HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-08-21; City Council; 7819-1; Native Sun front setback wall denial approval-
CIT' -)F CARLSBAD - AGENDI JILL
AB# 7819-#1 I TITLE: APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMI.!ISSION
MTG. 8/21/84
DEPT. CA
DENIAL OF VARIANCE V-357
NATIVE SUN
DEPT. HD.-
CITY ATTYVA
CITY MOR.=
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If the City Council concurs with the suggested findings and
conditions of approval and wishes to grant the appeal and
approve the variance your action is to adopt Resolution s
No. 772% .
ITEM EXPLANATION
The City Council, at your meeting of August 7, 1984, indicated
your intention to grant the property owner's appeal and
approve variance V-357. We have prepared suggested findings
based on the evidence introduced at the public hearing and the
City Council should satisfy itself that they adequately
reflect your intentions in the matter.
Since the variance was before the Council as an appeal there were no recommended conditions of approval. As directed by
the Council the resolution includes a condition requiring that
the area between the wall and sidewalk be substantially
landscaped with mature plant materials. The resolution was also referred to the Land Use Planning Department and we have incorporated their additional recommended conditions of approval in the resolution.
EXHIBIT
Resolution No. 7722
I
.....
RESOLUTION NO. 7722
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GRANTING AN APPEAL AND
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT HIGH
WALL WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ON PROPERTY
GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OCEAN
certain property
Bernardino
has been filed with th
Planning Commission: and
blic hearing as proscribed by
ring as proscribed by
considerati
those persons
determined to grant the appeal.
1
2
3
4
K U
e
7
E
9
1c
11
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad as follows:
I A. That the foregoing recitations are true and
correct . \
That based on the evidence presented at the public
City Council grants the applicant's appeal and
iance V-357 as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto
and made a findings and
subject to
FINDINGS :
1.
2.
3.
4.
requiring substantial mature lled between the street and the wall.
accordance w
pursuant to
development.
conditions o
necessary rder to utilize th rty for single family
ed from the
CONDITIONS
The variance is approved subject to the as shown on
Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereo
2.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
2 Y Q 13 a5 8
P
ggz; 1 0 14
0C.P mUQ1 15 z ZK
3a
gg:s
17 ze y
aa
C 3 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
urv SkSP. 16
>t- a
V
APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
Council, held on the day of
1984 by the fo vote, to wit:
ABSENT:
AYES:
NOES :
1984 by the fo
ATTEST :
ALETHA L. RAUTEN
3.
F?ESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A"
v-357
CONDITI S: + 1.
2.
3.
4.
as shown on Exhibit "A",
eference and on file
c beach access. Said re landscaping and shall be
Planning Manager
maintained in a healthy and , and debris.
hall prepare a
shall be submit
to construction
tk E
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
v.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11
12.
13,
14
.. August 3, 1904
Po the Citj Council of Carlsbad: 3: I;ative Aun 7-357 Appeal - 1 OK Council Agenda, dug.7, 1984 icr
As one of the concerned ho:xowners in tiic 7ranville park area I respectfully submit for 2our consideration, the following arguments in opposition to t:i& requested variance permitting six-foot high solid wall within trx twenty foot reqzired set-back fron the street, cro?>osed wall to be located about tt-ree feet frcn the sidewLlk.
?here are no Extraordinary coeditions applicr_ble only tc ti,is
pr ope r ty .
There is no extension or" variances frcrn adjacent properties.
It would be detrinental to Fropert? values in this vicinity.
Traffic safety factors would ae invcived.
A securitj problea for Golice nay be created by such a wall.
fne pedestrian right of view corridor will be occluded.
A provocation of caalicioas vandalism will result.
30 other such variance esthe tically repugnant to neighboring
property owners hrs been requested or qranted. The granting
of this one could set a precedent for allowing similar variances to other prcpertg oxners seeking isolation froa the streets.
Over 400 people surveyed at the site voic6d opposition to tile construction of a six foot ivall so close to the street.
The plannin? ccmnission has already heard and denied tLe request.
Tourisrn will not be encourcged b? such a wall.
Security can be attadned by more compatible systems.
?ela,js, cnntinuances, appeals and otlxr tactics i,ave been resorted to while earti1 is noved, ditci ES dug and fences moved to gain more favcrable xgbtiabl6 pcsiticns for develope rs.
The contention that the wall is needed as securit.1 for residents of the developnent is highly debatable. The eo ntiguous stree t is patrolled b;, the police. If a threat to tPAe residents'security surfaces, it would nore likely corne from the beach frontage of the area, where police are unable to patrol in mobile units.
In conclusion, w6 hoiieoilmers are opposed to any barrier ;iri:ich obstrwts our view of the ir'adific Ocean, one of tlx inportant factors leading us to acquire proprtj xd make our hcmss in Granville Lark. Thank you for this opportunitj to present ;njr views for your consideration.
,
92908
August 7, 1984
My name is Alan Jackson and I reside at 240 Pacific Avenue,
Car1sbad;this is about two blocks from the site ofthe requested
variance. I have lived in the Granville Park neighborhood for the
past five years and have spent most of the fifteen summers before
that at my parents home, 260 Normandy Lane, which was then used as a family vacation cottage.
At the council meeting of July 17, my father, Donald E.
Jackson, detailed the Granville Park Homeowners Association's
opposition to the construction of the proposed six-foot high
masonry wall. At that meeting you were given a petition signed by over 400 users of Buena Vista Beach supporting our position.
Tonight I would just like to add a few of my own thoughts on the
subject.
The developer has stated that the purpose of the wall is to
provide security for the homeowners within its bounds. We are certainly not against security. We are only trying to preserve
our right to a view over and between the rooflines of an otherwise beautifully designed development. We would prefer not to be cordoned off by this oppressive, high solid wall.
If security is indeed the reason for a wall, we would like
to suggest that there are any number of alternative styles of fences that could provide as much or more security while being
less visually offensive than the proposed wall. An example of one such alternative is a wrought iron fence. Such a fence would
provide security, allow safer vehicle egress, permit us a view of the seascape, blend more aesthetically with the French Normandy archetectural style of the houses and would be less likely to be defaced by graffiti.
In closing I would like to say that we are not against
developing this property. Yes, we were shocked when beach sand was used to fill in a large portion of Buena Vista Lagoon. And, yes, we opposed the developer's original plan to build on the lagoon shore. But we feel a good compromise has been worked out
between the developer, the public and the California Coastal Commission. We welcome new homeowners to our neighborhood. But we hope they will be just that - neighbors - and not just strangers who use our streets and beaches only to disappear mysteriously at
the end of the day behind their "security wall" to enjoy their
exclusive view of the sun setting over the Pacific Ocean.