Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-15; Planning Commission; ; AV 91-12 - HILL RESIDENCEAPPUChfION COMPLETE DATE: JULY 27, 1992 Sf AFF REPORT DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 1993 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AV 91-12 HILL RESIDENCE -Appeal of the Planning Director's decision denying the request for an Administrative Variance for a reduced side yard setback, for a storage structure, from the required eight (8) foot to two (2) foot at 3317 Cadencia Street in the Planned Community (PC) Zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 6 . . I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission AOOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3511 UPHOIDING the Planning Directors decision denying Administrative Variance No. 91-12 (A) based on the findings contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND Please ref er to the attached Staff Report for a full discussion and analysis of the Administrative Variance application. This item was continued from the July 21, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. At the meeting, the Commission requested the applicant to provide a more detailed analysis from a Soils Engineer of the site for justification of the structure. The report was due from the applicant on September 1, 1993 and was received on August 26, 1993. After the Planning and Engineering Departments review the report, a memorandum discussing the report will be sent to the Planning Commission prior to the hearing on September 15, 1993. A copy of the report is attached. AV 91-12 HILL RESIDENctl SEPTEMBER 15, 1993 PAGE 2 III. SUMMARY All four findings must be made i.n the affirmative prior to approving a variance. Since three findings cannot be made for the approval of the Administrative Variance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision and deny the request. Per Section 21.51.060(c), the decision of the Planning Commission shall be final unless appealed to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3511 2. Letter to Mr. Hill from Property Development Engineers, Inc. dated August 19, 1993 3. Staff report AV 91-12 dated July 21, 1993, with attachments 4. Excerpt from Planning Commission minutes dated July 21, 1993. VL:lh AUGUST 17, 1993 APPLICATION COMPLETE DATE: JULY 27, 1992 STAFF PLANNER: VAN LYNCH STAFF REPORT _,, DATE: JULY 21, 1993 G) TO: PLANNING COMMISSION PROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AV 91-12{A) HIU. RESIDENCE -Appeal of the Planning Director's decision denying the request for an Administrative Variance for a reduced side yard setback, for a storage structure, from the required 8' to 2' at 3317 Cadencia Street in the Planned Community (PC) Zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3511 UPHOIDING the Planning Directors decision denying Administrative Variance No. 91-12(A) based on the findings contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The originally requested Administrative Variance was for an eight-foot retaining wall in the required sideyard setback and for a reduced sideyard setback, from eight feet to two feet, for a storage structure. See attached staff report dated December 2, 1992 for a full discussion of the project. The Planning Director denied the request for the Administrative Variance on October 14, 1992. The applicant subsequently filed for an appeal of the decision on October 21, 1992. On December 2, 1992 and on April 21, 1993, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny the variance. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision to deny AV 91-12(A) because in staffs opinion, the findings necessary to grant the variance could not be made. At the hearing on December 2, 1992, the Planning Commission made findings for the overheight eight-foot retaining wall in the sideyard setback. However, the Commission continued to a date uncertain the request for a reduced sideyard setback for a storage structure. This was to allow the applicant time to consult with an expert as to the appropriateness of the storage structure to solve an alleged sub-surface water condition. At the hearing on April 21, 1993, the Planning Commission again continued the project an additional three months to give the applicant extra time to consult with a soils engineer. AV 91-12(A) HILL RESIDr..NCE JULY 21, 1993 PAGE2 To date, the applicant has be unable to provide any reports that substantiate the appropriateness of the method used to solve the alleged sub-surface water condition. m. ANALYSIS Can the four findings for an Administrative Variance be made, specifically: 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 other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; 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; 3. 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; and 4. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. IV. DISCUSfilON Exceptional or extraordinaty circumstances or conditions There are no 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 because surrounding lots have similar topography. The lots in the area are graded such that every parcel has a slope to the adjacent lot. The lot is also similar in size and shape to adjacent lots in the area and has ample developable area. There are other locations within the area that have ground water conditions. These properties have not used enclosed structures to resolve the ground water condition. The subsoil problem does not constitute an unnecessary hardship. Preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right The requested variance is not 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 no other properties in the area have structures in the required sideyard setback. All properties in the surrounding area must also comply with the Zoning Ordinance. • AV 91-12(A) HILL RESID~NCE JULY 21, 1993 PAGE3 Materially detrimental The granting of this variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located because reduced setbacks, would in tum reduce structure separation and amount of light available to properties and diminish available space for emergency access. The granting of the Administrative Variance will set a precedence and other properties may request the same privilege as granted to the property in question. Comprehensive General Plan The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because the site is developed with a single family home in a residentially designated area. