Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-02-20; Planning Commission; ; AV 90-05 - FLAMINGDATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: I. -. APPLICA rvN COMPLETE DATE: May 17.1990 M' STAFF REPORT FEBRUARY 20,1991 PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT AV 90-5 - FLAMMG - An appeal to the Planning Commission of a Planning Director's decision denying an Administrative Variance to: (1) allow the required front yard setback of 20' to be reduced to 10.3', and (2) to allow a retaining wall in the public right-of-way to exceed the maximum wall height of 42" to a height of 54". The property is located at 2815 Wilson Street between Buena Vista Way and Forrest Avenue in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 3088 upholding the Planning Director's decision to deny Administrative Variance 90-5 based on the findings contained therein. c[. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The parcel is located on the west side of Wilson Street in the R-1-7500 zone. The lot is approximately 13,300 sq. ft. in size and contains a one-story single-family dwelling, which covers approximately 15% of the lot. The surrounding neighborhood is developed with one-story single- family residences, on similar sized lots. This project began as a garage addition and retaining wall that was built without permits in mid- 1987. A complaint was filed with the City of Carlsbad and a Notice of Violation and Order to Remove the wall and addition was given to the property owner. The property owner submitted plans to obtain permits for the project in November of 1987. These plans were not approved because a variance needed to be processed. During this time, legal action was taken to have the addition and retaining wall removed. Both municipal and superior courts ruled in favor of the City of Carlsbad and gave the property owner Notice to Remove the addition and retaining wall, or obtain applicable permits for the structures. After much delay, the applicant submitted for an Administrative Variance on April 10, 1990. On June 28, 1990, the Planning Director denied the request for an Administrative Variance. The applicant subsequently filed an appeal in early July 1990 and staff tentatively scheduled the appeal for Planning Commission hearing on September 5, 1990. Prior to noticing the hearing, the applicant, because of a death in the family, requested and was granted an extension by staff. AV 90-5 - FLAMING FEBRUARY 20, 1991 PAGE 2 In May of 1974,lO' of property frontage was granted to the City of Carlsbad for the public right-of-way. At this time, the original garage had a 20' required front yard setback. The addition to the existing garage reduced the front yard setback to 10.3'. The adjacent property to the south now has a front yard setback of 2O', but has not dedicated 10' for the public right-of-way. m. ANALYSIS Planninz Issues 1) Can the four mandatory findings for approval of a variance be found in this case? They are as follows: 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 applicant is requesting an Administrative Variance to allow a reduced front yard setback of 10.3' from the required 20' and to allow for a retaining wall to exceed the maximum height allowed of 42" to a height of 54". Staff feels it cannot make the necessary findings required to justify the variance. There are no exceptional circumstances applicable to the property. The subject property is similar in shape and size to other developed properties in the vicinity. The property is gently sloping downward away from Wilson Street but not to the extent that any portion of the property is topographically constrained. The granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation of a property right enjoyed by others in the same area. No other property owners have legal structures in the required front yard setback in this vicinity. The lot area is approximately 13,000 sq. ft. with a lot coverage of 15%. There is 8,000 sq. ft. of useable rear yard that is not topographically constrained. The property has a side yard setback of 14.5' which is gated to allow passage to the rear yard. -. AV 90-5 - FLAMING FEBRUARY 20,1991 PAGE 3 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 the retaining wall in the public right-of-way creates a hazard to pedestrians and restricts the sight visibility of vehicles exiting the site. The granting of this variance will adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan by creating incompatibility within the R-1 zone by permitting a 54" wall in the public right-of- way and by allowing a reduction of the required front yard setback. Approval of this variance could set a precedent for the surrounding neighborhood and encourage other property owners to apply for variances of the same nature. In summary, since the four findings necessary to grant the variance cannot be made, staff therefore recommends denial of Administrative Variance 90-5. This project is statutorily exempt from environmental review because the California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves (Section 15270(a) CEQA Guidelines). ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3088 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Form 5. Variance Justification Form 6. Letter of appeal, dated July 10, 1990 7. Exhibit "A", dated September 5, 1990 July 24,1990 February 1 , 1991