HomeMy WebLinkAboutAV 03-02; Fischer Variance; Administrative Variance (AV) (3)Thomas E. and Mary Helen Kern
2657-59 Cazadero St. Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 918-91 15
January 10, 2003
Carlsbad Planning Department
Re: Variance for Fisher lot wall greater than 6’ high along North property line
@ 2663 Cazadero Dr Carlsbad CA.
We own the property adjoining to the north of the subject property where the wall is located.
This letter is written to express our support of a variance for a wall greater than 6’ high along our common property line with the subject property. Fisher’s lot to our lot (South to North) results in the pad elevation on our lot that is approximately 15’ lower than Fisher’s pad. The primary reasons for Fisher’s building the wall was to make some of their side-yard property usable, control erosion, provide an added safety factor and create privacy for both lots. I understand the wall was engineered, permitted and inspected by the City and the only issue is the height of wall on our side being more than City policy of six feet.
This is a special circumstance and is a hardship that a variance would resolve. Most lots do not have a 15’ elevation difference between pad grades. In our case the side yard slope
serves as part of our back yard with our home sideways on the pad. We enjoy the privacy the wall is providing and appreciate the fact that the neighbor has taken the wall high enough to
provide the protection to keep people from falling over the wall onto our property. The wall provides more privacy for us than a rail fence would provide. We don’t understand why a fence is different than a wall in considering the height. If a side property line fence / wall is
limited to 6’ high I would conclude a variance should have been required for the Fisher wall
when the plans were first submitted to the City. With a wall retaining soil on Fisher’s side, it
seems obvious that the fence / wall fiom our side would be over 6’ high, but the plans were
approved without requiring a variance.
The City letter of October 1“ to Mr. Fisher suggests that the drainage swale on our property
adjoining the wall could be filled in and the grade raised to reduce the wall height on our side
to 6’. We gave our approval of the drainage swale on Fisher’s property being removed and the swale on our property handling all the runoff fiom both lots. There is some runoff fiom Fisher’s lot coming into the swale on our lot and if the swale were filled in that drainage would have to be taken care of. We don’t care if the swale is filled in, but we do want to
retain a path adjacent to the wall on our property and if a slope is built next to the wall we will not have our path. To retain the path and meet the City proposal to fill against the wall it would require an additional retaining wall on our side and create the need for added railings to make the path safe. A variance is a better solution and we support Mr. Fisher’s application for a variance if it is required. We believe the wall should be approved as is.
Sincerely,
The side lot slopes from
Thomas E. Kern