14 foot rear yard. The point here is that if the lot was longer and not so wide, there would be no problems. Now a great many of the houses in this subdivision have patio covers. These covers could be erected without encroaching into required yards. This is because the configuaration of the lots and the improvements allowed for it. However, it appears that Mr. Starich's case is not unique. There are other lots in the same subdivision with similar circumstances. There are some circumstances applicable to this property that differs from the norm but staff does not feel that the circumstances are unusual enough for the Commission to make the necessary findings. The applicant has provided the following findings in his application: 1. House is situated tov:ard rear of lot leaving only 19' to the rear lot line. This side of the house faces south where, on sunny days, the sun shines all day on the existing 14* x 26" cement patio. Also, all windows to the livingroom, dining room family room and breakfast area are on the south side. -3- 2. This is the only outdoor sitting area on the lot from which there is an ocean view but it cannot be enjoyed during daylight hours because it is constantly exposed to the sun's rays. Although this new development has just recently been occupied there are already ten homes with patio covers built, within a 350' radius. This includes the developer's model next door to this one — same house on same size lot. 3. The structure is to be build by a professional concern (Western Landscape Construction) with wood to be painted same color as trim of house. This type patio cover is common to the area and can have no detrimental effect. 4. This patio cover will be similar to those built by the developer on all four models now being shown to the public for sale. This feature was added to the models because it enhances the appearance of the homes and provides more comfortable outdoor living space. In staff's opinion the patio cover would not present a problem to the site or the surrounding area. The applicant has clearly explained the need for a cover. Staff agrees with the applicant as far as the need is concerned. His request for a patio cover is reasonable. However, staff does not feel that a variance is the proper mechanism for a rear yard encroachment in this instance. Unfortunately our code does not provide a proper mechanism. Because of this case and similar cases in the recent past we are going to propose a code amendment to allow for certain rear yard encroachments without a variance. Staff Recommendation That the Planning Commission DENY the request for Variance-284. This recommendation is based on staff's opinion that the circumstances do not meet the criteria for the necessary findings. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the subject variance, staff suggests the following findings and conditions. Please be aware that staff does not support these findings. Findings 1. That there are 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 in that the subject site is 105' deep and the building is 66" long leaving a very limited amount of rear yard for additions such as patio covers. 2. That such variance is 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 because most of the lots in the same vicinity and zone have a configuration and an arrangement of improvements that would allow for additions to the rear of the houses occupying those lots. .4 3, That the granting of such variance will not be materially detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improve- ments in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because there is more than ample separation between the proposed improvements, that the subject variance application would allow, and the next closest house. Adequate access (91) would be provided between the improvements and the rear property line. 4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. Conditions 1. Subject patio cover shall be substantially located as shown on Exhibit A dated 10/11/78. 2. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction. 3. If not excercised, this variance shall expire within one year from the date of approval. DA/DLR/ar 10/5/78 .5 1/-284 STARICH Case No. V-.Z*/ Date Rec'd: £-//- 7tf DCC Date: ?-/?-?<? PC Date 9-2*7-78 Description of Request:To REAR ti •?