Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-07-17; City Council; 7819; Native Sun front setback wallCIT' -IF CARLSBAD - AGENDI-JILL ('" p ') IDEPT. HD.~ RECOMMENDED ACTION: Both the Planning Camnission and the staff are recanmending that the City Council direct the Attorney's Office to prepare documents DENYING V-357. ITEM EXPLZNATI(3N The applicant is appaling a Planning Camnission decision to deny a variance which would permit the wnstruction of a six foot masonry wall in the front yard setback. The proposed wall would be located along the frontage of a 14 unit condominium project located on Ocean Street between bbuntain View Drive and Pacific Avenue (see location map), The proposed six foot wall muld run adjacent to the front property line. The zoning ordinance prohibits fences and walls in excess of 42 inches in the front yard setback. The reason for this requirement is two-fold, so that yards remain visually attractive (eliminate the tunnel effect that walls create), and for police visibility, The applicant feels that the wall is needed for security because of the nearby beach access point. The Planning Camnission denied the request because they could not make two of the four findings required for a variance. They did not feel that the applicant was being denied a Woperty right belonging to others in the same vicinity in that no walls in excess of six feet have been legally constructed in this area with the exception of the replacement of previously existing walls that had keen damaged. The second finding the Planning Conmission muld not make was that there were unusual circumstances which did not apply to other properties in the same vicinity. For further information please see the attached report to the Planning Conmission . FISCAL IMPACT The applicant will pcovide all required public improvements to the groject. Also, the applicant has agreed to pay a public facilities fee to offset the costs of providing all other public services. The proposed project is exenpt from environmental review per Section 19.04.070(F)(4)(a) of the Carlsbad Environmental Environmental Ordinance. EXHIBITS 1. Location Map 2. PC Resolution Nb. 2298 3. PC Staff Report dated, May 23, 1984 w/attachments L.. OCATION MA.) 0 4 4' PACIFIC OCEAN k NATIVE SUN I v-357 a I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 le 19 2c 21 22 22 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2298 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT HIGH WALL WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK 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 certain property, to #it: 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, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 23rd day of May, 1984, 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 V-357. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission 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: //// //// //// //// 3 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 Findings: I) - 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. 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 2) That the granting of this variance is not necessary for the ?lanning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 23rd day of Mqy, 1984, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Schlehuber, Marcus, Farrow and NOES : None ABSENT: Commissioner Rawlins. ABSTAIN: Chairman Rombotis. Smi tho JERRY ROMBOTIS, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 4TTEST: LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER PC RES0 NO. 2298 -2- APPLIC--TON SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH I, 1984 DATE : May 23, 1984 STAFF REPORT 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. I1 . 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. The wall would run approximately along the front property line of the subject property. The applicant is proposing the wall at the requested height to keep in line with the security concept of the project. 111. ANALY S I S Planning Issues 1) Can the four mandatory findings for a variance be made this case which are as follows: 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? 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 REVIEW 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- CASE NO: V-357 APPLICANT: Native Sun REQUEST AND LEATION: Allow 6' high masonry wall within front yard setback on the north side of Ocean Avenue between Mountain View Drive and Pacific Avenue. LEGAL DESCF~IPTION: All that portion of Ijot 2 and a portion of Ijot 3 in Section 1, Tbwnship 12 South, Rang e 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 Fjraposed No. of Lotsflnits N/A GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RM-H Density Allowed 10-20 du/ac Density Proposed N/A Existing Zone R-3 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 Apartment West OS Pacific Ocean PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU'S Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated N/A - Negative Declaration, issued - E.I.R. Certified, dated Other , Exempt per Section 19.04.070(F)(4)(A) 7 VARIANCE 1) Gross Acres (Or &e footage, if less than acre) 6.544 2) me R-3 3) General Pia? Land Use Designatim Residential-Medium High Density 4) By law a Variance may be approve3 a?ly if certain facts are found to exist. Please read thse requirements carefully and explain how tk prop& project mts each of these facts. Use additi- sheets if necessary. a) -lain ww there are exceptid extraorcainary circ-ces OT cxnditicns aFplicable to tlrs property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to tb othx property or class'of use in the e vicinity and me: This is a development of 14 condominiums which take access to and through a private drive Derore a private community within itselt. roadway. Thus, the geometric layout lends itselt t o Dei nq b) Explain why such variance is necessary for the preservaticn