Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-11-01; Planning Commission; ; REDDING AV 89-07I 64 . _. IJLICATION COMPLETE DATE: JULY 28, 1989 STAFF REPORT DATE : NOVEMBER 1, 1989 TO : PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: REDDING AV 89-7 - An appeal to the Planning Commission of a Planning Director's decision denying an Administrative Variance to maintain an overheight wall located in the required 20'-0" front yard setback of a single family residence. The property is located at 2246 Janis Way in Local Facilities Management Zone No. 1. I. RECOMENDATION That the P1 anning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2932 UPHOLDING the P1 anning Director's decision to deny Administrative Variance No. 89-7. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The parcel is located on the north side of Janis Way, in the R-1 Zone. The lot is approximately 10,056 square feet in size, rectangular, and contains a two- story single-family residence. Located on the south side of Janis Way directly across the street from the subject property is the Ellery Reservoir site. The reservoir site contains a large circular, brown water tank, pumping equipment, and a chain link fence with barb wire, that sits on top of a retaining wall that runs along the front property line on Janis Way. To screen the water tank and associated structures from view of their living room window and front yard, the Redding's had a six foot high wall constructed along their front property line. The wall exceeds the R-1 Zone's, 42 inch, height requirement for walls in the front yard setback, encroaches from 6 to 18 inches into the public right-of-way, and obstructs the line-of-sight distance for vehicles backing out of the driveway. The wall is partially constructed and the City of Carl sbad currently has an open code enforcement investigation on this property relating to the overheight wall. 111. ANALY S IS P1 anninq Issues: 1. Can the four mandatory findings for approval of a variance be found in this case? They are as foll ows: AV 89-7 REDDING November 1, 1989 Pase 2 a. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property that do not apply 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 properties in the same vicinity and zone? c. Will this Variance be detrimental to other properties in the vicinity? d. Will this Variance adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan? DISCUSSION The applicants are requesting that the Planning Commission overturn a Planning Director's decision denying Administrative Variance 89-7. The Variance would allow the applicant to maintain an overheight wall in the required front yard setback along Janis Way. There are no exceptional circumstances applicable to this property that do not apply to other properties along the north side of Janis Way. Three other lots also have a direct view of the reservoir site from the front yard. The subject parcel has the most direct view from a living room window and front yard. The residential subdivision in question was built around the reservoir site. Many other lots in the area have partial front yard views of the water tank. The Ellery Reservoir existed prior to the construction of this residential subdivision. Denial of the requested Variance will not deprive the owner of a substantial property right. The parcel has level, useable yards located behind the front yard setback that can be screened from the reservoir site with six foot high walls or landscaping. Alignment of the existing driveway makes it difficult to place a wall directly at the twenty foot front yard building setback. However, a wall or landscaping could be located on the north side of the driveway. This option brings the screening closer to the front entry way of the house. The granting of this Variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property in the vicinity because the subject wall reduces line-of-sight driveway visibility for vehicles backing out into the public right-of-way. The wall also reduces the openness of the front yard setback that runs along the block and provides visual re1 ief from structures. Adjoining properties to the east and west do not have overheight structures that intrude into the front yard setback. The granting of this Variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because accessory structures such as walls are compatible with residential uses in the R-1 Zone. This particular Variance case has circumstances that could be interpreted as supporting findings for approval or for denial. In other words, the findings are borderline and could go either way. The Redding's property is impacted the AV 89-7 REDDING November 1, 1989 Paae 3 most by the reservoir site. This can be construed as a unique circumstance even though other properties are impacted but to a lesser degree. Also, the subject lot is located near the end of a cul-de-sac street so the open space front yard setback providing relief from structures as you look down the block becomes less of a concern. Also, vehicle and pedestrian traffic is lighter on a cul-de-sac thus reducing the potential for an accident due to the reduced driveway sight visibility. The houses along the north side of Janis Way have side loading garages in the front portion of the lot and their twenty-foot front yard setback functions more like a side yard than a typical front yard. Staff took a conservative interpretation of the required findings and denied the Administrative Variance based on the safety issue created by the existing configuration of the wall and some neighborhood opposition to the wall. The Planning Department received from neighbors, two letters and one phone call in opposition to the wall and nine signatures on a petition in favor of the wall. Several of the neighbors were concerned with the massive appearance of the wall, sight distance when backing out of their driveways, and the fact that the wall is located partially in the public right-of-way. In summary, and based on a conservative interpretation of the four findings necessary to justify granting of this Variance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision to deny Administrative Variance 89-7. If the applicants are willing to redesign the wall to mitigate the driveway visibility issue and effectively address the concerns of the neighborhood, the P1 anning Department would be will ing to recommend approval of the Variance. IV. The Planning Director has determined that this project is categorically exempt from environmental review based on the fact that it is a Zoning Variance not resulting in the creation of any new parcels, (Class 5 Section 15305 CEQA Guidelines). On August 17, 1989 a Notice of Exemption was filed with the County Clerk and documentation is on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2932 2,. Locat ion Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Form 5. Environmental Document 6. Vari ance Just i f i cation Form 7. Letter of Denial from Planning Director, AV 89-7, dated August 16, 1989 8. Exhi bit "A" - "C", dated October 18, 1989 JG: 1 h September 27, 1989