HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-18; Planning Commission; Resolution 32561
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
a 0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3256
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF AN ADMINISTRATnrE
VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FENCE TO EXCEED THE
MAXIMUM ALLOWED HEIGHT OF 42 INCHES IN A FRONT
YARD SETBACK GENERALLY LOCATED AT 7327 EL FUERTE
STREET.
CASE NAME: KHADEM RESIDENCE
CASE NO: AV 90-13
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to wit:
Lot 73 of Carlsbad Tract No. 75-4 La Costa Estates North in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map thereof No. 8302, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County 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 21.51.060 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 5th day of June, 1991, and
the 2nd day of October, 1991, 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 90-13.
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.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
upholds the Planning.Directo?s Denial of AV 90-13, based on the following
findings:
'"\ pp I, Jfk /&-\ !)y. < & ,{; \QT[ )$& 2 d \i \
P&p
1
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
0 e
FindinRs:
1. There ARE NOT exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to a portion of the property that do not apply generally to othel
properties in the same vicinity and zone. The portion of the fence that is
approximately 7 feet high and located upon level grade at the northern section oj
the lot cannot be justified for exceeding the 3 foot 6 inch height limit. The fence
is not needed as a result of any physical constraints imposed by the propem
because the fence does not retain soil nor change the property's existing
topography.
Exceptional circumstances do exist, however, for the sloped portion of the
property. The portion of the fence currently located upon this slope is designed
with the top part of the fence stepping with the contours of the slope. In order
to allow a fence to be designed with a "stepping" type architecture in a practical
and aesthetically pleasing appearance, the extension of each step exceeding the
height limit of 3 feet 6 inches can be justified.
2. For that portion of the property containing the 7 foot high fence on level grade,
the requested variance IS NOT necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and
zone but which is denied to the property in question . Other properties do contain
walls and fences exceeding the maximum allowed height, but without permits.
Therefore, these property owners do not possess property rights for such walls and
fences.
However, the portion of the fence which steps with the slope is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. Other properties in the
same vicinity and zone have topographies similar to the subject property which are
permitted the same right to construct a "stepping" type fence provided that such
fence adheres to the same findings and circumstances granted under this variance.
3. Permitting the fence WILL NOT be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is
located because the fence does not obstruct safe sight distance for motorists exiting
south of the subject property.
I the subject property's driveway nor for motorists exiting the driveway directly
1 4. The General Plan WILL NOT be adversely affected because the property consists
~ of one single family home which does not substantially impact any elements of the
I
I
~
General Plan, nor the General Plan as a comprehensive document.
I ."..
1 I....
~
PC RES0 NO. 3256 -2-
I ~l I I
~
I
0 a e
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of September, 1991,
by the following vote, to wit:
1
2
3
4 AYES: Chairperson Holmes, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Savary, Erwin & Noble.
5
6
7
NOES: Commissioner Hall.
ABSENT: None. . .". "". 4-"~",,.
a ABSTAIN: None.
9
10
l1 ii
12
13
ATTEST;
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
3
14
l5 PLANNING DIRECTOR
MICHAEL J. &LZMJ!~ER
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RES0 NO. 3256 -3-
~
I