Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-09-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 27691 b. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 '1 I I 11 1 ,I I1 11 0 0 PLANNING COMMISSION R.ESOLUTI0N NO. 2769 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A TEN FOOT HIGH RETAINING WALL IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK LOCATED AT 7219 EL FUERTE STREET. APPLICANT: KYLE CASE NO.: AV 88-5 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit: Lot 101 of Carlsbad Tract No. 75-4 (La Costa Estates North) according to Map No. 8302, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California on May 5, 1976. has been filed with the City of Carlsbad, and referred to the Planning Commission: and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code: and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 7th day of September, 1988, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request: and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to AV 88-5. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. €3) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission DENIES AV 88-5, based on the following findings : //// ~ 1 '1 I /I 2 ;I 3 il 41 6 li il i 5 11 71 11 /I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ~ 19 ,I 20 21 22 23 24 I 25 27 26 ~ 28 e Findinss : 0 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. The surrounding properties are residences on lots with similar topography within the same zone, and they have the same zoning code requirements. The need to control erosion around the footings of a fence does not constitute special circumstances. This problem is faced by many residents of hillside lots. 2. The requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question. Erosion control measures, in conformance with the provisions of the zoning code (e.g. a 6 1 retaining wall which conforms to the zoning code; terraces: fence footing protection, etc.) could accomplish the desired result of halting the loss of earth. 3. The granting of this variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located because all development within the vicinity is required to conform to the Municipal Code. The presence of a block wall up to 10 feet high on the property line is detrimental to the adjacent homeowner with regard to visual aesthetics. I //// //// //// //// //// //// I //// //// //// //// PC RES0 NO. 2769 -2- ~ , ~ , I' ji * (I) !I 1 // 2i 3 Ii '' P1anning Cornmission of the City Of Carlsbad, California, held on 4l PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the ! I 1 the 7th day of September, 1988, by the following vote, to wit: 5 jl I I' I 6: I/ AYES : Chairperson McFadden, Commissioners: Marcus, NOES : Hall, Schramm, Erwin and Schlehuber. None. 7 11 8 /I ABSENT: Commissioner Holmes. ABSTAIN: None. 1 9 10 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION I' 11 ATTEST: 12 '1 l3 ~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 I /I PLANNING DIRECTOR 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 26 ' 28 PC RES0 NO. 2769 -3- i ~