<> 9 Address or Location of Request:57Z)/F Av£r*u£' £~. _ Applicant: Engr. or Arch. • — • Brief Legal: Lor ax, C-T 73-31 9 A . \ Assessor Book: -2./«/ Page:, General Plan Land Use Description: Existing Zone: R- /- ~7SQQ Acres: »^-O No. of Lots: School" Di strict: C**v[<& Wa ter San i tation 0i stri c t:_ Within Coast Plan Area: Parcel:__// U>ul Proposed Zone: "/ _ DU's _ ^_ O-l bi4/Ac. Oil/Acre S~ Coast Permit Area: FORM PLANNING 52 Of-' /#. , 32OO& ' T~ I"-j 2OOi_f. I ra Lor If after the information you have submitted lias been reviewed, it is determined that further information is required, you v;ill be so advised.. APPLICANT: AGENT: C/ (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication) Business Addros Telephone Number Name Business Address MEMBERS: Telepho.no Number Maine (individual, partner, joint venture, corporation, syndication) Home Address Business Address Telephone Number Telephone Number Name .Home Address Business Address Telephone Number Telephone Number (Attach more sheets if necessary) I/We declare under penalty of perjury that the 'information contained in this di<: closure is true and correct and that 'it will remain true and correct and may be relied upon as being true and correct until amended. ./Applicant Agent, Owner, Partner MEMORANDUM DATE: November 14, 1978 TO: PAUL BUSSEY, City Manager FROM: JAMES C. HAGAMAN , Planning Director SUBJECT: ENCROACHMENTS INTO REQUIRED SETBACKS A large percentage of the variance requests we receive are to allow patios and room additions to encroach into required set- backs, particularly rear yard setbacks. The State Law is quite specific on the grading of variances. Se.c.ti.on 65906. Giant<ing vai4.anc.e-A Vai4.ance.A fiiom the. te.imA o£ tke. zoning oid4.nance. Akatt be. giante,d onty u)he.n, be.C-auAe. o£ Ape.c.4.ai c.4.icumAtanc.e.A app£xtca6£e to tke, piope.ity, xnc£ucUng A<iz<i, Akape., topogiapky, locat-ion on. Au.iiound4.ngA , the. &ti-ic.t appl4.c.at4,on of, tke. zoning oJLdi.na.nc.e. de.pi4.\>e.A Auc.h piope.ity o& pn<i\j-Ule,Qe.& e.njoye.d by otke.fi pJiope.x.ty A\n the. and unde.fi 4.de,nt4.c,a.t zoning Any valance. gia.nte.d &kait be. Aubje.c.t to Auc.k a& wJUUL aAAuie. that the. adju6tme.nt the.tie.by a.uthox-lze.d not con^t-itute. a giant ofi Ape.c.4.al pi4.v4.£e.ge.A w<itk the. t'imj.tat'Lo n-t> upon othe.1 pfiope.fLt4.e.A 4.n the. V4.c.'in4.ty and zone, -in u)h4.c.h Auc.h piope.ity 4.A A4.tuate.d. A great many of the variance applications cannot fulfill the State requirements and therefore cannot be granted even though the proposed patio or addition may be logical and could not have any ill effect. A recent variance case (Y-284) dramatized this quandry. Staff feels there is a need for some sort of administrative pro- cedure that could allow for minor encroachments administratively. The Planning Commission is supporting such a procedure. We have researched the codes of other cities and have found that most jurisdictions do provide administrative procedures for minor variances. With Council's blessing, we will continue our research and prepare such a procedure for Council's consideration. DLR:ms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 '16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1474 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD APPROVING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM 17 FEET TO 9 FEET TO PERMIT INSTALLATION OF A PATIO COVER ON AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. CASE NO:" APPLICANT: V-284 Joe Starich WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property to wit: Lot 22 of Carlsbad Tract.73-39 Unit No. 1 (Spinnaker Hill Unit No. 1), in the City of Carlsbad, California, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 8404, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 5, 1976 has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred ..to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the llth day of October, 1978, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons who desired to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Variance (V-284), and found the following facts and reasons to exist: That there are 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 sam vicinity and zone in that the subject site is 105* deep and the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 building is 66' long leaving a very limited amount of rear yard for additions such as patio covers. That such variance is 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 because most of the lots in the same vicinity and zone have a configuration and an arrangement of improvements that would allow for additions to the rear of the houses occupying those lots. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in /which the property is located because there is more than ample separation between the ' proposed improvements, that the subject variance application would allow, and the next closest house. Adequate access (9') would be provided between the improvements and the rear property line. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by the following vote recommended APPROVAL of V-284 with the following conditions: 1. Subject patio cover shall be substantially located as shown on Exhibit A dated 10/11/78. 2 A building permit must be. obtained prior to construction. 3. If not excercised, this variance will expire within one year from the date of approval. -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ATTEST: 12 13 14 AYES: Rombotis, Larson, Schick, Marcus, L'Heureux,* Wrench, Jose NOES: None ABSTAIN: None NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the above recitations are true and correct. Introduced, approved and adopted this llth day of October, 1978 JERRY ROMBOTIS, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 —3-