HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-08-23; City Council; 9613; Approval of Planning Commission Denial of an Administrative Variance for a Six-foot Fence within a Frontyard Setback AV 88-02 BermanI
Z
O
f-
a
J_
V
Z
Z
O
0
CP_;-' OF CARLSBAD - AGENCYBILL
AB# L 1-Y I=APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL
MTO. 8/2_ 3_ !_ $8 OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE FOR A
DEPT. PLN A SIX-FOOT FENCE WITHIN A FRONTYARD
SETBACK-- AV 88-2 BERMAN
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Both the Planning Commission and
City Council uphold the Planning
ITEM EXPLANATION
0/_�
DEPT.
CITY AT1
CITY Ma
staff are recommending that the
Director's DENIAL of AV 88-2.
The applicant is appealing a Planning Commission denial of a
variance for a six-foot fence in the frontyard setback at 4375
Stanford Street in the R-1-7500 Zone. The house is oriented with
its front entrance facing the sideyard rather than Stanford
Street. The applicant informed staff that when he bought the
house the developer informed him that he would be able' to
construct a six-foot fence along his front
line on
Stanford Street. The applicant also stated thate he received
confirmation of this information from City staff members.
However, before he started construction of the fence, he was
informed by staff that it would require
Variance. The applicant then proceeded to build the mfence prior
to receiving approval or denial of an Administrative Variance.
The Planning Director could not make the four findings required
to grant an Administrative Variance and denied this request.
There were no exceptional circumstances that applied to this
property since his backyard was comparable in size to his
neighbor's backyards. The six-foot fence would
him a
greater amount of privacy than that possessed by hiss neighbors
and would create an undesirable visual impact on the
neighborhood.
At the July 20, 1988 Planning Commission meeting the applicant
and a number of neighbors spoke in favor of
ranting the
requested variance. The Commission understood the applicant's
concern for privacy and the fact that he was originall
with incorrect information, Y provided
this thecompromise of moving the fence back five feet rather thane the
required twenty feet from the front property line. The applicant
stated that he could not accept this compromise due to the cost
of relocating the fence. The Commission Denied the appeal of AV
88-2 unanimously.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the
categorically exempt under Section 15303 c Project is
`
Conversion of Small Structures) of the Califo nia Or
Quality Act.
. ,
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. (111..3
FISCAL IMPACT
None if the Council grants the appeal. If the Council denies the
appeal the applicant will have to bear the
fence. cost of relocating the
EXHIBITS
1) Location Map.
2) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2760.
3) Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 20, 1988.
4) Excerpts from Planning Commission Minutes dated July 20,
1988.
5) Appeal from applicant.
a
GENERAL PLAN
RIIIDINt1AL
RL LUST'DENSITV (0-1 it
RLM UMMEDILMD[MITY10-4)
R.M MIDII:M OLNSITY(1.111
R.MII MEDItMIMMDINSITYlh15)
RH H16IIUINAITY115•131)
COMMIRCIAL
OR! I,V TtNSIS E REt.IONAL RlLSIt l t& ►lu. C.mmo RtY l
RR[ IRTENSISI REGIONAL RETAIL (to Cat Caletrt(:uHRxl)
M MIGIONALAMIC1
t, 1 UMMI \In CU.MMIFA M
V \/Ib11RURI1lM)OCUNMFRtW
it rLIMLqRSIt'ESCOMMIIK:UL
U ►R0FI,%NII\ALRELATED
CIID tFNTkltRLSI\LSSDISTTUCT
PI ►LAN\ID INOI STRM
G GU%EIL\MSNT[ACILITIES
t Pt MIC L TILITIIS
PA: RVIIESTIIIN 10MMIRCUL
SCHOOLS
t ELEMEV rARY
t HIGH
.M)OI,
.trE
uS NgACE
\Rik NU -RISIDINTULRI%IRSE
ZONING
RIIIOINTIAt
FC n.ANNIO COMMLNITY ZONE
R-A USIDINTULMIRI(At1tRALZUNI
R I RL LLL RVIDINTLLL ESATE ZUNt
R 1 WUFMIM RLSIDINTLU ZONE
R E 1110 F46MID RESIDINTIAL ZUNI
R.} Mt MPu FAMILY RMIDUNTM ZONE
RA LLMITEDNIm-tro tYRL31DIMIALAM
104 RMIDL\'TTALOL\4TYMLLT1HtZONE
RD H RISIDE\T111. DINSITY111O11 Z(I,\F
IMII► RL+IDINIIM Mt/RIIt 110MF►ARK 71)AF
R► MIDINTtLI ►RtHF.SumiAt htNE
RT RIbIOL\TLLL Ttx var ZUVE
Rt ULSIDINTLLLLLLTEAVAYZO\E
COMMIRCIAL
0 MICE ZUN'E
CI NEII'.HROK"OODCOMMIAtLLLZONE
C E ULVLRAL COMM[R( LIU?U\I
C T COMMMIAL TUL IMT ZONt
C M HL%$YCUMMIRCL%L UNITED INUI STRM Z0%I
M WMITIIIAL ZONE
► M ►L ANK0 tMX MAL ZONE
Of"IR
f ► n000►LALV MWAY ZONE
L C LLMITEO CONTROL
OS O►EN SPACE
►L' Kluc LTTUTYZONE
City of Carlsbad
F • •
1�
2
3
4
5
6
71
8
9.
10
11
12
13I
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"-".k
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2760
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIX FOOT HIGH
FENCE IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK LOCATED
AT 4375 STANFORD STREET.
APPLICANT: SHEL AND KAREN BERMAN
CASE NO.: AV 88-2
WHEREAS, a verified application for certain property, to
wit:
Lot 189 of Carlsbad Tract No. 84-35, Unit 2
according to Map No. 11672 on file with the
County Recorder, 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 20th day of
Jul;, 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 88-2.
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 DENIES AV 88-2, based on the following
findings:
24
2r. V
26
27
Findings•
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
because no other properties have had a fence higher than
six feet in the front yard setback.