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is Categorically Exempt Per Subsection 1530S(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act, which exempts variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. VI. SUMMARY The applicant is unable to provide the Planning Commission with a report that states that the improvements made to the property are an appropriate means of solving a sub-surface water condition. There are preferred options to rectifying a sub-surface drainage problem that do not require structures needing a variance. All four findings must be made in the affirmative prior to approving a variance. Since these findings cannot be made for the approval of the Administrative Variance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision and deny the request. Per Section 21.51.060(c), the decision of the Planning Commission shall be final unless appealed to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. VL:lh Planning Commission Resolution No. 3511 Location Map Staff report dated April 21, 1993, with attachments Staff report dated December 2, 1992, with attachments Excerpt from Planning Commission minutes dated April 21, 1993 and December 2, 1992. June 17, 1993 -• APPLICn.fION COMPLETE DATE: ~ JULY 27, 1992 STAFF PLANNER: VAN LYNCH STAPF REPORT DATE: APRIL 21, 1993 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AV 91-12(A) HILL RESIDENCE -Appeal of the Planning Director's decision denying the request for an Administrative Variance for a reduced side yard setback, for a storage structure, from the required 8' to 2' at 3317 Cadencia Street in the Planned Community (PC) Zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3511, UPHOLDING the Planning Director's decision denying Administrative Variance No. 91- 12(A) based on the findings contained therein. Il. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The original requested administrative variance was for an eight foot retaining wall in the side yard setback and for a reduced sideyard setback, from eight feet to two feet, for a storage structure. See attached staff report dated December 2, 1992 for full discussion of the project. The Planning Director denied the request for the Administrative Variance on October 14, 1992. The applicant subsequently filed for an appeal of the decision on October 21, 1992. On December 2, 1992, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny the variance. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision to deny AV 91-12 because in staffs opinion, the findings necessary to grant the variance could not be made. At the hearing on December 2, 1992, the Planning Commission was able to make the findings for the overheight wall and approved the request for an 8' retaining wall in the side yard setback. However, the commission continued to a date uncertain, the request for a reduced sideyard setback for a storage structure. This was to allow the applicant time to consult with an expert as to the appropriateness of the storage structure to solve a sub- surface water condition. (1) AV 91-12(A) HILL RESII.JriNCE APRIL 21, 1993 PAGE2 The applicant was given notice on December 21, 1992 and on March 3, 1993 to address the sub-soil condition of the property. As of April 12, 1993, the applicant has not submitted any reports to the Planning Department regarding this situation. m. ANALYSIS Can the four findings for an Administrative Variance be made, specifically; 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 other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; 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; 3. 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; 4. That the granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. IV. DISCUSSION Exceptional or extraordinazy circumstances or conditions There are no 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 because surrounding lots have similar topography. The lots in the area are graded such that every parcel has a slope to the adjacent lot. The lot is also similar in size and shape to adjacent lots in the area and has ample developable area. There are other locations within the area that have ground water conditions. These properties have not used enclosed structures to resolve the ground water condition. The subsoil condition does not constitute an unnecessary hardship. Preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right The requested variance is not 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 no other properties in the area have structure0 in the required side yard setback. All properties in the surrounding area must also compl ;- with the Zoning Ordinance. AV 91·12(A) HILL RESIDc1'1CE APRIL 21, 1993 PAGE3 Materially detrimental The granting of this variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located because reduced setbacks, would in turn reduce structure separation and amount of light available to properties and diminish available space for emergency access. The granting of the Administrative Variance will set a precedence and other properties may request the same privilege as granted to the property in question. Comprehensive General Plan The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because the site is developed with a single family home in a residentially designated area. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is Categorically Exempt Per Subsection 15305(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, which exempts variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. VI. SUMMARY The applicant is unable to provide the Planning Commission with a report that states that the improvements made to the property are an appropriate means of solving a sub•surface water condition. There are preferred options to rectifying a sub-surface drainage problem that do not require structures needing a variance. All four findings must be made in the affirmative prior to approving a variance. Since three findings cannot be made for the approval of the Administrative Variance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision and deny the request. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3511 2. Original Staff report AV 91-12, dated December 2, 1992, with attachments VL:lh:vd MARCH 9, 1993 APPLICATION COMPLETE DATE: July 27. 1992 STAFF REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 2, 1992 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AV 91-12 HilJ.. RESIDENCE -Appeal of the Planning Director's decision denying the request for an Administrative Variance to allow an eight foot retaining wall in the required side yard setback and for a reduced side yard setback, for a storage structure, from the required eight (8) feet to two (2) feet at 3317 Cadencia Street in the P.lanned Community (PC) Zone and in Local Facilities Management Zone 6. