Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-03-26; Planning Commission; ; SDP 85-20|V 371 - FORSYTHAPPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 1985 DATE : TO: FROM : SUBJECT: I. That the STAFF REPORT MARCH 26, 1986 PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING DEPARTMENT SDP 85-20/V-371 - FORSYTH - Request for approval of conversion of existing single family house and garage into offices at 2774 Jefferson Street and approval of three associated variances. RECOMMENDATION Planninu Commission ADOPT Resolution Nos. 2544 and 2545 DENYING SDP 85-26/V-371 , baseathe findings contained therein. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting approval of a site development plan, required per the Residential-Professional (Qualified) zone, to convert an older existing single family house and garage into an office. The project proposes 1180 square feet of office space. Three parking spaces would be provided; new sidewalks and landscaping will be installed. A large backyard will be retained in its current state. Both buildings would be painted a blue/grey color. The property is located in an area of town that is transitioning from residential to office uses. Properties to the north and west and further south have a mix of single and multiple family residences and off ices that are either converted homes or typical office buildings. Adjacent to the site to the north, east and south are multiple family residential; to the west the Austin- Pacific off ice building is under construction. In addition to the site development plan, three variances are being requested with this application. The first is to allow one of the parking spaces to encroach into the frontyard setback. The second variance is for a reduced sideyard setback for the existing garage. Third, a variance to allow a fence instead of a block wall is requested. rrr. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Does the proposed project meet the requirements of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance? 2) Can the four mandatory findings for approval of each of the three- variances be found? They include: a) Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property that do not apply to other property 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 property 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 Zoning Requirements The development standards of the RP-Q zone that are applicable to the proposed project include lot area and width, setbacks, building separation, height, parking and walls. The lot size is 7,500 square feet in a 50' x 150' lot configuration, which meets the area requirement but does not meet the minimum lot width requirement of 60 feet. However, this lot is in the older section of town and was legally created before the ordinance took effect. Regarding setbacks, a 20-foot f rontyard setback has been provided; however, one of the parking spaces encroaches into the setback almost five feet. The sideyard setback requirement is five feet; on the south side the setback varies from 5 to 7.5 feet. The north sideyard setback cannot be met by the existing garage which is located 1.5 feet from the property line. Both the front and sideyard setbacks are variance requests and are discussed in the next section of this report. The office building, as proposed, will be structurally connected so a 10 foot building separation is not required. The building is a one-story structure and, therefore, meets height requirements. Parking standards are 1: 400 per the Village Redevelopment zone (site is within 300 foot radius of V-R zone) and based on 1,180 square feet, three spaces are required and have been provided. Staff was concerned that three spaces is quite minimal for an office where at least three people will be has pointed out that their business is insurance and much of their time is spent in the field away from the office and handled by telephone. The new parking standards currently in the approval process would require four spaces instead of three and would not be possible to implement unless the garage were to be moved, which the applicant has indicated is financially infeasible at this time. 4 employed, i.e., where will customers then park? The applicant -2- The final applicable ordinance requirement relates to walls in the R-P zone. -Basically, any lot proposed for nonresidential development which is adjacent to a lot in a residential zone is required to have a solid masonry wall along the common lot line. The applicant is requesting a variance to put up a six foot wooden fence instead of a wall -- this is discussed further below . Variances This section of the staff report will discuss the three variances and the mandatory findings associated with each. The first variance is to permit one parking space to encroach five feet into the frontyard setback. The extraordinary circumstance applicable to this property is that the city has a 16 foot right- of-way from the sidewalk to the property lines along Jefferson Street instead of typically 10 feet. Properties adjoining the subject site enjoy the right of intruding into the frontyard setback, in that the buildings are located in the front yard setback. Allowing the one space to encroach five feet into the setback will not be detrimental to other properties in the vicinity since there already are structures in the setback. The variance will not adversely affect the General Plan and staff believes all the findings can be made to grant this variance. In addition, it is not likely that the city will widen Jefferson in the future. The second variance request is for a reduced sideyard setback where the existing garage is located. A