The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995-01-18; Planning Commission; ; AV 92-06 - TAKAYAMA FENCEDATE TO: FROM: SUBJECT: I. /- .‘ APPLICATIC, COMPLETE DATE: ,? MARCH 22. 1994 PROJECT PLANNER MICHAEL GRIM ‘djd STAFF REPORT JANUARY 18, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT AV 92-06 - TAKAYAMA FENCE - Appeal of the Planning Director’s decision to partially deny a request for an Administrative Variance to allow an overheight wall in the front, side and rear yard setbacks of the single family property at 1095 Palm Avenue, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3738, UPHOLDING the Planning Director’s decision DENYING a portion of AV 92-06 based on the findings contained therein. 11. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION The applicant, Donald Takayama, is appealing the Planning Director’s decision to deny a portion of a variance for an overheight wall within the front, rear, and side yards of his property at 1095 Palm Avenue. The wall was constructed without the benefit of building permit and was called to the attention of Community Development by one of the neighbors. As shown on Exhibits “A -“B”, dated January 18,1995, the wall measures approximately 9.3 feet at its highest point in the southwest comer of the lot. The wall steps down along each side property line to an eventual height of 5.2 feet, 4.3 feet and 3.2 feet within the 20 foot front yard setback. The property’s elevation inside the wall is up to 1.3 feet higher than on the exterior, except along the street side yard where the yard is up to 2.0 feet below the grade of Adam Street. According to Section 21.46.130 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (C.M.C.), walls in residentially designated zones cannot exceed a height of six feet within the side and rear yard setback and three and one half feet within the front yard setback. However, section 21.51.020 states that the Planning Director can approve variances to the zoning regulations regarding the height of walls. The applicant has a pool in their rear yard and desired privacy from the street and a sound buffer from the freeway noise. Therefore, the applicant applied for an Administrative Variance to allow the overheight walls. P AV 92-06 - TAKYAMA FbdCE JANUARY 18,1995 PAGE 2 On October 18, 1994, the Planning Director determined that the findings required for the granting of a variance could not be made for the overheight walls in the front, rear, and interior side yard setbacks and denied the request. The Planning Director did determine that there were exceptional circumstances along the Adams Street frontage since the elevation difference between the lot and the street impinged upon the applicant’s ability to have a five foot barrier around his pool. The Administrative Variance was then partially approved to allow up to a five foot high wall along the street side, and behind the required front yard setback, as measured from the exterior elevation. 111. ANALYSIS Can the four findings required for the granting of a variance be made? Namely: 1. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity? 2. Is the granting of the variance necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but is denied the property in question? 3. Will the granting of the variance not 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? 4. Will the granting of the variance not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan? DISCUSSION 1. Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances There is no significant grade difference between the subject property and the neighboring properties and the freeway noise exists over the entire neighborhood. Therefore, there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances along the rear yard, interior side yard, and front yard of the property. 2. Preservation of a Substantial ProDerty Right The minimum height required for a pool enclosure is five feet. Reducing the wall to a conforming six feet in the rear and side yard, and three and one half feet in the front, will still provide the necessary solid barrier for the pool. No other overheight walls exist in the general vicinity and neighboring properties do not enjoy similar privacy. Therefore, denial of the variance for the rear yard, interior side yard, and front yard overheight wall will not deprive the applicant of a substantial property right enjoyed by others in the area. ,“ AV 9206 - TAKYW FmCE JANUARY 18,1995 PAGE 3 3. Material Detriment to Public Welfare The increased front wall height could be materially detrimental to the public welfare since any solid barrier over three and one half feet high in the front yard could interfere with adequate sight distance for automobile circulation. The increased rear and interior side yard wall height exposes the adjacent properties to a solid barrier over six feet in height which reduces the opportunity for light and air circulation. Therefore, granting of the variance could cause material detriment to the public welfare or be injurious to surrounding properties. 4. Affect on the General Plan The subject property is designated Residential Low Medium Density (RLM) in the City’s General Plan and walls are one of the typical components found in residential areas. Therefore, the granting or denial of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. Iv. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Since the project involves the construction of a wall which is accessory to the main structure on the property, the Planning Director has determined that the project is exempt from environmental review per Section 15303(e) of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. A Notice of Exemption was issued on October 19, 1994 and filed in the Office of the County Clerk, San Diego County on October 26, 1994. V. SUMMARY Considering that not all of the findings required for the granting of a variance can be made, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director’s decision and deny portions of AV 92-06. AlTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3738 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Form 5. Attachment “A”, Planning Director’s determination on variance, dated October 18, 6. Exhibits “A” - “B, dated January 18, 1995. 1994 Me& DFCFMBER 15.1994 r BACKGROUND,.DATA SHEET- CASE NO AV 92-06 CASE NAME Takavama Fence APPLICANT: Donald Takavama REQUEST AND LOCATION: Appeal of the Planning Director’s decision to partiallv deny a reauest for an Administrative Variance to allow an overheight wall in the front. side and rear yard setbacks of the single family propertv at 1095 Palm Avenue. in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. LEGAL DESCRIPTION A Portion of Lot 19 in Block B of the Resubdivision of a Portion of Alles Avocado Acres. according to Map No. 2027 in the Citv of Carlsbad, Countv of San Dieeo. State of California. APN 205-191-06 Acres 0.24 Proposed No. of LotsKJnits 1 (Assessor’s Parcel Number) GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RLM Density Allowed 0.0-3.2 DU/AC Density Proposed N/A Existing Zone R-1 Proposed Zone R-1 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad’s Zoning Requirements) Zoning Land Use Site R-1 Single Familv Residential North R-1 Single Familv Residential South R-1 Single Family Residential East R-1 Single Familv Residential West R-1 Single Familv Residential PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 1 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated n/a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - Negative Declaration, issued - Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, Exempt per Section 153031e) of the State CEOA Guidelines MGL