Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2902 CACATUA ST; ; 79-1977; Permit- - 71 IC;/79'157! y.j-,g %e 7.527. Xf: ?05g 2;3 7,r>g : j MODEL NO. 7/ !6/VD967 1 -, BUILDING PERMIT APPLICAT@#~"~'~~~ _, i 79 7/ j 4/75! City of CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (USEE ATTACHED SHEET) 4 5 6 7 8 Class of work: 0 NEW ,$AD01TION 0 ALTERATION 0 REPAIR 0 MOVE 0 REMOVE LICENSE NO. ENGINEER MAIL ADDQESS PHONE COMPENSATION INS. CARRIER MAIL ADDRESS BRANCH USE OF 0UILOING NO. BORMS NO. BATHS PLAN CHECK FEE S &d % 9 Describe work: PERMIT FEE $ 10 Change of use from Change of use to - w 11 Valuation of work: $ ,s& - L SPECIAL CONDITIONS No. of Dwelling Units PPLICATIOY ACCEPTED BY I PLANS CHECKED BY /APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE BY OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES: No. Open No. Covered 1%. Ft. SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMB- ING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. TION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120 DAYS,OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A MENCED. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUC- PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COM- Const. I Group I I Size of Bldg. (Total) Sq. Ft No. of I Stories Fire Zone use I zone PLANNING DEPT. SOIL REPORT WATER DEPT. I I I I SIGN, URE OF CONTRACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (DATE) SIGdATLRE*OF OWNER (IF OWNER BUILDER) f IOAfE) / c/ WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED (IN THIS SPACE) THIS IS YOUR PERMIT PLAN CHECK VALIDATION CK. M.O. CASH PERMIT VALIDATION CK. M.O. CASH 3-e TOTAL FEES $ * 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 v .. . .. .. . :-SU-BJ'ECT: spA~2cscQk;rast, .. . I. i . *. ,I . TELEPHONE: (714) 729-1181 The Carlsbad Building Department records show the required . inspections including a final inspection have not been made on your property. record with our department of all inspections and finals. Building permits are void if work :s not commenced within 120 day5 of issuance. Upon selling your home many lenders-require proof of permits, inspections and a final. If not available a compliance inspection is required ($25.00) and any work not to code must be corrected, and permits not obtained will be required. Our department would like to. have your home safe and to keep the records of your property as accurate as possible for your convenience. 5 It is important to have a permit but yd.u'must also have a .. ?a - Please contact our office for ~~-J=Qmm?. # Lr -c P'rr .a**,, Thank you, L +, Carlsbad Building Department 729-1181 Ext. 48 1. C me f? JOB REPORT JOB ............................. &..cdS.c .... I... ....... c$?d.C?.K.fi.Y ... ..&.~.C.CI. .~&Zfl.k &+e .............................. &f-+ /..- 77 LOCAT I ON ......................... ~~..G.LCZX.L& ......... >c.& ...... .d~ .-.G.S.& .... ~~.&~I.s -t. 0 .Ad. L.3.fi.a D, CA BID DATE ................................................................ /a=w- a ...L 5. J ..&.!.e. T... ... SJ...- ...... 0 W N E R ................................ AAZ.&.~.L. 'c! .......... .~A.CC~Z~=&. .................................................................................. ARCHITECT .................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................... 2D , ,/ CITY OF CARLSBAD c_ - AGENDA BILL NO- - Initial: Dept. Hd, -- C, Atty. DATE : DEPARTMENT: July 3, 1979 PLANNING ___l__ll__---- C. Mgr, --I_. APPEAL PLANNING COPLYISSION DETERMINATION OF FENCE HEIGHT PCF-18 APPLICANT: BRUCE Sub] ect : Statement of the Matter Recently a City Building official observed a fence in excess of the height allowed without a permit. The structure is an 8 foot high fence (wooden wall) around a spa. The property owner, Mr. Bruce, was informed at that time of the need to apply for a permit on the structure. Mr. Bruce was informed that to increase the 6 foot maximum height of a fence, required the approval of the Planning Commission. Mr. Bruce submitted such a request to the Planning Csxzission but the request was denied for the reasons contained in 2:laDning Commission Resolution No. 1529. In Mr. Bruce's letter of appeal of this action, he :.r.antions possible misinformation was given him earlier by another buiLZing official on stacdards for fences. Attached are memorandums from several xembers % of the Building Department giving details of the history of the matter, Exhibit Planning Commission Resolution No. 1529 Staff report dated June 13, 1979 Memo from Mr. Green dated June 11, 1979 Memo from Mr. Nelson