Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-12-21; City Council; Resolution 70911 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 a >U o I- 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL FROM A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND DENYING VARIANCE - HORTON (V-341) TO REDUCE THE STREET SIDEYARD SETBACK FROM TEN FEET TO ONE AND ONE HALF FEET, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ISLE DRIVE AND HILLSIDE. APPLICANT: SKIP HORTON CASE NO.: V-341 WHEREAS, on September 22, 1982 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2021 recommending to the City Council that Variance - Horton (V-341) be denied; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad did on December 7, 1982 hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission and to receive all recommendations and hear all persons interested in or opposed to said variance; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California as follows: A. That the above recitations are true and correct. €3. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 2021 constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter. C. That Variance - Horton (V-341) is hereby denied based upon the facts set out in the Planning Department Staff Report dated September 22, 1982 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2021 attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. /// /// 1 2 3 4 a 9 10 11 12 2 t 0 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 D. This action of denial is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply: "NOTICE TO APPLICANT" The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008 . " PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 21st day of De&r , 1982, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : Council ?@nkers Casler, Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Prescot NOES : None ATTEST : Yk ALEMA L. RJ&TEPdKRAN&9City Clerk KAREN R. KUtkZ, Deputy City Clerk 3 . I# *' r" . 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 JC 3.3. 12 12 14 15 ZE 3-7 3E 19 2c 23 22 22 24 - 25 26 27 20 RESOLUTION NO. 7091 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2021 RESOLUTION-OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE STREET SIDEYXRD SETBACK PROM 10' TO 1 1/2' GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ISLE DRIVE AND HILLSIDE. CASE NO.: V-341 APPLICANT: SKIP HORTON WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to Lot 100 of Carlsbad Tract 72-18, Unit No. 2, APN 207-211- 05. ?it: ias been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the 'laming Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request 3s provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 22nd day of ;eptember, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed >y law to consider said request; and WKEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and :onsidering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons lesiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to V-341. OW^ THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning :ommission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 1') That the foregoing recitatrons are true and correct. 3) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the 3 I, Commission DENIES V-341, based on the following f indings; ?itid inas 5- : I) That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity and zone since the property has more buildable area than other similar corner lots as indicated in the staff report. '/// Y9 , .- ".- Qr J, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 22 13 14 15 16 3.7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2):That the subject property is not being denied a substantial -. property right possessed-by other properties in the same vicinity as there are no structures located within the street side yard setback on other properties and there are other locations on the lot where the buildings could be constructed which would not require a variance. The reduction of the side yard setback would set an undesirable precedent since no other lots in the vicinity and zone have such a reduction of setbacks. That the granting of such variance could be materially detrimental to the public welfare as 20' of driveway is required to store an automobile in front of the garage and the granting of this variance could potentially encourage encroachment of parked vehicles into the public right of way and because the proposed structure could create adverse visual impacts to the neighborhood. .PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 22nd day of September, 1982, by the following votec to wit: AYES: Chairman Farrow, Commissioners Marcus, Rornbotis NOES: , None. Schlehuber, Jose, Friestedt and Kawlins. ABSENT: None ~ ABSTAIN : None LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER PC RES0 NO. 2021 a2 .. DATE : TO : FROM : SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT September 22, 1982 Planning Comrnission Land Use Planning Office V-341 - HORTON - Request for a variance of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the sideyard setback from 10' to 1 1/2' on property located at th6northwest corner of Isle Drive and Hillside Drive in the R-1 zone (4225 Isle Drive). I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting a variance of Section 21.10.040 of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the required street sideyard setback from 10' to 3'. The intent of the applicant is to construct a 20' x 20', three story garage/recreation room. The structure would be located approximately 3' from the street sideyard property line at its closest point and approximately 5' from the property line at its widest point. Plans indicate both a proposed double-wide, rolling garage door and a possible parking area at the lowest level of the structure. 11. ANALYSIS - Planning Issues 1. Can the four mandatory findings for a variance be made as they relate to this case? Specifically: 8 b. a. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and zone? I! C. d. Discuss ion - 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? Will the granting of this variance be detrimental to the public welfare? Will the granting of this variance adversely affect the General Plan? The main issue with this request is whether there are extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that apply to this I. property that do not generally apply to other properties in this vicinity. The applicant has indicated that both the configuration of the lot and the location of the existing house and swimming pool have made construction of a building difficult without intruding into the sideyard setback. A field check of the site revealed that although the southwest corner of the lot is elevated approximately 20' above street level, the lot is relatively flat, has a normal buildable area, and has other locations upon it to locate a recreation room without a variance. Also, there is an existing 2-car garage which provides adequate storage area for a single family house in a residential zone. Actually, the property has more buildable area than other similar corner lots because of a narrower right-of-way; at this location, the property line is set back only 5 1/2 feet from the curb edge instead of the normal 10 feet. Based on these facts, staff cannot make the required finding that exceptional or extraordinary conditions exist on this property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity. A second issue is whether the applicant is being denied a property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity. No other prope'rties in the vicinity have existing structures which are located within the street side yard setback. Staff feels therefore, that this property is not being der,ied a substantial property right shared by other properties in the same vicinity and zone. While the granting of this variance would not affect the General Plan, there is concern that it would be detrimental to the public welfare. Staff is concerned with the visual impact a 27' high structure will have in a residential neighborhood when built 3' from the sidewalk. Another possible problem is that due to the decreased sideyard setback, any automobiles stored in the driveway would encroach into the public right-of-way. Staff feels that the granting of this variance, with its visual impact and t$e potential of having an automobile overhang into the public eight-of-way could be detrimental to the public safety and the public welfare and could set .a very undesirable precedent. Attached to this report are two letters of opposition from nearby residents reflecting these concerns. The applicant has already excavated a portion of his property in anticipation of approval of this variance; however, it was done without a grading permit or any set of approved plans. In surninary, staff feels that the request does not meet the four recommend approval of this project. .- . required findings for a variance and, thercfore,'cannot -2- . IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW - This project is exempt from environmental review per Section 19.04.070 (F)(4)(A) of the Environmental Ordinance. V. RECOWMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Cornmission ADOPT Resolution No, 2021, DENYING V-341, based on the findings contained therein. ATTAC €IN ENTS 1. PC Resolution No. 2021 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Form 5. Exhibit "A", dated August 16, 1982 6. Letter of opposition froin Ronald Clarke, dated September 14, 1982 '7. Letter of opposition from John Fitzgerald, dated September 14, 1982 AML : hw 9/22/82 ! -3- .. ASE .