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
questions because the six foot fence would afford the
applicant a greater area of privacy than neighboring
residences enjoy.
3. The granting of this variance could be materially
detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in
which the property is located because it could set an
unwarranted precedent for allowing others to also
construct a six foot high fence in the front yard
setback.
I RESO NO. 2760
-2-
S
1
E
r
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
J
the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California,
held on the 20th day of July, 19881 by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: Chairperson McFadden, Commissioners: Schlehuber,
i Holmes, Hall, Erwin E Schramm.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioner Marcus.
IABSTAIN: None.
JtANNE B. MCFADDEN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J.-.
ZMX �ER
PLANNING DIRECTOR
RESO NO. 2760
-3-
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE:
MAY 3 1988
STAFF REPO,
DATE: JULY 20, 1988
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: AV 88-2 BERMAN - Appeal of Planning Director's denial
to allow a six foot high fence within the required
front yard setback on property located at 4375 Stanford
Street in the R-1-7500 Zone, in Local Facilities
Management Zone 2.
I • R�COMIiiENDATION
That the Planning Commission UPHOLD the decision of the Planning
Director and ADOPT Resolution No. 2760 PJffYING AV 88-2 based on
the findings contained therein.
II• PROZECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is appealing the Planning Director's denial of a
request for an Administrative Variance to allow a six foot high
fence within the required front yard setback on property located
at 4375 Stanford Street.
The house is oriented with its front fAcing the northern property
line. (See Exhibit "A".) The actual I.:quired front yard setback
runs along the eastern property line adjacent to Stanford Street.
The applicant informed staff that when he bought the house the
developer informed him that the front yard setback ran along the
northern property line and that he would be permitted to put up a
fence along Stanford Street. When the applicant came to the
Planning Department, staff informed him that his proposed fence
exceeded the 42 inch height limit in the required front yard
setback along Stanford Street and would require an Administrative
Variance. The applicant then proceeded to build the fence prior
to receiving approval or denial of the Administrative Variance.
The required findings could not be made and the variance request
was denied. The applicant is now appealing the Planning
Director's denial of the Administrative Variance.
7
AV 88-2
PAGE 2
III. ANALYSIS
Plannina Issues
1. Can the four mandatory findings for a variance be made in
this case? They are as follows:
A) Are there exceptional or extra ordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same vicinity and
zone?
B) 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?
C) Will the granting of this variance be detrimental to
the public welfare?
D) Will the granting of this variance adversely impact the
General Plan?
Discussion
Staff cannot make the four mandatory findings required to grant a
variance. There are no exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the
intended use that do not apply generally to other properties in
the same vicinity and zone. Although the house is oriented with
its side facing the street, the lot has a larger back yard than
most of the neighboring lots whose homes face directly onto
Stanford Street. There have been no other applications for a
variance for a six foot fence in the front yard setback in the
vicinity.
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. The six foot fence would afford the
applicant a greater area of privacy than neighboring residences
enjoy.
The granting of this variance could 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. The
six foot fence was constructed on top of two feet of additional
fill which creates a significant negative visual impact on the
adjacent lots. The surrounding neighborhood consists of single
family dwellings maintaining a 20 foot front yard setback.
Allowing this fence would set an undesirable precedent in the
• AV 88-2
PAGE 3
would set an undesirable precedent in the neighborhood.
The fence also prohibits Utilities and Maintenance clear access
± to the sewer clean -out on the property. According to the
b Utilities and Maintenance Department, sewer clean -outs should not
be allowed to be .fenced in. They must be able to access them for
emergency repairs.
The General Plan for this area will not be adversely affected
because the density will not be increased.
In conclusion, staff cannot make the four required findings
necessary to grant a variance and recommends that the Commission
deny the applicant's appeal of the Planning Director's denial of
this Administrative Variance.
IV. ENVIRONNEWAL REVIEW
The Planning Director has determined that the project is
categorically exempt under Section 15303 (e) (New construction or
conversion of small structures) of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Attachments
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2760
2. Location Map
3. Background Data Sheet
4. Disclosure Statement
S. Justification for Variance
6. Applicant's Letter in Opposition
7. Letters in Support
8. Exhibit "A", dated May 2, 1988
WJD:dm
6/9/88
BACKGROUND DATA SiiEET
CASE NO: AV 88-2
APPLICANT: Shel & Karen Berman
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Appeal of Planning Director'
Administrative Variance to allow a 6' high fence it
yard setback.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 189 of Carlsbad Tract 84-35 Unit 2 according to
Maa 11672 on file with the County Recorder of San Diego
APN• 167-563 14
Acres .4 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 1
•
Land Use Designation R-1
Density Allowed 0-3.2 du/gc Density Proposed R-1
Existing Zone _ R-1
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning
Site R-1
North R-1
South R-1
East R-1
Proposed Zone R-1
Land Use
SFD
SFD
SFD
SFD
West R-1 SFD
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water *Costa Real Sewer Carlsbad EDU's
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated N/A
(*The City of Carlsbad will provide water service to all projects in
Carlsbad except those located in the Olivenha:.n and San Marcos Sewer
Districts.)
Other, Exempt under Section 15303(e), New Construction or Conversion
of small structures
DISCLOSURE FORM
• APPLICANT: 5/iEL "l;t/.) �qc'Erd fait=%Lt�.9n/
Namt tindividual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndics
¢37� 5Ti1Ni Dti°� 5T C'�iec 53r4i�
Business Address
REs:o�vn.�c,
Telephone Number
AGENT:
Name —'
Business Address
Telephone Number
MEMBERS:
Name (individual, partner, joint Home Address
venture, corporation, syndication)
Business Address
Telephone Number
Name
Business Address
Telephone Number
Home Address
Telephone Number Telephone Number
(Attach more sheets if necessary)
I /We understand that if this project is located in the Coastal tone, I /we will 'apply
for Coastal Commission Approval prior to development.
I /We acknowledge that in the process of reviewing this application, it may be
necessary for members of City Staff, Planning Commissioners, Design Review Board
members, or City Council members to Inspect and enter the property that is the
subject of this application. I /We consent to entry for this purpose.
