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
~