Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-03-28; Planning Commission; ; V 353 - THERRIENSTAFF REPORT DATE : March 28, 1984 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: V-353 - THERRIEN - Request for approval of a variance to reduce the required front and rear yards on the east side of Madison Street between Palm Avenue and Chestnut in the R-3 zone. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission CONTINUE V-353 indefinitely. Staff will renotice this item should the project still require a variance. DISCUSSION Since the time of public notice for this project, the applicant has requested a continuance to redesign the project. A letter has been submitted by the applicant confirming this request. CDN:bw 3/23/84 At 4JCATION SUE4I'ITAL DATE : JANUARY 18, 1984 STAFF REPORT DATE: March 28, 1984 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: V-353 - THERRIEN - Request for approval of a variance to reduce the required front and rear yards on the east side of Madison Street between Palm Avenue and Chestnut Avenue in the R-3 zone. I. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission APPROVE the Negative Declaration issued by the Land Use Planninq Manaqer and ADOPT Resolution No. 2264, DENYING V-353, based on the findings contained therein. I1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting approval of two variances on -16 acres, located as described above. The two variances requested would : 1) Reduce the required front yard from 20' to 10'. 2) Reduce the required rear yard from 10' to 1 I. The project site is currently occupied by a single family home. The lot fronts on Madison Street and rears on an alley. The zoning ordinance provides that an accessory structure must observe a minimum setback of 5' from the rear property line of a lot rearing on an alley. As the requested intrusion would accommodate a two-story living unit with garages, the required setback would be 10' . The subject variances are requested to accommodate a proposed 12 unit senior apartment project at 75 du's/ac. Pursuant to the provisions of the R-3 zone, the City Council may approve senior housing projects by conditional use permit. The Planning Commission must first, however, act on the requested variances. If approved, the City Council will consider the conditional use permit for the senior apartment project. 111. ANALY S IS Planning Issues 1) Can all of the-findings, necessary for approval of a variance be made? Specifically: (dl Discussion That there are exceptional or extraordinary cir- cumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone; That such variance is necessary for the preser- vation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question; That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located; That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. Staff is unable to make the findings necessary for approval of the requested variances. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property that do not generally apply to other property in the same vicinity and zone. The project site is rectangular in shape and comparable or larger in size than neighboring lots. The intended use is, however, somewhat different than other uses in the area in that the applicant intends to greatly increase the density. The site and surrounding area are designated RM, Residential Medium density, 4-10 du's/ac. The east side of the street, where the subject property is located, is zoned R-3. The west side of Madison Street is zoned R-2. The neighborhood is developed with single-family homes. A twelve unit senior apartment project would, therefore, result in a much higher density than any development currently existing or permitted in the area. Staff, however, does not believe that the intent of the ordinance is to provide for increased density as an "exceptional or extraordinary circumstance or condition." Development of a senior housing project, of density in excess of the specified general plan range, requires approval of a conditional use permit. Although, consideration of the conditional use permit and the variance are procedurally divided, the project should be viewed in light of all discretionary actions required. A conditional use permit is required when a proposed use may require conditions to be compatible with surrounding uses or future permitted uses. One of the findings required for approval of a-conditional use permit is that all of the yards and setbacks required to modif the requested use to other permitted uses will be provided. Stagf believes that approval of variances to reduce -2- those required setbacks and yards would subvert the intent of this finding and not ensure compatibility of development. In summary, if the City is going to grant special privileges to greatly increase the density on a piece of property, everything else on that property should meet City standards. Staff also does not believe that the applicant is being denied substantial property rights possessed by other property in the vicinity. The majority of the existing homes on this block observe the required 20' front yard setback. Three order houses are developed with only 12' setbacks. These were probably built before the 20 foot front setback requirement was in effect. The average front yard setback would exceed 15'. Staff does not believe that the requested reduction of the front yard setback to 10' is necessary to preserve substantial property rights enjoyed by others. Similarly, staff found no other instances of reduced rear yard setbacks comparable to those requested by the applicant. While staff did observe some living units encroaching in the 10' rear yard, all structures observed a minimum setback of 5' from the alley. Staff does not believe that development at the proposed density is a property right protected by the zoning ordinance, as the proposed use is not permitted by right. Additionally, the physical circumstances of the lot do not constrain development. The product type chosen, density requested and site design comprise the greatest constraints. Alternative site designs or product type could eliminate the need for this variance . Staff further believes that a reduction of the front and rear yard setbacks could be detrimental to the existing neighborhood and its future development and to the welfare of future residents of the proposed project. Staff believes that the development of two-story structures 10' off the front property line and 1' from the rear property line would be intrusive upon the neighborhood. Additionally, approval of this variance would establish the enjoyment of a property right and a precedent for future variances. More importantly, the approval of the reduced rear yard setback would create an unsafe traffic situation. All parking would be accessed from the alley. The minimum back-up area, required for safe access or egress from a parking area, is 24'. Approval of the requested variance would provide only 21' of back-up area. Staff, therefore, believes that the requested reduction in the rear yard setback would be detrimental to public welfare and safety of future residents. Finally, staff believes that approval of the requested variances would adversely affect the general plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan provides that each application for development should be rated with regard to specific criteria. Included in those criteria area: -3- Site design quality which may be indicated by the harmony of the proposed buildings in terms of size, height and location, with respect to existing neighboring development. Site design quality which may be indicated by the arrangement of the site for efficiency of circulation, or on-site and off-site traffic safety, privacy, etc. Staff does not believe that the proposed project satisfies these criteria. Additionally, the variance which would create a substandard and unsafe traffic situation would not be consistent with the circulation element. Overall, staff believes that there are no exceptional circumstaces applicable to this property or intended use; that the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right; that granting of such variance could be detrimental to the neighborhood and to public safety; and could adversely affect the comprehensive general plan, IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Land Use Planning Manager has determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on March 13, 1984. Attachments 1, PC Resolution No. 2264 2, Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Form CDN/ar -4- BACKGROUND DATA SHEET APPLICANT: THERRIEN REQUESTANDLOCATION: Rfqu est for approv al of a variance to reduce the required front yard from 20' to 10' and the rear yard from 10' to 1' at 3434 Madison on the east side of Madison Street between Palm Avenue and Chestnut Avenue . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 10 & 11 in Block 44 of the Tawn of Carlsbad, according to map thereof No. 535, filed in the Office of the County Recorder. APN: 204-171-18 Acres . 16 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 12 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONMG Land Use Designation m Density Allowed 4-10 du/ac Density Proposed 75 du's/ac Existing Zone R-3 Proposed Zone - Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Site R-3 North R-3 South R-3 East R-3 West R-2 Lard use SFR SFR'S SFR'S SFR' s SFR' s PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water City Sewer City EDU'S Public Facilities Fee Wreement, dated January 1, 1984 ENVI~AL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - x Negative Declaration, issued March 13, 1984 - E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, 1 I CHESTNUTAVE I I I i ~- PALM AVE