The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1984-09-18; City Council; 7819-2; Native Sun front setback wall appeal denialhB# 7819-#2 TITLE: DENIAL OF APPEAL AND UPHOLDING MTG. DEPT. PLANNING COM.4ISSION DECISION TO 9/18/84 CA DENY VARIANCE - V-357 NATIVE SUN RECOMMENDED ACTION: DEPT. HD. CITY ATTY.H CITY MGR.~ If the City Council wishes to deny the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission decision to deny variance V-357, your action is to adopt Resolution No. 77 46 ITEM EXPLANATION The City Council, at your meeting of August 28, 1984, directed the City Attorney to prepare documents denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission decision to deny variance V-357 for the reasons stated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2298. That document is attached. EXH I B I TS Resolution No. 77qc I '. , RESOLUTION NO . 7746 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A VARIANCE FOR A SIX FOOT HIGH WALL WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ON PROPERTY 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 a variance for certain property to wit: 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, the Planning Commission did on the 23rd day of May 1984 hold a duly noticed public hearing as proscribed by law to consider said application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on said day after said public hearing adopt Resolution No. 2298 denying the variance; and WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on August 7, 1984 the City Council of the City of Carlsbad held a duly noticed public hearing as proscribed by law to consider said appeal and at said hearing after consideration of all of the evidence, testimony, argument of those persons present and desiring to be heard the City Council directed the City Attorney to prepare documents which would grant the appeal; and a 1 a 9 10 11 12 0 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, on 'August 28, 1984 said Council after considering the proposed findings in said documents directed the City Attorney to prepare documents denying the appeal; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct . B. That the findings of the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 2298 constitute the findings of the City Council in this matter. C. That the appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of V-357 (Native Sun) is hereby denied based upon the facts set out in the Planning Department Staff Report dated May 23, 1984 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2298 attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein and the variance is therefore denied. D. This action of denial is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council. The provision of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply: "NOTICE TO APPLICANT'' The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008." PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 16th day of October , 1984 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council kkabers Lewis, Kulchin, Chick and Preswtt NOES: Council Member Casler ABSENT: None s/. L MARY H. CFLER, Mayor ATTEST: w R 6Lbz-L- ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City /Clerk 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 PLANN1N.G COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2298 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FOOT HIGH WALL WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OCEAN STREET BETWEEN MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE AND PACIFIC AVENUE. CASE NO.: V-357 WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIX APPLICANT: NATIVE SUN- wit: 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: //I/ //// //// Resolution No. 7746 5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 2c 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. That the.granting of this variance is not necessary for the 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 ?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 . Smith . ABSENT: Commissioner Rawlins. ABSTAIN: Chairman Rombotis . ATTEST : LAND USE PLANNING MANAGER PC RES0 NO. 2298 -2- STAFF REPORT APPLIC :ON SUBMITTAL DATE: MARCH A, 1984 DATE : May 23, 1984 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. ANALYSIS 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 violat ion. 