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3465 UPHOIDING the Planning Director's decision DENYING an Administrative Variance No. 91- 12 based on the findings contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval of an Administrative Variance to allow an eight foot retaining wall in the required side yard setback, and for a reduced side yard setback from eight feet to two feet for a storage structure attached to the house. The City received a complaint fr_om the public regarding the structure. The property is in a single family neighborhood and is zon~d Planned Community. The property has 16,276 square feet of area with 12,562 square feet that is not constrained by the slopes created during the development of the subdivision. The 2:1 slope on the eastern side of the property has been cut back and an eight foot retaining wall was built. This left a flat area between the house and retaining wall about 14 feet in width, which was covered with concrete. The applicant then built the roof structure that is attached to the house and spans across to a short wooden wall built on· top of the retaining wall. This storage structure is 45 feet in length, 14 feet wide, 12 feet tall and covers 630 square feet of area. The property owner claims that all of the structures noted above were constructed sequentially to rectify a sub-surface drainage problem. AV 91-12 -HILL RESIDENCE DECEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE 2 A building permit was obtained for the retaining wall. However, it was subsequently discovered that the building permit was issued in error because the wall did not conform. to Zoning Ordinance section 21.46.130 which states "On an interior lot a wall or fence not more than six feet in height may be located anywhere to the rear of the required front yard." In the time frame that the permit was issued, the Planning and Engineering departments did not review all building permits. Currently both Planning and Engineering review all relevant building permits, so it is unlikely that this type of error would be duplicated. Concrete slabs do not norm.ally require city permits and they are permitted within setback areas. The attached roof structure which covers the sideyard has been built without required building permits. The applicant claims that the purpose for the retaining wall is to prevent ground water, from upslope of his property, from seeping into his home, specifically the sunken living room which is about 4 inches lower than the rest of the floor. Were the wall's purpose only to reduce ground water, there would be no benefit to cut a slope back the additional distance and increase the wall height to eight feet. The retaining wall built to eight (8) feet has created a larger buildable sideyard than would have been created if the wall had been built at six feet high. It appears that the original purpose for the eight foot retaining wall was not to reduce ground water but to create a larger pad for a larger storage structure. The applicant states that the structure in the sideyard is to shed rainwater from the sideyard area to help with the alleged ground water problem. Staff believes that if there is a water problem the concrete pad alone would seem to do the same job without violating setback requirements. The applicant has submitted a transmittal from the Olivenhain Water District requesting inspection of his property to see if there were any leaks • from District water lines. The response was that any water appeared to be from over-irrigation upslope or from rain water and not leaking District pipes. No other proof of an excessive water problem has been submitted to the Planning Department. Construction of surface structures such as retaining walls and storage facilities are not norm.ally considered acceptable engineering solutions to rectify sub-surface drainage problems. There are preferred options available to the property owner. For example, the source of the water should be determined. It may be possible to fix the problem at the source especially if the problem is a leak, in either the Hill's water system or in that of a neighbor's. It could also be associated with a neighbor's over watering practice. If the solution is not at the source, then it may be necessary to install sub-surface barriers and/or drains. The applicant should retain a qualified engineer to review the problem and recommend solutions. There is no evidence that the structures the applicant has constructed are either needed or are effective. AV 91-12 -HILL RESIDENCE DECEMBER 2, 1992 PAGE 3 [II. ANALYSIS Can the four findings for an Administrative Variance be made, specifically; 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 other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; 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; 3. 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; 4. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. IV. DISCUSSION Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions There are no 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 because surrounding lots have similar topography. The lot complies with minimum required dimensions and has no unusual constraints such as topography which differentiate this lot from others in the vicinity and zone and which mandate construction in the required yards. The lots in the area are graded such that every parcel has a slope to the adjacent lot. The lot is also similar in size and shape to adjacent lots in the area and has ample alternative buildable area so the sideyard is not the only place on the lot that is buildable. The applicant has not submitted any evidence that the structures are necessary to correct a sub-surface drainage problem. Preservation 1pd egjoyment of a substantial property right The requested variance is not 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 no other properties in the area have eight foot retaining walls or structures in the required side yard setback. All properties in the surrounding area must also comply with the Zoning Ordinance. There • are preferred options available to the applicant for solving an alleged sub-surface drainage problem which do not include the structures for which the applicant has requested a variance. AV 91-12 • HILL RESIDENCE DECEMBER 2, i 992 PAGE 4 Materially detrimental The granting of this variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located because reduced setbacks, would in tum reduce structure separation and amount of light available to properties and diminish available space for emergency access. The granting of the Administrative Variance could set an adverse precedent since other properties may request the same privilege as granted to the property in question. Comprehensive General Plan The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because the site is developed with a single family home in a residentially designated area. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is Categorically Exempt Per Subsection 15305(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act, which exempts variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel. VI. SUMMARY There·are preferred options to rectifying a sub-surface drainage problem that do not require structures needing a variance. All four findings must be made in the affirmative prior to approving a variance. Since three findings cannot be made for the approval of the Administrative Variance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision and deny the request. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3465 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Administrative Variance Letter of Denial, dated October 14, 1992 5. Exhibits "A"-"B", dated December 2, 1992. VL:lh:vd OCTOBER 21, 1992