I /We declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this disclosure
is true and correct and that it will remain true and correct and may be relied upon
as being true and correct until amended.
t
T
BY
Agent, Owner, Partner
JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE
By law a Variance may be approved only if certain facts are found to exist.
Please rind these requirements carefully and explain how the proposed project
meets each of these facts. Use additional sheets if necessary.
1) Explain why there are 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:
s of our lot unigue unto itself in the development, the
has bon msitioned-240-11el to the street or similiar to the corner lot
QQnfiGnTranon Clni;k a>> of r hgmes on Stanford St. the side of the house and
ched site plan).
2) • Explain why such variance is 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:
In comiXing with the fencing set back re ation, we would be subject to loss
use 2f almost 2 000 SF of our property, due to its unique position in relation
to the street. While all othex horres on Stanford St. are free from the same
restrictions to their side and back yard uses, we are subject to loss of intended
use for a large section of our lot With a future pool to install the loss of
property would greatly effect and limit any use of our backyard ability to fence
r at 61_ for public safety concerns
3: Explain why the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zone in which the property is located:
e�tween the start of the fence off the northeast side of the house and the
northeast corner of our gEMrty, there is 451, almost the width of most lots
The street and sidewalk is visible so that cars and pedestrians can be viewed
clearly before exiting the driveway. It is also an aesthetically pleasing looking
fence and should enhance the look of the house and street area
k) Explain why the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the
comprehensive plan:
The vr;ance we are requesting is for one urpose only. All we are requesting
,e fnr the terra use of our property as is afforded to all other home owners on
Stanford sr__ rag have put forth much effort and expense in the selection of
�.CSh�*� ;??�pleasina corMonents and methods of installation to maintain the
-f oenvizrormert
APRIL 5, 1987
ti+
REGARDING: CASE FILE AY88-2
LOT 189 OF CAPLSBAO TRACT NIO. 84- 35, UNIT 2
ACCORDING TO 11AP 116712 ON FILE WITH COUNTY RECORDER
4375 STANFORD STREET
CARLSBAD. CALIF.
ALTHOUGH WE UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN OF THE OWNER THAT THE DEYELOPER'S POSITIONING
OF THE HOME IS DIFFERENT THAN OTHER HOMES ON THE STREET, THE BUILDING OF A FENCE
ALONG THE STREET ABOVE THE SIDEWALK CREATES AN UNATTRACTIVE VISUAL EFFECT IN A
NEW NEIGHBORHOOD OF HOMES VALUED AT A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS AND UP.
IN THIS CASE. THE FENCE, WHICH HAS BEEN BUILT,13 NOT ONLY LONG, BUT ITS HEIGHT IS
EXTENDED BECAUSE THE FENCE SITS ON TOP OF A RETAINING WALL ON TOp OF A SHORT BANK
BOTH CREATED BY THE OWNER. THE EFFECT IS A BARRIER WHICH APPEAki TO BE
APPPO"IMATELY 8 TO 9 FEET TALL. THE FENCE WAS BUILT, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING , TO
ALLOW THE OWNER TO KEEP FOUR LARGE DOGS.
SEVERAL FACTORS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. THE CITY'S BUILDING RESTRICTIONS ARE MEANT
TO MAINTAIN THE AESTHETIC QUALITY OF NEIGHBORHOODS. FIRST, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS
NEW. THE OWNER BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND THE EXISTING LEGAL RESTRICTIONS WERE OR
SHOULD HAYE BEEN KNOWN. SECOND. THE PROPERTY WOULD STILL HAVE A LARGE BACK YARD
IN EXCESS OF THE SIZE AVAILABLE FOR MOST HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF THE FENCE
WERE RESITUATED WITHIN THE LEGAL SET -BACK. THIRD. THE CITY'S RESTRICTIONS KEEP
PETS CONTAINED IN AREAS GENERALLY AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL STREETS AND PEDESTRIAN
WALKS THE PROXIMITY OF THE FENCE TO THE WALKWAY DEFEATS THIS BENEFIT. LASTLY,
THE FENCE BY THE FACT THE OWNER BUILT A RETAINING WALL AND SET THE FENCE ATOP IT
CREATES A BAPPIER WHICH IN FACT IS VISUALLY IN EXCESS OF SIX FEET AND WHICH APPEARS
TO RUN IN EXCESS OF 100 FEET IN LENGTH, GIVING THE 111PRESSION OF AN ALLEY.
ALTHOUGH IT WOULD APPEAR REASONABLE THAT THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE COULD
AND SHOULD FALL WITHIN THE CITY SET- BACK, WE WOULD NOT BE ADVERSE TO AN
ENCROACHMENT OF THE SET -BACK NOT TO EXCEED FIVE FEET OFF OF THE CURRENT
RESTRICTION. THIS WOULD GIVE ACCESS TO THE OWNER'S FENCED YARD FROM EITHER SIDE OF
THE HOUSE, BUT WOULD RETAIN A REASONABLE DISTANCE (15 FEET) BETWEEN THE STREET
AND THE FENCE WHILE PROYIDINO A DEGREE OF MAINTENANCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
AESTHETICS.
KCIAM
ic1r-lP. 6UNMEYER
4382 STANFORD STREET
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
rtccC lc,c sccrJcL
, NE A. DUNMEYER J
Regarding case #AV88-2
4375 Stanford St.
Carlsbad, Ca.
City Planning Commission;
Since I will be unable to attend the hearing scheduled
for July 20th, Iam Writing this letter to inform your
committee that I am a neighbor of the Bermans, residing
at 4359 Stanford St. and that I am in favor of the
fence the Bermans have constructed on the side of thier
house and have recently landscaped. IfOel it is a definate
asset to our neighborhood.
In my opinion if the City of Carlsbad were to require
them to
move the fence at the aide of their house, the
Bermans would lose a substantial area of their usable
backyard. I feel this Would be very unfair siggethey
paid a higher premium to Foote Developement for their
unique lot.