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- - L OCATION MA.) BACKGROUND DATA SHEET APPLICANT: Native Sun REQUEsT AND ECATIm: Allow 6' high masonry wall within front yard setback on the north side of Ocean Avenue between Mountain View Drive and Pacific Avenue. LM;AL DESCRIPTION: All that portion of lot 2 and a portion of Lot 3 in Section 1, Tbwnship 12 South, Rang e 3 hkst, San Rernardino Base Meridian according to Official Plat Map filed in the County of San Diego. APN: 203-01-14 Acres 7.40 Proposed No. of Wts/tmits N/A Land Use Designat ion RM-H Density Allowed 10-20 du/ac Density Propused N/A Existing Zone R-3 Proposed Zone N/A Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land use Site R-3 Vacant North R-A South R-3 SFR Est R-3 west os Pacific Ocean PUBLIC FACILITIES School District Carlsbad Water Carlsbad Sewer Carlsbad EDU'S Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated N/A ENvIEMEpllENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT - Negative Declaration, issued E.I.R. Certified, dated - Other, Exempt per Section 19.04.070(F)(4)(A) 1) Gross =res (or square footage, if less than acre) 6.544 2) me R-3 3) General Plaz Land Use Designatim Residential-Medium High Density 4) BY law a Variance may be approved cnly if certam ' facts are fomd to exist. please read these reqUiremnts carefully and explain how the proposed project mets each of tkse facts. Use additiuml sbts if necessary- a) -lain why there are exceptimal or extraordinary circ-ces of ocnditicns applicable to fha pmpesty or * fhe intended use mt do not a,oply generally to tk 0- property or class'of use in the vi&ty ~ mdme: This is a development of 14 condominiums which take access zny to an a pm roadway. Thus, the geometric layout lends itselr t o being a private community within itself. b) Eql& why such Variance is necessary for the preservatkn and azjoyment of a sribstantial property right possessed by othrzr property in th3 same vicL?ity ant! me but which is denied to the proAwLqy ~II esticn: Adjacent properties to the west have 5.5' privacy wal Y s alona their front riqht-of-way lines. Other homes in tne area encroach within the required setbacks trom street K.V.W. Our variance is not even for encroachment, but tor a neiantr allowance of 30" . c) Explain why tb grantkg of such variance Will not b materially 8etrimntal to the public welfare or injurious to tb pro,cetty or irrprwenents in such Vicinity and me in which tb property is locatcd ~ The variance will in nd way naturally be-detrimental to the nub15c - The Dublic will still h ave all D enerits it naa prim * to issuance of the variance. The properties in the area wlll not be "iniured" by such variance, because it will not impact them in any way from the benefits they enjoy on their own prop- erties-' today.' d) Cmprehensive general plan: Explain why tk granthg of such Variants will nat adversely affkqt: t'm The variance is more for a landscape/sec- urity measure which would not adversely d-al ria n whlch is a dasitv. wt tvne (detached, attached units, etc.) - monitor. - Dermitted use (comer cial. recreation, residential, etc.) If aftor the infornation you -- have submitted has been revie.de, .- it is determined that further infomation required, you will be so ad\ %d- - APPLICANT: AGEXT : NATIVE SUN INVESTMENT GROUP Nane (individual, * , joint venture, cor-%ration, syndication) a110 Escondido Avenue, Suite 103, Vista, CA 92083 Business Address 941-1155 Telephona Numb8x Robert 0. Sukup Name .. same - Business Address P Telephone Numbmr .* R. Mphonev rfzme .(individual, partner, joint . Xome Pddrcts venture, ~01_po1~ti0n, syndication) same Basinass Address same Telephone Nrnber Telephone Xumbct John B. Lyttle :ime Eons =dress same 3siness Address same (Attach more sheets if necessary) . ~fite daclrr9 uzder Penalty of perjury that th inforwition contaiced in this dis- closure is trus and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be' roliccf upon zs ScLq trua and correct until antnded. n .. 1 Apslicant I 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 &ltp of darls’bab October 19, 1984 Native Sun Investment Group 110 Escondido Avenue, Suite 103 Vista, CA 92083 Enclosed for your records, please find a copy of the following Resolution 7746 ._____- , adopted by the Carlsbad City Council on October l6~ 1984 Sincerely, LEE RAUTENKRANZ. V City Clerk TELEPHONE: (714) 438-5621 LR: adm Enclosures ( ) October 9, 1984 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Mayor Casler and Council Members Reference: Variance #357 - Native Sun Development Company Dear Mayor Casler, We are requesting a vote on the above referenced variance be postponed for approximately two to three months. Our request for approval on construction of a six-foot wall within the 20 foot front yard setback is extremely important to the future residents of "The Beach" community. The requested delay will allow for house construction (framing) to be well under way. At that time, site visits by all can be made to accurately analyze view impacts and privacy needs for the development as well as its relation with the localized pedestrian thoroughfare to the beach. Your consideration on this request is extremely appreciated. Very truly yours, Robert 0. U Sukup ROS/bh cc: Councilman Claude A. Lewis, Councilwoman Ann J. Kulchin, Councilman Richard Chick, Councilman Robert B. Prescott, City Manager Aleshire NATIVE SUN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 110 Escondido Avenue. Suite 103. Vista, California 92083 (619) 941-1155