dated June 18, 1979 Memo from Patricia Cratty dated June 18, 1979 Memo from Bu ildiny Director Letter from John Bruce received June 18, 1979 Recornlendat ion If Council concurs with Planning Commission findings, direct City Attorney to prepare documents denying this appeal. If however, Counci.1 grants Mr. Bruce's appeal, direct City Attorney to prepare clscumen ts of approval. DATE : TO : FROM : SUBJECT: At.tached exhibit. JUNE 27, 1979 BUILDING DIRECTOR City Manager JOHN BRUCE FENCE AROUND SPA 2902 Cacatua Street is an agenda bill with your report as an It was my intention that your resort be a summary of the other reports, including your role in reviewing the matter. If you reread your report, you can see tkt ssveral sections are confusing and unclear and I k;icw you do not want to send it to the Council that x:;-. Please review the entire agenda bill and rewrite y~ur report with more clarity. There are also several errors in your statement. Dave Abrams gave you the information on the Planning Com- mission approval requirements the same day you originally found out about the problem. Also, sinc-2 this is a Zone Code requirement, it cannot be appealed to the Appeals Board, but only to the Council. 1'11 need your memo and the agenda bill returned no later than Thursday afternoon. b PAUL D. BUSSEY City Manager PDR : ldg CASE EO. : PCF-ZS AP1?LX CANT : JOHN BRUCE \WEREAS, in Rovember of 1978 applicant KZS granted a building perrnrit for the construction of a spz; and t?EERX:AS, the applicant is requesting P~Z~Z-L~LIIO Comission 9 approvzl to all.0~ him to keep an 8 foot wall ~rouiid the spa; and It?IEREhS Section 21.. 46,130 of the Car1s';r;z.d 14unicipa.l Code allov~e that fences and walls UT to G feet in height in rcstdential. zones in the side and rear yards may be permitted by the l~lami~~g zinc!. Ciii.lding Departments whdn the safety and wei.%nre of the general publ-ic are not imposed upon; 2nd IWEWAS, in any "R" zone any fence that exceeds 6 feet, for special uses or under special circumstances may be granted by the Planning Commission and subject to the condi'sions imposed by this Sommi s s ion ; and WXREAS, the Planring; Corrdssion did on June 13, 1979, 1 2 5 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 33 15 16 17 18 %3 20 2 3. refcreiiced above. RYES : L’lJeureux, Rombotis, Schick, Wrench, Marcus, Jose, LF~T:;OTI NOES : None NO’li;, ?‘iLEIW,FClXE, DE IT IIERZHY recitations arc true and correct. RESOLVED, thzt the above ATTEST : -2- 1 2 5 4- 5 G 7 8 9 10 3-3- 12 13 14 1- 5 16 1 i 18 3.9 20 21 22 2 3 24 25 26 27 #+, r., 6, CJ I, JhXES C. ITAGAMAR, Secretary to the Plai~n~ng Cmimissi.cn of the CTty of Carlsbad, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution W~?S du:Ly introduced, approved and adopted by the Planning Cormnission of the City of Carlsbad at a regular meetir,g of said Coinrnission held on the 27th day of 3me, 1979 by the following roll call vote: AYES : NOES : ABSTAIN : ABSENTS : PCF-18 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER Building Director STRUCTURE - 2902 CACATUA STREET I was first notified of the possibility of a violation or problem at 2902 Cacatua Street by Ray Green as he was in the area on another matter. Mr. Bruce was contacted by Mr. Green and informed by Mr. Green that a permit would be required for what had been built and a plan showing the said structure, spa and the location. The structure that has been referred to as a wall, fence or what- ever, from this point on will be referred to as structure. The next day or two action on this matter was a demanding one. Mr. Green and I went out to see what was causing so much attention. Upon arriving at the intersection of El Fuerte and Cacatua Streets, I could plainly see the structure in question. Mr. Green and I went to the structure, walked around it, took four or five photo- graphs, returned to the office and contacted Mr. Bussey on the matter and endeavored to clarify the problems. I informed Mr. Bussey that a permit was necessary as structures in excess of six (6) feet in height need a permit as they are considered a structure. (Fences tn excess of six (6) feet are structures. Flag poles, etc., exempted). The permit could be issued with the approval of the Planni-ng Director and the Building Director. I also notified the Council person who had been contacted, I presume by Mr. Bruce, on the matter. The next day I was told by Mr. Abrams that the Planning Commission had to approve any fence in excess of six (6) feet. I was not aware of this and never knew that it existed in the Municipal Code. Needless to