Again I would like to say that I am in favor of their fence
and hope you will grant the variance they requested.
S erely,
Les Thomas
e
a AMES A- RAND I N
4358 Stanford Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
(619) 434-8907
July 8, 1988
Re: Case File AVBB-2
I,ot 189 of Carlsbad Tract No. 84-3S, Unit 2
According to Map 11572 on File with County Recorder
437S Stanford Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
As homeowners across the street from the above referenced
property, we have no objections to the fence that has been
constructed around this property.
The fence is handsomely constructed and maintained with utmost
care. Marc than adequate landscaping has been completed on the
street side of the fence.
The fence is an asset to our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
f
Jim A. Rankin
i 64414,L
Jayne Rankin
4
J
JUIV 11, 1088
i
Planninq C ornmission
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 9200?-4859
Re; Case No. AV 88-2 Applicant: Shel " Toren Perrrron
Genial of Variance to Allaw Six Foot Nigh Fence at 4375 Stanford St.
Tilis 10ter is being written in support of the appeal filed by Berman's to request that
you permit the six foot high fence located on their property at 4375 Stanford St.
Our house is located at 4363 Stanford St., therefore we are ovrare of the unusual
placement of their house on the lot and (:an appreciate the fact the the sic Foot
Fence is necessary for their bacl yard privacy. There are conditions appli-:able to
this property that does not apply to other houses in the area, We also feel that the
fens: constructed as is, with the attrnctive landscaping bordering it is much more
pJeasing aesthetically than looking directly into their I)ack yard
After carefully considering all that is entailed in this matter, it is our opinflon
that tire granting of this variance would not in any way adversely impact the General
Flan or be a detriment to the public welfare.
We respectful ly request that you grant a variance to the Berman's as they have
requested.
Sincerely yours,
James A. Shope
4363 Stanford St.
Carlsbad, CA '12008
City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad CA 92008
To whom it may concern:
July 11, 1988
This letter is a response to a notice of public hearing for Case
File AV 88-2 concerning applicants Shel and Karen Berman and
published July 8, 1988.
We would like this letter to be considered officially our express
opinion concerning the appeal of the denial to allow a six foot
high fence within the setback on the property at 4375 Stanford
Street in Carlsbad, which is officially described as Lot 189 of
Carlsbad Tract 84-35 Unit 2 according to Map 11672 on file with the
County Recorder of San Diego.
Since we own property at and reside in 4374 Stanford Street which
is just across the street from the disputed property, we feel that
we are due our opinion on the fence concerned.
We would like to point out that upon receiving the original notice
that the applicants were asking to build the fence, we did not
respond since at the time the fence was under construction and we
did not see any problems with it.
Since then the fence has been completed. It was painted a color
complimentary to the property and surrounding neighborhood. It
also has been extensively landscaped on the street side. As such,
we feel that it is an enhancement to the neighborhood and to our
view. Since the house on the property in question faces sideways
and not towards the street, the fence in our opinion provides a
natural delineation of their property.
As such, we would like to cast our vote to the City Council to
allow the fence to remain as is.
Sincere
(P Ail,- ) ). 444
e.4 , 4P
William J. Schools
Terri Schools
4374 Stanford Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
F
LD
Street
92008
Carlsbad Planning Commission
e: AV 88-2
Applicant: Shel & Karen Berman !
f
f
1
Carlsbad, July 11, 1988
In reference to the above case concerning a six foot high
fence on the property particularly described as:
Lot 189 of Carlsbad Tract 84-35 Unit 2 according
to Map 11672 on file with County Recorder of San
Diego
We are neighbors of the Berman's,residing at 4362 Stanford, and wish to inform you that we do not find the said fence obstructive or detrimental to the overall aesthetic quality
of the neighborhood.
The fence in question is soundly built, blends in with the
adjacent property and the owners have begun landscaping the
surrounding area. In all, we feel that it complies with the
heterogeneous, yet tasteful, nature of our neighborhood.
Miqu 1 Rchwald
Sandra L. Buchwald
July 12, 1988
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
Dear Sir or Madams
Res Case File: AV 88-2; Applicant: Shel and Karen Berman
Lot 189 of Carlsbad Tract 84-35 Unit 2 According to Map
11672 on file with County Recorder of San Diego
We the undersigned, residing at 4354 Tuolumne Place at the Summit in
Carlsbad, wish to respond to your notice of a public hearing regarding
yout denial to allow a six foot high fence on the property as re-
ferenced above. We are unable to attend the hearing on July 20th, but
wish to have our thoughts on the matter placed on record. We find the
fence in question to be attractive and feel it blends in well with the
surrounding area. It, also, greatly enhances the neighborhood. It
seems to us that due to the way the house is situated on said property,
the front yard IS NOT fenced, but rather the side and back; therefore,
in our opinion, the required front yard set -back rule should not per-
tain to this property.
We strongly urge you to allow the Bermans to leave the fence as is.
Very sincerely yours,
C.P. Wiltjer
1
Uf1 `, t,htt t C
W
E
George W. Smith
Jeraldine K. Smith
4378 Stanford Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
:fie: Case File: AV 88-2
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4559
Dear Members of the Commissions
We, George W. and Jeraldine K. Smith residing at 4378 Stanford
Street, Carlsbad, CA, live directly across the street from the
Bermans and, therefore I the most immediately affected of any of
the neighbors by the contested Berman fence.
Because of the way the Berman home faces, we consider the fence
to be a side fence and not a front fence. It is very well
constructed and maintained and aesthetically pleasing in appear-
ance. We have no objection to the fence and support the Berman,'s
request that they be granted a variance to allow the fence to
remain as presently located and constructed.
S' cerelYt4e
G eor�. tmith
.Jeraldine K. Smithy
-�: �
i
I
William J. & Terri M. Schools
4374 Stanford St.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Appeal concerning Berman property located at
4375 Stanford St.
August 15, 1988
Dear Carlsbad City Council Members:
We live directly across the street from the Berman property.
