The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984-10-16; City Council; Resolution 7746-L 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 E 5 IC 11 l! 2( 2: 2: 2: 2d 21 21 2' 2i RESOLUTION NO. 7746 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A VARIANCE FOR A SIX FOOT HIGH WALL WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OCEAN STREET BETWEEN MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE AND PACIFIC AVENUE. APPLICANT: NATIVE SUN CASE NO.: V-357 WHEREAS, a verified application for a variance for certain property to wit: All that portion of Lot 2 and Portion of Lot 3 in Section 1, Township 12 South, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian according to official plat map filed in the County of San Diego. has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 23rd day of May 1984 hold a duly noticed public hearing as proscribed by law to consider said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on said day after said public hearing adopt Resolution No. 2298 denying the variance; and WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on August 7, 1984 the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing as proscribed by law to consider said appeal and at said hearing after consideration of all of the evidence, testimony, argument of those persons present and desiring to be heard the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents which would grant the appeal; and c d 1 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, on August 28, 1984 said Council after considering the proposed findings in said documents directed the City Attorney to prepare documents denying the appeal; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 2298 constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter. C. That the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of V-357 (Native Sun) is hereby denied based upon the facts set out in the Planning Department Staff Report dated May 23, 1984 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2298 attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein and the variance is therefore denied. 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 3 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, 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 9 2008. " PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of October , 1984 by the following vote, to wit: if he has one. A AYES: Council Mnkrs Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Prescott NOES: Council "her Casler ABSENT: None yL&/+ a/ L MARY H. CVLER, Mayor ATTEST: oJztL R. G?aA- ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk 5 2; 2: 21 21 2( 2' 21 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2298 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FOOT HIGH WALL WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OCEAN STREET BETWEEN MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE AND PACIFIC AVENUE. CASE NO.: V-357 C RLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIX APPLICANT: NATIVE SUN- WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to rit: All that portion of Lot 2 and Portion of Lot 3 in Section 1, Township 12 South, Range 5 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian according to official plat map filed in the County of San Diego, ias been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the ?lanning 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 23rd day of Yay, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law LO consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and :onsidering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons 3esiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to V-357. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Zommission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES V-357, based on the following findings: //// //// //// //// 5 Resolution No. 7'7Lfh 1 2 3 4 5 E E z 1: 1: 1: 1, 1' 1 1 1 2 2 ndings: That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and zone for the reasons stated in the staff report. That the granting of this variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone for the reasons stated in the staff report. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the I Lanning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on ?e 23rd day of Mgy, 1984, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : NOES : None. ABSENT: Commissioner Rawlins. ABSTAIN : Chairman Rombotis . Commissioners Schlehuber, Marcus, Farrow and Smith. PLANNING COMMISSION TTEST: c ,AND USE PLANNING MANAGER PC RES0 NO. 2298 -2- APPLI~ON SUBM~TTAL DATE : MARCH A, 1984 STAFF REPORT DATE : May 23, 1984 TO : Planning.Commission FROM : Land Use Planning Office SUBJECT: V-357 - NATIVE SUN - Request for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a six foot high wall within the front yard setback on property located on the north side of Ocean Avenue between Mountain View Drive and Pacific Avenue. I. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2298 DENYING V-357 based on the findings contained therein. 11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting a variance to Section 21.46.130 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a six foot masonry wall in the front yard setback. approximately along the front property line of the subject property. height to keep in line with the security concept of the project. The wall would run The applicant is proposing the wall at the requested 111. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Can the four mandatory findings for a variance be made in this case which are as follows: a) Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not apply to other property in the same vicinity and zone? 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 health and welfare? Will the granting of this variance adversely affect the General Plan? b) c) d) 7 Discussion The applicant is requesting approval of a variance which would allow construction of a six foot masonry wall approximately along the front property line. