HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-04; City Council; Resolution 96-1931
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 $E& a08
14 ow: iUC3 so35
Ed$ 15 k->o g0nu
z$$x 16 002 Eo'o
om
SW? 'o>
Si22
czs - 17
18
a04
0
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
RESOLUTION NO. 96-193
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GRANTING APPLICANT'S
APPEAL AND REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF APPLICANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1 I10 CAMINO DEL SOL
ZONE. APPLICANT:
WHEREAS, a verified application for a tentative map for certain pro1
CIRCLE IN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (R-1-7500)
TARYAN FENCE AND WALL APPEAL CASE NO.: ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE AV 95-02
wit:
Parcel 9 of Camino Del Sol, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San State of California, according to parcel map thereof No. 5406 filec Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 16, 1994
has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; i
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on April 3, 1996 hold
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said application for Admini
Variance AV 95-02; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on April 3, 1996, after I
and considering all the evidence and testimony of all people desiring to be heard 8
Resolution No.3910 denying Administrative Variance AV 95-02; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of this approval was timely filed on April 11
and
WHEREAS, on May 21, 1996, the City Council of the City of Carlsb
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said appeal and
hearing after consideration of all the evidence, testimony, and argument of those ;
present and desiring to be heard, the City Council directed the City Attorney to I
documents which would grant the appeal and reverse the Planning Comrr
decision,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
Carlsbad, California, as follows:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lo
l1
om l2
13 92 Err& u:o8 ow2 5UU
$055 >.JZ l4 otga:
2;SS O " O ' l5
gZ$z 16
SWEj
zwm
0 4
>2% 17 go
QOA
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
1. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing and
careful review of all evidence submitted at the hearing and Council Members
individually having made a site inspection, the City Council grants Administrative
Variance, AV 95-02, based on the following findings:
a. That there are exceptional and extraordinary circumst
and conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply
generally to other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone, in that tt
property presents a peculiar risk of injury, harm, and security due to its location,
topography, shape and size. A standard fence would not deter individuals from E
entry into the property and the existing pool due to the uniqueness of the slope a
availability of ease of entrance.
b. The requested variance is necessary for the preservai
and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the
vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question in that without tl
additional six feet in height to the wall or fence, the property will be deprived of it:
to discourage and deter children and others from entry and risk of injury in the
swimming pool located on the property.
c. That granting of this variance will not be detrimental tc
adjacent property because the size, shape and topography of the property make
wall and fence a minimum intrusion in the light and air of neighboring properties i
objections were received at the public hearing.
d. That the granting of this variance will not adversely ef
General Plan because the property is developed with a single-family home whicl-
consistent with the residential Low Medium (RLM) General Plan land use design;
3.
4.
That appellant's appeal fees are ordered refunded.
That the fence in the location substantially as shown on Exh
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
am
13 $Em an8
14 ow2 iU,
dtgK nun$ 15
gSzz 16
SW?
Sf?$
2;Q
m>
zwv) m! a01
G
ps 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0 0
cannot be moved from this location.
5. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City C
The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for,
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 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, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California
92008."
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting oft
Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 4th day of JUNE 1996, by the fc
vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard, Kulchin, Hall
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Me
ATTEST:
W'UTg%*k
3
w W
"C.
~~~~0~ A