Therefore,'we are extremely concerned about the outcome of
the present appeal. We strongly urge the City Council to
reverse the Planning Director's denial to allow the Berman
fence to remain as constructed.
The fence and landscaping the Bermans have constructed is
tasteful and is an asset to the neighborhood. The Planning
Director's denial would cause a detriment to the
neighborhood in that the area behind the property's house
would be open to everyone. Clearly, such a large open space
could easily be an eye sore.
We have been residents of Carlsbad for over five years.
This house is the second home we have owned in this city.
One of the reasons we chose to stay in the city of Carlsbad,
rather than buy in one of the surrounding cities such as
Vista or Oceanside, is that we feel the city government of
Carlsbad is very conscientious. However after attending
last month's public hearing regarding this property, we do
have some complaints that we feel compelled to bring to your
attention.
Perhaps the most appalling aspect of the prior hearing was
the nonchalant atti'�ude the Planning Commission members
showed about major misrepresentations the Bermans received
from employees at the City Planning Department. There is a
real sense of unfairness from the prior denial of this
fence. At the public hearing the Planning Commision was made
aware of the fact that two separate city planning employees
told the Bermans that it would be no problem to build the
existing fence as that part of the property was clearly
their side yard. The Carlsbad Planning Department
representatives distinctly conceded that this information
was in fact re] `-ed to the Bermans . In fit this
information rei..rorced the information rel,-1ed by the sales
staff of the property as well as by Foote development.
Even though the City,Planning Commision was well aware of
all the above misrepresentations, the Bermans were still
forced to remove their fence built on reliance of these
misrepresentations or to appeal. The City Attorney remarked
that the doctrine of collateral estoppel would not now
prevent the city from changing its position and now calling
the fenced in portion a front yard. The Carlsbad City
Attorney stated that collateral estoppel requires the
following: intentional misrepresentation causing
detrimental reliance. The attorney further stated that
since the city employees did not intend for the Bermans to
rely on thier misinformation the city is now free to take a
new position and call the area "front yard".
It seems nonsensical for anyone to believe that a city
planning employee who gives false information, even if it is
merely a mistake, could expect that city residents would not
rely on such information. In fact, if a resident cannot
rely on information given by two separate city planning
employees regarding where a fence can or cannot be built,
then who can be relied on? In the present situation the
Bermans were told at every step that the existing fence
would be no problem. Now the Carlsbad City planning
Commission has attempted to dismiss this fact about
misinformation saying the city could not have expected the
Bermans to rely on the information. This flies in the face
of the fairness and justice that residents should be able to
expect from city government employees.
If Carlsbad City Council members demand fairness from city
employees, as they clearly must, then this appeal must be
granted. The only fair result in this case is to allow the
fence to stand. Further, the fence benefits the
neighborhood.
When making your decision on this appeal, please consider
this letter, along with our previously submitted letter. If
any member would like to discuss this letter or our views
please feel free to call either of us at the following
numbers 434-5680 (home); William J. Schools: (714) 773-8083
(work-- Beckman Instruments); Terri M. Schools: (619)
940-4301 (work-- San Diego County District Attorney's
Office, Vista branch).
Sincerely,
Gv
William J. Sc ools
2
g. ,-�
errs M Schools
�A
CHARLES D NACHAND III
JEFFREY A AGNEW
JOSEPH J VALENTI
NACHAND & AGNEW
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
August 18, 1988
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Claude A. Lewis, Mayor
Ann J. Kulchin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Eric Larson
John J. Mamaux
Mark V. Pettine
Re: 2AV88-2 Berman/Variance for Fence
Dear Council Members:
447 S ESCONDIDO BOULEVARD
CSCONDIDO. CALIFORNIA 92025
(619) 741.2665
This office has been retained to assist Mr. and Mrs.
Berman with regard to their application for an administrative
variance concerning their existing fence along the side of their
lot. At the present time, I have forwarded explanatory
correspondence to Mr. William Dunmeyer and requested that he
reconsider his position and withdraw his objections to the fence
and its location. Since it is unlikely that I will have a
response until immediately prior to the hearing, I have provided
this correspondence to each of you so that you may have any
questions directed to the Planning Staff or Commission answered
prior to the hearing.
I point out that the concept involved here is two -fold.
While the Staff Report indicates that the project and problem
concerns an administrative variance for a fence within the front
yard setback, there is also the question of whether or not we are
in fact dealing with the "front yard".
The house in question is located in a development built
by Foot Development Company. In the purchase of the house in
question, Mr. Berman had a number of discussions with both the
sales and administrative people from Foot Development concerning
whether or not the long portion of the property facing Stanford
Street was the front yard or the side yard. The house, pursuant
to approval of the City of Carlsbad, was located facing north
with the side of the house along Stanford Street. In addition to
approving this design on the property for the house, the City of
Carlsbad also approved the grading plan and drainage plan, which
all had the slope towards the "front" of the property, which went
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
August 18, 1988
Page 2
to the "front" yard, which is the approximate 45 foot distance
between the front of the house and the northern edge of the
property, NOT the length of the yard covered by the fence.
Mr. Berman contacted the City of Carlsbad
representatives in the Planning Department, as well, prior to his
purchase. They assured him that his front yard was that portion
on the northern side of his house and that a fence could be
constructed along the Stanford Street side of his property. I
point out that Mr. Berman is involved in construction and was in
the the City offices on another matter when he verified this
information.
In the following correspondence, I have attempted to
address the issues raised by your planning staff, as well as the
issues raised in the correspondence of Mr. William Dunmeyer. I
have identified each item and I have attempted not to repeat
myself, although a large number of issues are covered by multiple
factual bases.
In brief form, the Bermans purchased their home in
reliance upon the representations of both the developer and the
City of Carlsbad that the front of their house faced north and
was not that long portion of the lot that faced Stanford Street.