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits fences and walls over 42 inches in height within the front yard setback. Before the request is granted it must meet the necessary findings for a variance. Staff cannot make two of the four findings. First, there are no unusual circumstances that exist on this property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same vicinity. The applicant feels that since the subject property takes access through a private drive, the geometric layout lends itself to being a private community within itself. Staff does not agree. The project does not take access through a private drive, rather it takes access through a driveway as do other projects in the vicinity. Also, the topography of the project is relatively the same as the apartment projects to the east and the single family residences to the south. Thus, staff feels no unusual circumstances exist on the site, that do not exist in the vicinity. A second issue is whether the applicant is being denied a substantial property right enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. The applicant states that properties to the south have walls over 42 inches high within the front yard setback. Staff made a field check of the vicinity and found only two homes in the vicinity had walls over 42 inches in height. Only one of these , the wall located at 2445 Ocean Street, runs along the front property line. Staff has found that this wall was built illegally without a building permit or variance. Illegal construction does not establish a precendent. Staff is in the process of notifying this property owner to correct this zoning violation. Overall, staff feels it cannot make the necessary findings for a variance and therefore, recommends denial of V-357. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REV1 EW The project is exempt from environmental review per Section 19.04.070(F)(4)(A) of the Environmental Protection Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS 1) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2298 2) Location Map 3) Background Data Sheet 4) Variance Supplemental Sheet 5) Disclosure Statement EVR : bw 5/8/84 -2- 4v 4 4‘ SITE NATIVE SUN v-357 BACKGFXNND DATA SHEET CASE NO: V-357 APPLICANT: Native Sun REQUEST AND LOCATION: Allow 6' high masonry wall within front yard setback on the north side of Ocean Avenue between Mountain View Drive and Pacific Avenue. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All that Portion of Lot 2 and a Portion of bt 3 in Section 1, Tbwnship 12 South, Range 3 West, San Bernardino Base Meridian according to Official Plat Map filed in the County of San Diego. APN: 203-01-14 Acres 7.40 Proposed No. of Lotsflnits N/A GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation FM-H Density Allowed 10-20 du/ac Density Proposed N/A Existing Zone R-3 Proposed Zone N/A Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site R-3 Vacant North R-A Lagoon South R-3 SFR East R-3 West OS Apartment Pacific Ocean PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU's Public Facilities Fee Agrement dated N/A - Negative Declaration, issued - E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, Exempt per Section 19.04.070(F)(4)(A) *. , Gross Acres (or square footage, if less tbn acre) R-3 6.544 General Plzl? Land Use Designaticn Residential-Medium High Density -~ ~ By law a Variance may be approved cnly if certah facts are fomd to exist. please read thse requiremats carefully and explain how tk proposed project meets each of tkse facts. Use additicnal sheets if necessary- a) Explain why there are exceptid or extraotainary circ~c~ Qt ccnditicns applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not a&qly generally to tb ow pmA,oerty or class'of use in th same vicinity ad zae: . This is a development of 14 condominiums which take - access to and through a private drp a pu-m roadway. Thus, the geometric layout lends itselt t o beinq a private community within itselt. b) Exph5.n why such variance is necessary for tb presemticn and mjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by oar property in tk! same vicL?ity and zme but bJ'nich is 3enWi to the proAxrty in esticn: Adjacent properties to the west have 5.5' privacy wal T s - -- alonq their front riqht-of-way lines. Other bomes in tne area encroach within the required setbacks trom street K.u.1~. Our variance is not even for encroachment, but tor a neiqhtr allowance of 30". - -- alonq their front rinht-of-wav lines. Other bomes in tne area encroacb wi+ Our' %mri ance - -- allowance of jU" . c) cletrimental to tte public welfare or injurious to the pr0,Oerty or ~rovenents ~xplain ww the gm&g of such variance will not be materially such VicXty and me h which thp, pr~~prty is lacated The variance will in no way naturally be detrimental to the public - Tkie public will still have all beneTits it naci prior to issuance of the variance. The properties in the area wlll not be "iniured" by such variance, because it will not imm them in any way from the benefits they enjoy on their own prop- erties'today.. d) Explai? ccqrehensive general plan: th@ granting of such varhcs will. nat adversely affect t*e The variance is more for a landscape/sec- urity measure which would not adversely ariL,ci~rle~as p;d which is a de nsitv. unit tvD e (detached, attached units, etc.) - monitor. n - Dermitted use (commercial, recreation, residential, etc.) NATIVE SUN INVESTMENT GROUP APPLICANT : Name (individual, Partner ship, joint venture, cor-goration, syndicatioa) 0110 Escondido Avenue, Suite 103, Vista, CA 92083 Business Address 941-1155 Telephone Npnber AGENT : Robert 0. Sukup Name .- - same Business Address t- Telephone Number . .. -~ bEI.IBESS : €?we SMress venture, corpsation, syndication) same B-iisiness Address same Telephone "bar Telephone Xurnber John €3. Lyttle f:tQS Eome =dress same 3isiness =dress same Tsle2hom "her Te1ep;lone Stumber (Attach more sheets if necessary) I/We declzz= uzder Penalty Of perjury that t5e infomation contained in this dis- closure is tms and correct and that it will remain true and correct and nay be' relic2 upon as being true and correct until anended. ) Applicant I