say, I was surprised that something of this nature was required to be heard by the Planning Commission. I so informed Mr. Bussey of this change as what I had told him the previous day was erroneous. Mr. Bussey asked me to inform the Council person of what was happen- ing. I called after leaving Mr. Bussey’s office but was unable to reach the person and do not recall trying at a later time. Mr. Bruce was informed of the procedures. ,.Page 2 Mr. Bruce was informed that if the structure was reduced in height from eight (8) feet to six (6) feet that as far as this department was concerned our interpretation was that it would be conforming. I was not aware that the matter had been before the Planning Com- mission until L was informed that Mr. Bruce had written a letter to the Council requesting to appeal the Planning Commission action of denial. Prior to being informed of the letter of appeal, Mrs. Bruce called me on the phone with some questions. Exactly what the question or questions were, 4 do not recall, but she was told by me she could appeal to the Appeals Board for an interpretation as to whether this was a wall or fence. I did not mention the City Municipal Code. If this is determined to be a building then the report that was . given to the Planning Commission is correct in stating that ten (10) feet is required between buildings, however, if this is de- termined to be a fence then the report would be in error as there is no required spacing between the fence and building. At this point, I think somewhere in this chain of events there was a difference as to h.ow this structure was classified, wall, build- ing or fence. Without the roof or intent of roof, it is not a building. It could be a wall and could be a fence. (There are many stuccoed fences in the city). The Building department did not consider this as a building after r+ being informed by Plr. Bruce there would not be a roof of any kind on this structure. Wl'th that in mind the ten (10) foot spacing between buildings would not apply, therefore information from the Building department to Mr. Bruce would and could be in conflict with what the Planning department had or was telling Mr. Bruce. T,his brings the point of communication between departments as part of what has transpired on this matter, I am sure if everyone connected with this had any idea of what is now happening that there would have been a far more thorough, in depth search of all aspects of the matter. If someone from the Planning.department asked me, "What distance is required between buildings", I would state ten (10) feet, so if they consider this a building and the Building department does not, need I say more. Information from either department just would not fit: I think at this stage that the classification of said structure be determined by some group such as the Appeals Board and enforce the and codes that would apply. Director of Building and Housing RSOfgl I c MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: June 18, 1979 CITY MANAGER Building Director SPA at 2902 CACATUA STREET - Mr. JOHN BRUCE I was first notified of the possibility of a violation or problem by Mr. Green regarding what he thought the first time he saw this structure. Mr. Green assumed, at that time, this was to be a building covering the spa, however, found out that it was to be open, just the fou'r walls (fences or whatever) with the two windows in them. Atthis point, I was notified of the problem by those involved and by Mr. Bussey as he had a request from a member of the Council to find out what was going on and what this concerned. Since this wall/fence or whatever it is determined to be was in excess of six feet, it would need a Building permit and some plans that could be approved by the various departments. 1 further was requested to notify the Council member of'what had transpired. In the process of determining whether the enclosure was wall/ fence or whatever, it was considered to be fence and this meant that a permit could be issued with the approval of the Building Director and the Planning Director. The Council member was so informed. However, the next day or the day after, Mr. Abrams of the Planning department brought to my attention the fact that any fence over six feet was now required to go before the Planning Commission for approval of permit to construct. I so informed Mr. Bussey and Mr. Bussey requested that I inform the Council member of this change in the original concept of what was going to be a simple solution to this matter. I returned to my office but could not contact the Council