The developer specifically made the representation through sales
people and administrative personnel and the City of Carlsbad wade
that representation through at least two people on the planning
staff, directly to Mr. Berman. After purchasing the home and
after purchasing the materials for the fence and beginning the
footings and foundation for the retaining wall, another member of
the City's administrative staff indicated that there was some
question as to where the "front yard" was located. However,
since the home had been purchased, the materials for the fence
purchased and the foundations and footing already undertaken,
there was no choice but to complete the fence at that time. It
is important to note that that individual also stated that he did
not see that there would be any problem with the construction of
the fence and the obtaining of an administrative variance.
Although this is still a new development and a new
neighborhood, the Bermans have been in contact with 15 of their
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
August 18, 1988
Page 3
17 closest neighbors. One of the neighbors spends their time in
Los Angeles and has not been contacted by the Bermans. Of the
others, all but Mr. Dunmeyer have supported the Bermans and their
fence. We have enclosed copies of nine letters received from
i neighbors, all affirmatively stating that the fence is
beneficial, well done, aesthetically enhances the neighborhood,
etc.
As you are well aware, to get nine of your neighbors to
take an affirmative stance in favor of an issue like a fence,
which is in dispute between two neighbors, is virtually
impossible. The Bermans have done so because of the fact that
the fence is, in fact, extremely well constructed, beautifully
designed, beautifully landscaped, and is an attractive addition
to the neighborhood.
It is also worthy of note that Mr. Dunmeyer's
correspondence was written before the fence was completed and
before the area was landscaped.
1. CITY APPROVAL. The City of Carlsbad has already
approved this fence by virtue of their approval of the lot, lot
design, etc. The developer sought to have this house turned
sideways, so that the side of the house was along the street.
The City approved that. T'.iey approved the plot plan and the
grading plan for the lot, which showed it raised above the level
of the sidewalk by several feet (between three and five feet) and
which further showed a drainage and landscape plan, which flowed
to the front of the house on the north. The area to the north of
the house was designated the front yard. In addition to the
foregoing, two City representatives, prior to the purchase of the
home by the Bermans, represented that the yard was, in fact, in
front of the house to the north and not along Stanford Street.
2. DEVELOPER APPROVAL. The developer sought the
approval of the City of Carlsbad prior to orienting the house to
the north. The developer felt that the Stanford Street side was
the side yard and prepared all of its plans and permits for
approval by the City of Carlsbad with that in mind. All of those
permits and plans were approved and the area designated the front
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
August 18, 1988
Page 4
yard is the 45 feet to the north of the Berman home, not that
space along Stanford Street. The developer represented to the
Bermans, prior to the purchase of their home, that the area now
fenced was their side yard and they would be able to place a
fence at its present location.
3. P _A_NNING, TEST ( Four sub-%,ategor ies) .
A. Are there any exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions? The planning staff simply said "no"
and did not identify any conditions, good or bad, different or
unusual. This was early error. This is the only house in the
area which is oriented with the side of the home, rather than the
front, facing the street. It is the only lot in the area with
anything like this amount of distance on a street. It is the
only lot and house that is next to a corner on which there are
two vacant lots which cannot he built (this home is located right
on the corner of Tiberon and Stanford and the two adjacent lots
are the backyards of homes up on top of the hill and no homes can
be built down on the corner of Tiberon and Stanford because of
the backyards and the very steep slopes coming all the way down
to the intersection of Tiberon and Stanford). This is the only
lot in the development (as far as I have been able to ascertain)
that if the City's current position is upheld, would have the
front yard of the Berman house immediately adjacent to the
backyard of two other homes, all three of which would then face
onto Stanford Street. Even more unusual is the fact that the
Berman house would have the side of the house at the front of the
yard facing Stanford Street next to the backyard of another home
facing Stanford Street. Perhaps the most important aspect of
this paragraph is the fact that no other lot or home faces
sideways or has this expanse, which would not otherwise be
included in their yard (whether you call it side, or back or
otherwise), and which could not t;terefore be utilized in privacy.
It is important to note the fallacy and mistake that is
made in the discussion by staff. Staff states "the lot has a
larger backyard than most of the neighboring .lots". If, in fact,
the present contention is correction and this is the front yard,
the Bermans have no usable backyard. There was only four to six
fir(
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
August 18, 1988
Page 5
feet between the home and the beginning of the steep up -slope and
therefore, they would have no backyard. The area that has been
enclosed by this fence, by the City's own definition, would have
to be side yard. It would become a very long, very narrow,
Inaccessible and unusable area. By defining it as a backyard,
the staff is merely pointing out that common sense and logic
dictate that the fences along the side yard and the yard is, in
fact the backyard at the rear of the Berman residence.
B. Is the granting of the variance necessary to
preserve substantial property right possessed by others in the
area? The planning staff discussion and findings state that
there is no such need "because the six foot fence would afford
the applicant a greater area of privacy than neighboring
residences." Common sense points out the mistake that has been
made by staff. The other homes in the area have a twenty to
thirty foot high house with a roof and multiple walls between
themselves and the backyard. Since the side of the Berman
property is along Stanford Street, the only buffer between the
street, the neighbors and the public is a six foot fence instead
of a very high, thick and wide home. It is clear to anyone that
a six foot single fence does not afford the same degree of
obstruction between the street and the backyard that a two story
house would afford in the same position. Additionally, since no
permit or other requirement from the City is needed to build a
six foot fence in the City of Carlsbad, every other home in the
area could build a six foot fence should they so desire. In
point of fact, because of the various slopes, it might be
determined~ that a six foot fence would have to be built on the
side yards, rather than on top of the backyards. In the Bermans'
situation, they built a four foot fence at the top of the slope
and a six foot fence on their side yard along the street. They
did so to avoid interfering with the view of the upper homes. As
to the size of the Berman yard, if it is designated as presently
requested by the City, then there will not be a larger backyard
or enclosed area than anyone else enjoys. However, the Bermans,
in fact, paid a premium for the oversized lot, which was on the
subdivision, approved by the City and which was visible to every
landowner and homeowner who purchased in the area. Since they
paid for the extra land, they are certainly entitled to have a
fence around it to enjoy their privacy.
