HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-05-06; Planning Commission; ; AV 86-09 - de HaasAPPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE:
lJULY 30, -36
DATE : MAY 6, 1987
" .. . -,
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: AV 86-9 de Haas - Request for approval to allow an
eight foot high fence along the south side property line
on a property located at 2652 Highland Drive
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2655 DENYING
AV 86-9, based on the findings contained therein.
11. ,PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is appealing the Planning Director's denial of a
request for an administrative variance to allow an eight foot
high fence along the southern side yard on property located at
2652 Highland Drive.
This item was referred to the Planning Department by the Code
Enforcement Officer who received a complaint about an illegal
fence along the south side of this property.
The applicant applied for an administrative variance, but the
required findings could not be made and the variance request was
denied. The applicant is now appealing the Planning Director's
denial of the administrative variance.
111. ANALY S IS
Planning Issues
1. Can the four mandatory findings for a variance be made in
this case? They are as follows:
A) Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same 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 same vicinity
and zone?
C) Will the granting of this variance be detrimental to the
public welfare?
Dl Will the granting of this variance adversely affect the
General Plan?
Discussion
Staff cannot make the four mandatory findings required to grant a
variance. The first finding states that exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances must exist that do not generally
apply to other properties in the same vicinity and zone. The
applicant feels the circumstances are extraordinary because he
needs the added height for liability insurance reasons due to a
spa. No written proof was provided, and the county requirement
is only five feet. Other properties in the vicinity have had
only to use up to six foot high fences for similar situations.
The second finding is whether the applicant is being denied a
substantial property right enjoyed by other property owners in
the vicinity. The applicant states that other properties in the
vicinity have constructed eight foot high fences for the same
reason. The City has not received or approved a variance for
this situation, and as the Planning Commission is aware, an
illegal fence cannot be used as a right enjoyed by other
property owners.
The granting of this variance could be detrimental to the public
welfare, indirectly, in that approval of this variance could
establish an undesirable precedent since it would encourage the
construction of fences over six feet in height which could
degrade the visual quality of the R-1 Zone.
The General Plan for this area will not be adversely affected
because the density will not be increased.
In conclusion, staff cannot make the four required findings
necessary to grant a variance and recommends that the Commission
deny the applicant's appeal of the Planning Director's denial of
this administrative variance.
-2-
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt
from environmental review based on Section 12.04.07 of the
environmental ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2655
2. Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Disclosure Statement
5. Variance Supplemental Sheet
6. Exhibit "A"? dated March 20, 1987
EVR :dm
4/22/87
-3-