Member at that time, and I do not recall now as to whether I did finally get the information to this Council member. Mr. Bruce was con- tacted and informed of what was happening and the simple solution to enclosure at this time was to cut the walls/fence or whatever down to six feet arid if he wished to pursue the matter, it would not hold up the completion or use of the spa. Page 2 Spa/2902 Cacatua Street Mr. Bruce did not feel that this was what he would like as the appearance of the enclosure would now change and possibly not be as compatibile. At this point, one of the reasons for determining the enclosure as a fence is there is to be no roof or covering, and if other than fence could be required to be a minimum of ten feet from the main building. Further, thSs is not view obscuring or creat- ing a traffic obscuring object thereby endangering the public. Mrs. Bruce was informed that she may appeal any of the code interpretations by going to the Appeals Board and if not content with their .recommendation they could then appeal to the Council. At this tfme, I would like to add that I believe that common sense at times should 6e considered. There is (in my opinion) nothing wrong with what is there. It fits in with the rest of the property. There is frontage on three sides of the lot (one adjoining lot ll'ne, otherwise the property faces a public street) See photo- graphs. - .." RICHARD S. OSBURN Bui 1 ding Director RSO/gl -...I_ .. . . . , - . ..- . . .I .. ..._ . .. M EM 0.R AN DUM TO : CITY MANAGER DATE: June 18, 1979 FROM: 3. R. "Bob" Nelson, Building Inspector SUBJECT: JACUZZI ENCLOSURE FOR MR. BRUCE, 2902 CACATUA STREET On January 11, 1979, I met with Mr. Bruce at his request to expl a i n f enci ng requ i remen ts . My discussion with Mr. Bruce was directed primarily to a steel fence and determined it would be possible to locate a steel fence far enough from the water edge to eliminate electrical bonding since there.was no bonding wire provided for that purpose. It was explained that a wood fence would not require any bonding at any distance. At no time in our discussion was an eight foot (8') high fence mentioned for if it had been, I would have indicated necessity of plans and permit. The requirements for a permit for a fence over six feet (6') high is basic in the Building code, and f have known this for nineteen (19) years. Local requirements, our Ordinance on fencing, again requires a permit for a fence over six feet (6') high. /&* J. R. "Bob" Nelson VBuilding Inspector JRN/gl To: City Manager FROM: Development Processing Coordinator DATE : June 18, 1979 SUBJECT: PERMIT REQUEST FOR 8' FENCE Approximately three weeks ago, I was called to the Building Department counter; none of the inspectors were in, the girls had only been with the City a short time and wanted some help answering a requlest. The man at the counter said "they" had told him that he needed a permit for a fence. Talking with him and the girls, I learned he had a permit for a spa and wanted to build a fence around it. He had a partial plan which I looked at and asked him how close the fence was to the street. He said he did not remenber the distance, but I was concerned that the fence might be on City right-of-way. because I was questioning him. He said all he wanted was a permit and "they" had told him to come in and get the permit. I proceeded to get the assessor's lot book to look at his full lot and told him I would need a plot plan showing the full lot, where the fence was located and the distance from his property line to the fence. When I saw the shape of his lot (3 sides on public streets) I wanted to make sure his measurements were from his actual property line. ( I also noticed his location of the spa was not the same corner of the lot the spa request showed, but either location was O.K.) I got the improvement plans to see how much right-of- way the City had around his lot. and was getting upset. gave him a copy of the Assessor's Map, a ruler and paper and told him he could draw it. He scribbled a'plan. During the conversation, I learned that the fence was 8' high. As soon as I realized this, I got the Code, showed him and told him the Planning Commission had to give permission for fences in excess of 6' high. write a letter stating his request. I asked him to clean up his site plan, write a letter requesting permission to construct an 8' fence and I would take care of getting it to the Planning Department. and submitted to the Planning Department. He appeared to be getting upset He wasn't interested; he wanted a permit I told him I still