HomeMy WebLinkAboutAV 95-02; Taryan Fence & Wall; Administrative Variance (AV) (11)/-
APRIL 18, 1996
TO:
FROM:
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR
City Attorney
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR APRIL 3,1996 (DCC 3/25/96)
Thank you for providing me the staff reports early. Don Neu sent the proposed
amendments to the Development Agreements Chapter to accept the Coastal
Commission's suggested modifications, with a cover memorandum on March 6, 1996,
but I have not seen a staff report describing the item for the Planning Commission. If
there are any new matters which arose during the continuance of the La Costa Village
item, please provide me those as soon as possible, too. My comments are as follows:
1. TARYAN FENCE AND WALL APPEAL (AV 95-02)
A. CMC Section 21.46.130 seems to say no variance is required for a fence
in excess of six feet in any R-zone, just a "permit" fron the Planning Commission. On
the other hand, CMC Section 21.51.02C!3) authorizes the Director to grant an .
Administrative Variance for fences in excess 6; +he zoning code height limit otherwise
applicable. On what provision do we rely to say ttd whatever zone this property is in
(R-l?), the height limit is six feet without a variance?
8. CMC section 21 .51.050(b) requires a written decision by the Director on the
Administrative Variance setting forth the findings required and any conditions attached,
if granted. The report does not include the Director's decision, so we don't know, except
for the discussion in the staff report, which of the required findings the Director was
unable to make. Mr. Taryan's December 8, 1995 appeal letter should be discussed to
focus the issues for the Planning Commission upon appeal.
C. The staff report says the fence was existing when the property was
purchased in 1976, became dilapidated and was reconstructed in 1992, and a complaint
was received on October 24, 1994. There is no discussion as to whether the fence is a
lawful nonconforming use, or a lawful use, or building. The fence does not seem to be
a building, but it is a structure if in excess of six feet (see CMC 21.04.355), but there is
no discussion of the potential application of Chapter 21.48 relating to nonconforming
buildings and uses. Isn't this an unlawful use which is not permitted to be constructed
at all? What was the basis of the complaint received on October 24, 1994? If the
Planning Commission is inclined to grant the appeal and approve the excessive fence,
the nature of the complaint may influence th'? facts tlley include in the required findings
necessary to grant the variance. Peace and luiet and freedom from intruders may be
a substantial property right possessed by othLir property in the same vicinity and zone,
1
but is denied to this property because of the peculiar topography inviting easy access
over the six foot wall. The discussion is not
clear with regard to why these problems exist or how the topography relates to the
additional fence requested. Better drawings would help a lot, and some discussion of
how walls are measured might also be helpful. This sounds a lot like the Takayama
fence variance appeal we had last year.
E. The staff report recommendation is for Denial, but the Environmental Review
section appears to envision that the Planning Commission will grant the appeal and
approve the variance so that the fence can be erected. This discussion states that a
notice of exemption will be issued subsequent to Planning Commission’s action, and that
the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA regulations section
15303(e). If the project is not approved, no environmental review is required. If the
appeal is granted and the variance approved, environmental review would be required
and Categorical Exemption Class Three appears applicable, subject to the provision in
CEQA regulations section 15300.2. A project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact
on the environment, may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. If the
erection of the additional fence would significantly affect visual aspects of the
environment, or other factors (such as health and safety and traffic considerations in the
Takayama appeal) the project may not be categorically exempt. Accordingly, the nature
of the complaint and the decision of the Director become even more important. The staff .
report should address Mr. Taryan’s responses to the Director’s,letter in his December 8,
1995 letter, appealing the Director’s decision.
2. PRICE CLUB EXPANSION (SDP SeOS(A1
A. Project Impact. Neither the staff report nor the Negative Declaration state
what impact the 12,200 square foot expansion of the existing 121,000 square foot retail
building will have. Finding No. 6 states that there will be an additional 976 daily traffic
trips generated by the commercial expansion. Condition No. 16 requires recordation of
an access easement for the adjacent parcel occupied by Nurseryland which is not
discussed at all in the staff report. The staff report states that the Director ‘issued a
Negative Declaration, but does not mention reliance on the General Plan Update MElR
for cumulative air and cumulative traffic impacts (although they are set forth in the
Negative Declaration). There is no discussion of the CEQA documentation for the
original Price Club SDP, or earlier version of the “project”. Why isn’t that environmental
document adequate prior compliance for this expansion, except for the cumulative air
and cumulative traffic covered by the MER?
B. Mitigation Measures. Planning Commission Resolution 3912 should have
the boilerplate findings with regard to prior compliance relying on the MER, with regard
to cumulative air and traffic impacts of this expansion project. The staff report and the
conditions of approval need to reflect the discussion on page 16 of the Negative
Declaration, setting forth the laundry list of potential mitigation measures to reduce the
impact of cumulative traffic and/or air. They normally would be reflected on page 23,
under the list of mitigating measures, as well as included somewhere within Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3913. We may need an addendum to the Negative
Declaration?
2
.
C. Resolution No. 3913. The second recital should pick up the new standard
form language that the verified application constitutes a request for a site development
permit amendment as shown on attached Exhibits A through G, dated April 3, 1996, as
provided by Chapter 21.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Action Paragraph B and
Condition No. 1 would thereby approve those exhibits when it approves Site
Development Plan Amendment SDP 90-05(A). Condition No. 1 should state the
relationship between the April 3, 1996 Exhibits A through G and the existing exhibits,
clarifying the relationship between the conditions that follow and the conditions originally
approved on May 21, 1990. Is the public facilities fee in Condition No. 5 a new fee, or
a reminder of an old fee already paid? What conditions or mitigation measures required
as part of the Zone 5 LFMP are applicable to this project (please amplify Condition No.
6)? Does the new recycling ordinance require modification of Condition No. 8? Please
add some transportation demand conditions implementing the MER in the Planning
Conditions portion of the resolution.
In the Engineering Conditions, please delete the dangling sentence in the middle of the
conditions at lines 19 and 20 (it looks like the boilerplate code reminder introductory
phrase, which is missing on page six). Is Condition No. 16 new or an old reminder?
Why is it necessary? Shouldn't it be discussed in the staff report? There is a
typographical error at line 26 (Yorm" should be 'Yrom").
In condition No. 20, the reference should be to the San Diego 'County" Water Authority.
In Condition No. 21 (a), the second sentence begins with the word "Laos". Condition No.
21 (d) requires a colored reclaimed water area map. Isn't there already a colored
reclaimed water area map from the original approval?
3. CASA DEL SOL (CT 89-23x31
This Tentative Map Extension relies on the General Plan Update MElR with regard to
cumulative air and traffic. Therefore, please add the reliance on the MElR to the
boilerplate findings in Finding No. 1, along with the previous Negative Declaration. Since
the original Negative Declaration was approved in February 1990 and the project now
relies partially on the MEIR, please add appropriate TDM mitigation measures required
by that MEIR.
4. COASTAL COMMISSION REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS
Don's ordinance appears appropriate. I need to see the staff report.
3