md enjoyment of a substantial property right passessed by other property in tha same vicinity an5 zQne but w'hich is denied to the proAelqy irr estion: Adjacent properties to the west have 5.5' prlvacy wal T s alonu their front riqht-of-way lines. Other homes in tne area encroach within the required setbacks trom street K.U.W. Our variance is not even for encroachment, but tor a neiuntr allowance of 30". c) Explain why tb granthg of such variance will not h materially 2etrimgltal to the public welfare or injurious to the property or -rovewnts in such vicinity and me in which th pmAprty is locate The variance will in no way naturally be detrimental to the to issuance of the variance. The properties in the area wlll not be "iniured" by such variance, because it wmmm them in any way from the benefits they enjoy on thelr own prop- public - The public will still have all h enetits it haCI pr lor' - d) corprahensive general pl-an: Explain ~qhy tk granthg of such varianca will not a,jversely affect t*e The variance is more for a landscape/sec- which is a densitv. unit tvne (detached, attached units, etc.) - monitor. urity measure which would not adversely dile -n - Dermitted use (commercial, recreation, residential, etc.1 ., NATIVE SUN INVESTMENT CROUP APPLICRNT: Nme (individual, -r shb, joint venture, cor-=ration, syndicatioa) ell0 Escondido Avenue, Suite 103, Vista, CA 92083 BushOSS Address 941-1155 Telephonm Number AGENT: Robert 0. Sukup Name .* same .. Business Address .. camp Telephone Numbar . , .' -. . .. . FEMBERS: Mi&ael R. Mahonev .* rime *(individual, partner, joint . Home Address venture, coqozation, syndication) same Biisiness Address same Telephone Nuabet Telephone Sumber John B. Lyttle ::=e Home Mdress same 3isiness =dress same Te2.ep'nor.a Nuaber Telephone Xtxnber (Attach more sheets if necessary) IDte declzze ucder penalty of perjury that ths infomation contaized in this dis- closure is truo and correct and that it will remain true and correct and nay be' relic2 upon as being true and correct until anended. n .. ) Applicant I 4 I I' , 6-83-51 Page 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolution. I. Approval with Conditions. The Commission hereby yrants a permit for the proposed development, subject will be in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976, will not prejudice the ability of the local government having jurisdiction over the area to prepare a Local Coastal Program conforming to the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and will not have any sig- nificant adverse impacts on the environmefit within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. . to the conditions below, on the grounds that, as conditioned, the development . 11. Standard Conditions. See page 16. 111. Special Conditions. The permit is subject to the following conditions: 1. Revised Site 21an. Prior to transmi'ttal of the permit, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan, any associated floor or grading plans which eliminate any alteration of the bluff- face by re-siting the units generally behind the 30 ft. contour line on the northwesterly and westerly slopes (or as specifically shown on Exhibit Cl, relocating the proposed swimming pool and decks back of the blufftop development line and relocating the proposed private beach stairway towards Buildings D and E in the vicinity of the eroded dirt road. Said plans.shal1 be submitted to, reviewed and accepted in writing by the Executive Director. -h 2. Open Space Easement/Bluff Face. Prior io the transmittal of a permit, I/ i ii I: - the applicant shall record an irrevocable offer to dedicate to a public agency, or to a private association accegtable to the Executive Director, an open space easement over the bluff face as shown in Exhibit D. Said open space easement shall prohibit any alteration of landforms, placement or removal of vegetation, or erection of structures of any type, unless approved by the California Coastal Commission or its successor in interest. The offer shall be irrevocable for a period of.21 years, shall run in favor of the People of the State of California, binding successors and assigns of the applicant and/or landowners, and shall be recorded prior to all other liens and encumbrances except tax liens. The offer-to dedicate shall be in a form and of content acceptable to the Executivb Director and the document shall include legal descriptions of both the applicant's entire parcel and the easement area. 3. Waiver of Public Liability. Prior to transmittal of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall submit to the Executive IXirector a deed restriction for recording free of prior liens except for tax liens, that binds the applicant and any successors in interest. The form and . content of the deed restriction shall be submitted to the review and July 12, 1984 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Mary Casler Reference: Variance #357 Dear Mayor Casler, We would appreciate your consideration in approving our variance request for construction of a six-foot security wall along the frontage of our property at the north end of Ocean Street. A variance requires four mandatory find- ings be made for consideration of approval, and we feel all can be acknowledged as defined below. 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do apply to our property which do not apply to others in the same vicinity because of the public access to the beach over our property. 2. Granting of the variance is necessary for the same pre- servation and enjoyment of property rights which are possessed by other properties in the same vicinity. Others do not get the tremendous volume of foot traf- fic, congregating, etc., in front of their properties which oursdoes due to the beach access. In addition, people are actually encouraged to walk closer to our property because of the sidewalk in that area. On most of the properties on Ocean Street, there is no sidewalk, and landscaping extends to the curb, thereby forcing foot traffic into the street. The property immediately to the southwest which abuts the beach access has con- structed 5.5' walls along their front right-of-way line to provide additional privacy. (There is no sidewalk on this property.) 3. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health and welfare. NATIVE SUN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 110 Escondido Avenue, Suite 103. Vista, Califcrnia 92083 (619) 941-1155 City of Carlsbad Page Two July 12, 1984 4. The granting of this variance will not adversely affect the General Plan. A review of other residences on Ocean Street indicates a desire for the front wall privacy, In particular is the recent project at the end of Ocean Street abutting the State beach which incorporates the wall/gate security system. The architectural design of our slumpstone wall is such that it allows for large tree wells as well as extensive planting behind the walk, The landscaping, coupled with the wall popouts, curved returns etc., will create a very exciting entrance to the project. Mayor Casler, it has been Native Sun's tradition to con- tinually concern itself with the welfare of its neighbors as well as its own developments. Our 14-unit project was, from the inception, designed with the private enclave con- cept, incorporating the security gate/wall amenity and was submitted, as such, for approval. Therefore, we are not requesting a variance for any item which was not in the original plans. Your consideration of the above proposal is sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours, I Robert 0. Sukup Vice President - Engineering ROS/bh cc: Claude A. Lewis Ann J. Kulchin Richard Chick Robert B. Prescott 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the City Clerk APPEAL FORM - t TELEPHONE: (71 4) 438-5535 I (We) appeal the following decision of the Carlsbad Planning Commission to the City Council: Project name and number (or subject of appeal): V-357 - Native Sun Development Company Date of decision: May 23, 1g84 Reason for appeal: we feel all four Eindinqs,necessary for a - .YII variance can be met. The front security wall in conjunction with the security gate has always been.a part of the 14 unit proposal. Sigilature / Robert 0. Sukup Name (Please print) Add r e s s 110 Escondido Avenue, Suite 103 Vista, CA 92083 - 941-1155 ephone Number - *. I .I ,- PO 6 CITY OF CARdBAD 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 438-5551 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Mike Holzmiller Reference: Appeal of Variance Request V-357 Dear Mike, I would appreciate the above referenced appeal to be scheduled for the July 17, 1984, City Council meeting. Do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, I Robert 0. Sukup Vice President - Engineering ROS/bh cc: City Clerk Ed Ruiz NATIVE SUN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 110 Escondido Avenue, Suite 103, Vista, California 92083 (619) 941-1155 i / POINT SAN MALO Occupants List (J 7630) 1. 203-021 -01 SAME AS OWNER Occupant 2445-B Ocean Street Carl sbad, CA 92008 2. 209-021 -02 Occupant 2459-A Ocean Street Occupant 2459-B Ocean Street Occupant 2459-C Ocean Street 3. 203-021 -03 Occupant 2469-A Ocean Street Occupant 2469-B Ocean Street Occupant 2469-C Ocean Street 4. 203-022-11 Occupant 2448 Ocean Street 5. 203-022-16 Occupant 2458 Ocean Street 6. 203-022-1 5 7. 203-022-14 SAME AS OWNER Occupant 2478 Ocean Street 8. 203-022-17 9. 203-022-12 Occupant 2438 Ocean Street Occupant 2425 Garfield Street also 2435 Garfield Street Occupant 2445 Garfield Street also 2455 Garfield Street 10. 203-022-18 11. 12. 203-022-1 3 203-01 0-1 2 Occupant 2465 Garfield Street Occupant 2303 1-23 Ocean Street Occupant 2323 24-50 Ocean Street - .' POINT SAN MAW Occupants' List (J 7630, Page 2 13. 203-023-01 24. 203-023-02 15. 203-023-05 16. 203-023-04 17. 203-023-07 18. 203-023-06 19. 203-023-1 3 20. 203-023-07 21. 203-023-1 2 22. 203-023-08 Occupant 2424 Garfield Street Occupant 2390 Ocean Street Occupant 244-A Normandy Lane Occupant 244-B Normandy Lane Occupant 2380 Ocean Street Occupant 2381 Ocean Street Occupant 2382 Ocean Street VACANT WT Occupant 2340-A Ocean Street Occupant 2340-B Ocean Street Occupant 2340-C Ocean Street Occupant 2340-0 Ocean Street Occupant 260 Normandy Lane Occupant 231-A Normandy Lane Occupant 231-B Normandy Lane SAME AS OWNER Occupant 260 Pacific Avenue Occupant 2300 Ocean Street Occupant 2301 Ocean Street c &POINT' SAN MAW *A I Occupants List (J 7630) Page 2 Occupant 2302 Ocean Street 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 203-023-09 203-023-1 0 203-023-22 203-010-16 155-200-09 155-200-02 155-200-01 155-1 90-05 155-1 90-09 155-1 90-07 155-1 90-06 155-1 90-62 155-102-33 155-1 02-22 155-102-23 155-102-24 155-102-21 155-1 04-01 155-104-02 155-104-03 155-104-04 I Occupant 2425 Mountain View Drive SAME AS OWNER SAME AS OWNER SAME AS OWNER SAME AS OWNER SAME AS OWNER SAME AS OWNER SAME AS OWNER SAME AS OWNER SAME AS OWNER VACANT LOT VACANT LOT SAME AS OWNER CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF OCEANSIOE CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF OCEANSIDE CITY OF OCEANS IDE CarUbab .M AVENUE ALlFORNlA 92008 k Native Sun Investment Group 110 Escordido Aver Ste. 103 Vista, CA 92083 I I- %HIBIT NO. D WLICATION I NO. I PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 .._ , 7 Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee 2. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. 3. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. 4. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with traft5_c!sight- distance and surrounding view corridbrs. 5. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets, the Pacific Ocean. Date Name Address PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 * Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. ._-. 