five foot setback is required; 1.5 feet exist. Staff cannot make all the findings for this variance because, while there are two other structures in the vicinity that have little to no sideyard setbacks (2753 and 2770 Jefferson). They are legally used as garages and not as off ices. The applicant feels the the extraordinary circumstance is that the structure is existing, which to date has not been applicable to other office properties in the area. Staff understands that to move the garage would be a financial hardship at this time for the applicant, but cannot use that reason to justify making the findings. No other office has been approved in the R-P zone with a 1.5 foot setback and this project could set an undesirable precedent. In summary, staff cannot make the required four findings in that no other office properties in the vicinity share the same right of a reduced sideyard setback. In addition, the reduced setback for office use may adversely impact adjacent residential uses. The third variance request is to put a fence instead of a block wall along the common residential property lines. The relatively narrow lot with a small house on it. Other office properties in the area are on larger lots or are typical, two- story office buildings. Staff believes that a six foot masonry wall would overwhelm the site and disturb the residential .I exceptional circumstance is that this property is a small, -3- character of the surround this area of Jefferson. This house is nq structures and staff feels that a s smalle r than x foot wooden fence would pr6vide adequate separation from adjacent multiple family units. As mentioned earlier, the backyard will remain as a large grassy open area and will not be a parking lot where lights, noise, and other activities occur. In terms of other properties enjoying the same privilege, there is an office to the north at 2720 Jefferson which has a fence along two of the property lines instead of a wall. Staff believes this variance would not be detrimental to other properties and would not adversely affect the General Plan. In conclusion, staff believes that the project would enhance the property and the area. Staff feels that findings can be made for two of the variances, however, they cannot be made for the third. Staff feels that three variances is a large number for a project and may indicate some inappropriateness in conjunction with the site. Staff has suggested removal of the garage as a possible solution but the applicant is unable to accept this alternative. As a result, staff is recommending denial of the site development plan based on the fact that the findings cannot be made for one of the necessary variances. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, has issued a Negative Declaration on March 5, 1986. ATTACHMENTS 1) Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2544 and 2545 2) Vicinity Map 3) Background Data Sheet 4 ) Negative Declaration 5) Disclosure Form 6) Exhibits "A" - IC", dated March 10, 1986 NER: ad 3/10/8 6 -4- VICINITY MAP FORSYTH I SDP 85-20 AND LOCXTION: Cbnversion of existing single family house and garage into offices at 2774 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad LEGAL DESC!RIPTION: Ut 4 of Schell and Sites addition to Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 2145, filed in the office of the County wrder of SD County, Feb 20,1929. APN: 203-201-04 Acres 0.172 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 1 and U& Designation FW Density Allowd 8-15 du/ac Density Proposed N/A Existing Zone RPQ Proposed Zone mi2 Surrounding Zoning and Iand Use: Zoninq Land use Site RP-Q SF North w-3 MF South RPU-R East R-3 West V-R MF Ml? SF ti office PUBLIC FACILITIES Carlsbad School District Unified Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad Ew's 1 Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated November 13, 1985 X - Negative Declaration, issued - E.I.R. Certified, dated Other , March 5, 1986 DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES LAND USE PLANNlNQ OFFICE ADDRESS~ION: 2774 Jefferson Street. 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CA 920081989 (819) 438-5591 PROJEX!T aEscRIpTION: garage into offices, &ding three parking spaces and landscaping. Qnversion of existing single family house and The City of Carl&& has conducted an envirormental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality kt and tb Enviroranentsl Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant hpact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Planning Department. Justification for this &ion is on file in the A copy of the Negative Declaration with s\lpportive docunents is on file in the Planning Department, City Hall, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, CA. 92008. Comnents fran the public are invited. Please subit cannents in writing to the Planning Department within ten (10) days of date of issuance. DATH): March 5, 1986 CASE ND: SDP 85-2O/V-371 Planning Director ND4 11/85 8 I - DISCLOSURE FORH I APPLICANT: ON ST. CARLSBAI). CA om08 Business Address MEMBERS: Name (individual, partner, joint venture, corporation, gcndication) HamerAddr e58 . ... . .. .. ' .* Brisi-ss Address '* .. . .a *. Telephone Nunber Teleghne Nlrrber Name HaneAddr ess Business Address Telephone Nunber lklepbne Number (Attach mre sheets if necessary) !Phe applicant is required to apply for coastal Comdasion Approval if located in the Coastal Zone, we declare der penalty of perjury that the information contained in this disclosure is true and correct and that it will remain true and axrect ad my be relied upon as being true and correct mtil men3ed. J &A f LuLZAC& BY Agent, &mer, Partner