-;�l
CARLSBA.D CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
August 18, 1988
Page b
C. Will the granting of the variance be detrimental to
the public welfare? The staff analysis and findings here fly in
the face of all of the neighbors involved with the exception of
Mr. Dunmeyer. Hopefully by the reading of this correspondence,
It will also fly in the face of Mr. Dunmeyer's position. The
staff analysis states that the fence was constructed on top of
two feet of additional fill, creating a negative visual impact.
This is inaccurate. In fact, there was approximately four to
five feet of slope and berm on the edge of the property along
Stanford Street prior to their construction of the fence. They
leveled their lot some in order to obtain a flatter backyard and
in doing so, lowered the level of the slope along the street.
That reduced the height of the fence overall by approximately two
feet. The lot itself, with fill, etc., was approved by the City
of Carlsbad, and the Bermans were, in fact, entitled to build
their fence on the grade as it sat, which would have allowed the
fence to be an additional two feet higher. There is also a red
herring of a sewer cut-out. That item has been placed on the
outside of the fence, and the sewer cut-out/clean-out is not
fenced in, is accessible and is, in fact, more accessible, yet
better concealed (landscaping) than cut-outs in most of the
adjoining properties.
The ultimate finding is ludicrous. The ultimate finding
states that it could be detrimental to the improvements in the
vicinity because of an "unwarranted precedent" for allowing
others to also construct a six foot high fence in the front yard
setback. By definition, we have to find the uniqueness of this
circumstance. Nowhere else is there a house turned sideways,
nowhere else is there a backyard facing the street immediately
adjacent to a front yard. Nowhere else are there empty lots,
etc., etc.,, etc. This circumstance is clearly exceptional,
extraordinary and unique. In addition, it also is unique in that
the City approved this as a side yard in approving the plan, the
design of the home, the orientation of the home on the lot, the
grading plan, the landscape plan and the drainage pattern.
What truly. sets this apart is the fact that all of the
neighbors but one have taken an affirmative stand that this is an
aesthetically welcome addition to the neighborhood and that it is
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
August 18, 1988
Page 7
a good addition in helping to take care of the lot in question.
If the Council has any questions, they need only look at the
photographs to be provided at the time of presentation, which
would demonstrate that there is very poor landscaping, basically
a barren, dirt covered area, at the toe of the slope from the two
rear yards which face on Stanford Street and which Mr. Dunmeyer
and others will be forced to look at unless a large fence is
placed in exactly the same location as the Bermans as a
"backyard" fence which may, in fact, be allowed to be even closer
to the sidewalk.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL/GENERAL PLAN IMPACT. The staff found
that there were no adverse general plan or environmental plan
impacts and we do riot disagree.
4. THE DUNMEYER CORRESPONDENCE. Mr. Dunmeyer
identifies a number of area he is concerned with in his April,
1987 correspondence, prepared prior to the completion of and
landscaping adjacent to, the fence in question.
A. Dunmeyer complains that the Bermans should have
known of the legalities of the fence. As noted above, they
checked with both the developer and the City of Carlsbad, both of
whom told the Bermans specifically that their fence could be
placed in its present location.
B. Dunmeyer complains of the visual affect. However,
all of his neighbors disagree with him and contend that it is, in
fact, a beautiful and well-done fence. In point of fact, because
of timing, Mr. Dunmeyer may have been forced to make his position
known prior to the completion of the fence and as such, may
change his position. Even if he does not, you cannot please all
people at all times and the fact that over ninety percent of the
inhabitants of the neighborhood find the fence beneficial and
pleasing as opposed to negative discredits any question of the
"unattractive visual affect" or aesthetics.
C. The addition of a retaining wall on top of fill all
added by the homeowners complained of. As is noted above, the
Bermans put a retaining wall into the bank so that it sticks up
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
August 18, 1988
Page 8
approximately one-half to one inc, over the level of the
property, which has been e c d by two feet. The retaining wall
helps to support the remaining bank prevented from eroding. The
fence is then a half inch over the reduced ground level and is
tied tightly to the block wall. The wall is not visible since it
has only a one-half inch showing on either side. Although some
portion of the exterior slope has come off of the first row of
block, it is significantly less than would have eroded from a
four foot bank and, in addition, it is new fully landscaped and
cannot be seen.
D. Mr. Dunmeyer complains that the fence requirements
are there for aesthetics. This, of course, makes no sense since
the Bermans could have placed a chain link fence, plain redwood
or cedar fence, or some other unpainted, nonarchitectural or
unlandscaped fence in the area. The aesthetics of fences are not
dealt with by cities and would likely be an invasion of privacy
or an interference with property rights should they attempt to do
SO.
E. Mr. Dunmeyer complains of the size of the backyard.
In the first instance, common sense and logic dictate that Mr.
Dunmeyer has made the same mistake as the staff. There would be
no backyard for the Bermans, except for the fact that this is
obviously a side yard with a fence on it along Stanford Street
and the backyard to the Berman home. Secondarily, the Bermans
purchased a large lot at a premium and they are entitled to have
that lot. If, in fact, Mr. Dunmeyer, or anyone else for that
matter, wishes to have smaller lots or not to have that lot in
the development, they could have either not purchased there or
sought to have the City not approve the development. However,
the City approved the lot, the developer made the best possible
use of his land as economics dictated and he, in fact, obtained
an economic price premium from the Bermans for the land.
F. Mr. Dunmeyer complains of the proximity of the
fence to the sidewalk. In reviewing the neighborhoods, virtually
every corner lot has a fence that has "two sides" next to the
sidewalk. There are several fences which are immediately
adjacent to the sidewalk or less than five feet from the sidewalk
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
August 18, 1988
Page 9
in this development. The City has not seen fit to challenge
them, we are aware of no action by either the City or homeowners
inviting a challenge to the same. Moreover, the quality of the
construction of this fence will prevent noise, odor, or contact
!D
with dogs or people in the backyard of the Bermans. A chainlink
x or other fence would easily permit visul sighting by dogs or
noise which would create a distraction and possibly disturb
animals or occupants of the home. This fence will allow neither.