2 There ar'e no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. 3. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. 4. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to 5. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view the public safety by interfering wit? traf$c!sight- distance and surrounding view corridors. one of Carlsbad's greatest assets, ,the Pacific Ocean. Name Address Date PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD v-357 7/7/84. % Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. 2. 39 4. 5. Date The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with traecksight- distance and surrounding view corrid-ors . Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets, the Pacific Ocean. Name Address PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 1. 2. 39 4. 5. Date 7 Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with traf#c!sight- distance and surrounding view corrid'ors. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets,,the Pacific Ocean. Name Address .' PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 1 Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. 2. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. 3. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. 4. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with tra@c!sight- distance and surrounding view corridbrs. 5. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets, the Pacific Ocean. Date Name Address PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 v Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. 2. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. 3. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. 4. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with traf@c!sight- distance and surrounding view corridbrs. 5. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets,,the Pacific Ocean. Date Name Address I I PETITION TO TKE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 i ? Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. 2. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. 3. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. 4. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering wit? traf!$.c!sight- distance and surrounding view corridors. 5. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets,,the Pacific Ocean. I I Address FETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 > Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. 2. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. 3. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. 4. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with trascisight- distance and surrounding view corrid'ors. 5. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets,,the Pacific Ocean. Date Name Address I ! 7-q-p( I PETITION TO THE? CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: T 1. The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. 2. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. 3. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. 4. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with traf$c!sight- distance and surrounding view corridLrs. 5. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view 3 ?* ** one of ,Carlsbad's greatest assets, the PaWic Oce,an. ... '0 '%. m. PETITION TO TI.EE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: T 1. The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. 2. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. 3. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. 4. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with traf6c:sight- distance and surrounding view corridkrs. 5. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets, the Pacific Ocean. Date Name Address PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 1 Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. 2. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. 3. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. 4. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with tra@ctsight- distance and surrounding view corridbrs 5. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets, the Pacific Ocean. Date Name Address PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 Y 3 Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Date The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with traf@c!sight- distance and surrounding view corrid'ors . Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets, the Pacific Ocean. Name Address I, PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 7 1. The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. 2. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. 3. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. 4. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering witp traqcisight- distance and surrounding view corridors. 5. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets,,the Pacific Ocean. Date Name Address PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 .) Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. 2. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. 3. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. 4. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with traacisight- distance and surrounding view corridbrs . 5. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets,,the Pacific Ocean. Date Name Address --- I---. -. . . . . . . . - .. I_-- -.--- ~~ . PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84. v-357 ? Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Date The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with traacksight- distance and surrounding view corridk-s. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets, the Pacific Ocean. Name Address PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 T Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. 2. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. 3. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. 4. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with tra@c!sight- distance and surrounding view corrid5rs. 5. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets,,the Pacific Ocean. Date Name Address . PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 1 Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. 2. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. 3. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. 4. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with tra#c!sight- distance and surrounding view corridbrs. 5. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets, the Pacific Ocean. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Date PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 * Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with traac!sight- distance and surrounding view corrid‘ors . Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad’s greatest assets, the Pacific Ocean. Name Address I1 PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD v-357 7/7/84 t Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5- Date The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. There aEe no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with traHc!sight- distance and surrounding view corrid\ors. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets, the Pacific Ocean. Name Address .I PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84. v-357 t Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. The request already has been denied by the City 2. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining 3. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy Planning Committee exclusively to this property. such a variance. 4. A six foot high-solid wall would be detrimental to 5. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view the public safety by interfering with traf@c!sight- distance and surrounding view corridbs one of Carlsbad's greatest assets,,the Pacific Ocean. PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5a Date The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. A six foot high colid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with traf&c sight- distance and surrounding view corridors. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets, the Pacific Ocean. . Name Address PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD v-357 7/7/84 Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5- Date The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with traf&c sight- distance and surrounding view corridors. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad’s greatest assets, the Pacific Ocean. Name Address e---.-- .- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Date PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD 7/7/84 v-357 Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with traMc sight- distance and surrounding view corridors. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets, the Pacific Ocean. Name Address PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD v-357 7/7/84 Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee 2. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. 3. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. 4. A six foot high solid wall would b: detrimental to the public safety by interfering with traf7ftc sight- distance and surrounding view corridors. 5. Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets, the Pacific Ocean. Date Name Address ,.,I ' ' PETITION TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD v-357 7/7/84 Wethe undersigned are opposed to the construction of a six foot high solid wall along the north side of Ocean Street by Native Sun Corporation for the following reasons: 1. The request already has been denied by the City Planning Committee. 2. There are no extraordinary circumstances pertaining exclusively to this property. 3. Other property in near proximity does not now enjoy such a variance. 4. A six foot high solid wall would be detrimental to the public safety by interfering with trafic sight- distance and surrounding view corridors. 5* Such a wall denies the public of its right to view one of Carlsbad's greatest assets, the Pacific Ocean. Date Name , Address NOTICE OF PUBLIC BE34RING APPELLANT: Native Sun PUBLISH : July 7, 1984 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL APPEAL v-357 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO P.M., on Tuesday, July 17, 1984, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission denial of a variance from the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a six foot high wall within the front yard setback on property generally located on the north side of Ocean Avenue between Kountain View Drive and Pacific Avenue and more particularly described as: All that portion of Lot 2 and Fortion 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. ~ LOCATION MAP NATIVE SUN v-357 I . . . . __.-_ GRANVILLE PARK PROPERTY OWNERS ASS OC . ( A Non Profit Organization ) 24.45 Mountain View Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 City Council City Hall 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Case File V-357 (Appeal of Native Sun) Dear Council Members : For expediency, I refer you to our prpsious letter to the Planning Commission opposing the proposed variance of a six foot high wall on the north side of Ocean Street. The reasons stated were essentially the same as the staff report which recommended denial of the permit. The Planning Commission concurred. We are not opposed to Native Sun seeking security. We A wrought are opposed to a six foot high solid block wall. iron fence topped with pointers is, in our opinion, much more secure, enhances the Normandy style architecture of the project, and does not block the sight-distance. S incerely , President