Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-12-07; City Council; 7195-1; Horton denial appealV' RECOMMENDED ACTION: Both the Planning Staff and Planning Commission recommend that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny V-341, and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary documents. ITEM EXPLANATION: This item was continued from the last two City Council meetings and is an appeal, by the applicant, of a Planning Commission denial of a variance to reduce the street side yard setback from ten feet to three feet on property located at 4225 Isle Drive. The item was continued because the applicant wanted to submit a more accurate site plan of his proposed addition. The revised site plan shows a three story structure setback four feet from the property line. The first floor consists of a one car garage, the second floor, a study and deck, and the third floor, a recreation room. Staff and the Planning Commission originally recommended denial of'this request. Upon review of the revised site plan, staff sees no reason to change its original recommendation of denial. Specifically, denial is recommended for the following reasons: 1) That no exceptional circumstances are applicable to this property since it is a standard size 7,500 square foot lot with adequate room to provide for a facility without the need for a variance; shared by other properties in the same vicinity and zone since no other properties have reduced side yard setbacks similar to what the applicant is requesting, and his lot allows for similar development of his property as is allowed throughout the vicinity; 3) That the granting of this variance would be materially , detrimental to the public health and welfare due to the traffic problems which would be created from cars backing onto Hillside Avenue, and the adverse visual impact of a three-story structure placed only four feet from the property line along Hillside Avenue in a single family zone. 2) That the applicant is not being denied a property right ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project is exempt from environmental review per Section 19.04.070(F)(4)(A) of Title 19. I PAGE 2 of AGENDA BILL # FISCAL IMPACTS: No fiscal impacts would be created by this project. EXHIBITS: 1) P.C. Resolution No. 2021 2) Staff Report dated September 22, 1982 with Attachments 3) Revised Site Plan (24"x36" wall exhibit) a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ' 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2021 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE STREET SIDEYARD SETBACK FROM 10' TO 1 1/2' GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ISLE DRIVE AND HILLSIDE. APPLICANT: SKIP HORTON CASE NO. : V-341 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to Lot 100 of Carlsbad Tract 72-18, Unit No. 2, APN 207-211- 05. vit: ias been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the 'lanning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request is 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 iy law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, 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 :elating to V-341. 'NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning :ommission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: i) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. I) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES V-341, based on the following findings; 'indings: ) 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. '/// 3 .". 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 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 vote, to wit: AYES: Chairman Farrow, Commissioners Marcus, Rornbotis, Schlehuber, Jose, Friestedt and Kawlins, NOES: , None. ABSENT : None , ABSTAIN: None. VERNON Z-RROW , 5r.- CARLSBA ANNING COMMISSION .2 LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER PC RES0 NO. 2021 DATE : TO : FROM : SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT ' . ../ September 22, 1982 Planning Comrni s s ion 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 the northwest 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: a. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same I vicinity and zone? b. Is the granting of this'variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the s same vicinity and zone? c. Will the granting of this variance be detrimental d, Will the granting of this variance adversely affect to the public welfare? the General Plan? Discussion - The main issue with this request is whether there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that apply to this 5 .- 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 properties in the vicinity have existing structures which are located within the street side yard setback. Staff feels therefore, that this property is not being denied 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, t.here 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 the 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 summary, staff feels that the request does not meet the four required findings for a variance and, therefore,'cannot recommend approval of this project. -2- IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from environmental review per Section 19.04.070 (F)(4)(A) of the Environmental Ordinance. V. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2021, DENYING V-341, based on the findings contained therein. ATTACHMENTS 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 from Ronald Clarke, dated September 7. Letter of opposition from John Fitzgerald, dated September 14, 1982 14, 1982 AML : bw 9/22/82 -3- 7 - i.... .... , ! APP LIC A MT HOR TON .. , -- CASE NO. V-341 .. BACKGFWND DATA SHEET CASE NO: V-341 APPLICANT: Skip Horton RFQUE,W AND LOCATION: Variance request to reduce the street side yard setback from 10' to 1 1/2' by construction of a three-story recreation/storage roam. WJAL DESCRIPTICN: L& 100 of Carlsbad Tract No. 72-18, Unit No. 2. APN: 207 - 211 - 05 Acres 8,352 square feet Proposed No. of Lots/Units 1 GENERAG PIAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RL&l Density Allowed 0-4 Density Proposed WA Existing Zone R-1 Proposed Zone N/A Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site R-1 SFR North R-1 SFR South R-1 SFR East R-1 SFR West R-1 ' PUBLIC FACILITIES School District - Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated Excepted from requirement per City Council Policy No. 17. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENf -- Negative Declaration, issued E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, Exempt per section 19.04.070 (F) (4) (A) 9 .- .. .... ... .. .. .. .. .. '. .. ... .- .I>: .) -. .- I.. r. . . r' ........ ..... ................. .. -.. .... _._ .. .- __ ..... ..... .............. _ - - c ..... .... ... . ....... ......... -.--._I_. -_._ ....-.. __ .- ............................. .......... * ............ ... ........................ .. _- ................ ........................... .... .... . . ... ........... - ._ ......... - .......... .- . _. ...... ...................... , .. -_--I ....... .......... - ..... - ........... . ....... --___...I.__ ...... ............ .. ... .. - .. .. - . -. . . I* I, ............................. ......... .- .... .- .. ......... ... ..... ..... ...... .- ............ 8. - .- .. .. .. .. ... ... . ... ........... .... ....... ..... ....... - - .'