had to see a full plot plan, I told him the procedure was for him to He redrew his plan and wrote a short note which I took Before he left, he apologized for being short tempered. Later in the day, I learned that the "fence" had already been built. He was in several days later to see one of the planners and again apologized for the way he had acted earlier. -, PC:mt STAFF REPORT DATE : June 13, 1979 TO : Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department . REQUEST: PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING TO ALLOW AN 8 FOOT WALL AROUND A SPA AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 21.46.130. CASE NO: PCF-18 APPLICANT: JOHN BRUCE BACKGROUND The subject property, 2902 Cacatua, is located on the west side of Cacatua between El Fuerte and Esturion. This is a through lot, with streets on three sides. Section 21.46.180, which governs yards on through lots, requires 20 foot yards on El Fuerte and Esturion. A.ten foot yard is needed on Cacatua and a seven foot yard on the west side. Construction has already begun on the wall shown in Exhibit A, The wall creates an enclosure, 12 feet by 14 feet. does not have a roof. There is a window in each of the ws.11~ and a solid door on the north side. The inside of the structure . has been completed; the outside is unfinished. A permit was granted for the spa only in November, 1978, The applicant was notified by the Building Department that he needed both a building permit and Planning Commission approval for the 8 foot wall. The enclosure is 5.5 feet from the house, 2 feet from the west property line and 10.5 feet from the El Fuerte right-of-way. The only neighboring property is the lot to the west. This lot is 10 feet lower than the subject property- There is a two story house on the adjacent lot; the house is approximately 30 feet from the spa. Although the owner of this house has indicated that he does not mind the 8 foot high enclosure, the property is for sale. The enclosure DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval to allow him to keep the 8 foot wall around the spa. Section 21.46.130 allows fences and walls up to 6 fcet in residential zones in the side and rear yards. Any fence along the street side can be given a permit subject to the approval of the Planning and Building Departments when the sa.fety arid welfare of the general public are not imposed upon. Any fence over 6 fcet requires both Planning Commission approval and a building permi,t. , . 1 , i . .. The applicant claims the 8 foot structure is needed to shield the spa from his neighbors to the west. The neighbor has informed us that it is possible to see into the spa from one window evert with the 8 foot high ~valls. Therefore, even the extra two Eeet of wall do not create the privacy desired by the applicant, This 8 foot high structure is located within both the side and rear yard. The side yard is the west yard; the rear yard is adjacent to El Fuerte. Section 21.46.030 requires that "every . required yard shzll be open and unobstructed from the ground to the sky." This structure is considered an accessory structure It is located only 5.5 feet from the main building. The code requires a 10 foot separation between structures, RECOMMENDAT ION Staff recorraeiids DENIAL OE FCF-17 based on the following findings: 1) . The 8 foot fence does not preserve the privacy of the spa. I 2) The structure encroaches into the rear and size yards and does not maintain adequate separation, 3) The structure appears to be a building withaut a roof, Attachment: Exhibit A dated June 1, 1979 .. .2 , 12' /&+ I .. . . . , .. .. .. .- .. -. . ., MEMORANDUM TO: CITY MANAGER DATE: June 11, 1979 Ray Green, Senior Building Inspector SUBJECT: STRUCTURE WITHOUT PERMIT - 2902 CACATUA STREET MR. JOHN BRUCE On May 23, 1979, I saw what appeared to be a room addition being constructed. Workers were on the job, so I stopped and asked if there was a permit for the structure. The owner said he had talked to Mr. Nelson of the Building Department, and understood that what he was doing was 0.k. and did not need a permit. I told him there must have been a misunderstanding because I knew Mr. Nelson had too much experience to give that kind of incorrect information. - I then informed the owner to make a site plan drawing and take it to the Building Department for a permit, knowing that the plan would have to have Planning Department approval. I &&- e RAY f GREEN Senior Building Inspector REGJgl A &+-- ..... ..................... .. -- -- ----.-. .._I____-_.-.-- I -. . ... - -e.>. <.‘b - ..’ ..? . -4 c ..