G. Since none of the neighbors in the area agree, the
question of an alleyway does not appear to be appropriate,
however, we will provide photographs at the time of the hearing,
demonstrating quite clearly that the landscaping has a
climbing/trellis type plant on virtually every single "bay" of
this fence, which completely eliminates any effect of continuous
open -walled or alley -fake affect. Rather, this is a beautifully
landscaped, well -designed architectural work.
H. Mr. Dunmeyer indicates that he would not object to
some interference in the front yard setback. This, in and of
itself, points out the problem involved. If this fence were set
back five, ten or fifteen feet more, it would, in fact, be even
slightly higher. There would be an area of bare dirt between the
sidewalk and the fence, which would not necessarily have to be
landscaped by the Bermans, they could have a chainlink fence that
would appear several feet in height, they could have some other
form of fence, but all in all, it would certainly be detrimental
to force them to have this extensive area outside of their fence
not visible from their home which would simply join the remaining
two backyards as being an unlandscaped, barren, likely to be weed
infested area.
It is important to know at this point, that homeowners
in favor of this fence include two neighbors whose entire
frontage directly looks at this fence. Mr. Dunmeyer has a view
of the upslope of the two backyards at the corner of Tiberon and
Stanford and a direct look at the last few feet of this fence.
Overall, this situation is extremely and entirely unique. By
virtue of the size, shape and location of the lot, the
positioning and orientation of the home, the reliance before
,OWN
CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
August 18, 1988
Page 10
purchase by the homeowner on both the City and the developer,
both of whom represented the appropriateness of the present
fence, the obvious importance of having the fence, the obvious
quality of construction and aesthetic value of the fence and the
support from the neighborhood, an administrative variance is not
only appropriate, but it is virtually mandated by the facts.
In order to move the fence, there will be a significant
and substantial outlay of money by the Bermans. In moving the
fence, they will be forced to destroy most of the landscaping
that they have placed on the two foot slope to the sidewalk.
There is no landscaping on the interior of the fence and if the
fence should be moved back by several feet, there will not be any
landscaping between the fence and the road. Moreover, it is
unlikely, given the manner and quality of construction, that the
fence can be moved without destroying it. Therefore, whether the
tattered remains of this fence, or some cheaper form of enclosure
are erected, it will not be as visually beneficial as the present
alignment.
It is respectfully requested that this administrative
variance be granted and that the fence be allowed to remain in
its present condition at its present locale.
Very truly yours,
CHARLES D. NACHAND
On behalf of homeowners
Shel and Karen Berman
CDN:de:council
�7_
= '
N1 ID F,E ��P-11 E:; I'IZ< u C-- I'1 0 t%ll
'
(B E` N FR t�4 L_ 0 0 N1 -F F-Z A C�-r C:) F=Z
c 1\10~ �4 E3 fB 63- 1
___------------------------------------
�
_________________________
4391 SHASTA PLACE
/
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
AUG 20. 1988
TO:
CITY COUNCIL OF CARLSBAD
I AM STEPHEN TARZIAN. OWNER OF TARZIAN LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION.
�
AN MY COMPANY PERFORMED THE LANDSCAPING FOR THE SUBDIVISION AT
�
THE SUMMIT. WHICH INCLUDED THE FINE GRADING. IRRIGATION SYSTEM
^ �
AND DRAINAGE WORK ON THE BURMAN RESIDENCE AT 4375 STANFORD
V
STREET. CARLSBAD. I HAVE 14 YEARS IN THE LANDSCAPE BUSINESS.
'
ALL OF OUR WORK WAS DONE ACCORDING TO PLANS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED
BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
v
THE PLANS FOR DRAINAGE. IRRIGATION AND GRADING. AS WELL AS ALL
OF OUR WORK DONE ON THIS LOT, SHOWED THE SIDE YARD ALONG STANFORD
STREET AND FRONT YARD TO THE NORTH. TOWARD THE DRIVEWAY.
AS IS STANDARD. WE RAN A BERM ALONG THE SIDE �ARD ON TOP OF
THE EXISTING SLOPE (ALONG STANFORD STREET) AS PART OF THE
APPROVED DRAINAGE PLAN. IF WAS APPROVED AS GRADED AT THE TIME OF
INSPECTION BY THE CITY OF CARLSBAD.
�
-
�
I HAVE COME BACK AND REVIEWED THE FENCE AND LANSCAFING AT THE
BURMAN RESIDENCE AT THEIR REQUEST. I HAVE NOT BEEN HIRED TO DO
-�
LANDSCAPING FOR THEM AND BASED UF*JN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM AND
MY INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY. l DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS ANY
`
ADDITIONAL LANSCAPING THAT WILL BE REQUIRED AND DO NOT ANTICIPATE
7
BEING HIRED FOR ANY WORK BY THE BERMANS.
THE RETAINING WALL NOW PROVIDES A POINT OF CONTACT FOR
�
DRAINAGE AND THE OVERALL LOT APPEARS TO BE DRAINED ON ONE SINGLE
'
SIDE RATHER THAN ON BOTH SIDES A MORE EFFECTIVE BUT MORE
. .
DIFFICULT DRAINAGE PATTERN.
THE LANDSCAPING IN QUESTION ALONG THE FENCE THAT YOU ARE
REVIEWING IS EXCELLENT FAR SUPERIOR TO WHAT I NORMALLY SEE IN
HOMES NOT PROFESSIONALLY DONE. ADDITIONALLY I WOULD BE PLAESED TO
CALL THIS JOB MY WORK HAD THE JOB BEEN OFFERED ME. IT IS CLEARLY
OF AN EXTREMELY HIGH CALIBER.
� THE PLANTINGS SHOULD HOLD THE SMALL SLOPE. REMAIN GREEN THE
YEAR ROUND, PROVIDE FULL COVERAGE OF THE SLOPE AND FURTHER
PROVIDE COVERAGE ON THE FENCE AFTER SOME PERIOD OF TIME WHEN THE
CLIMBING PLANTS COMPLETE THERIR GROWTH. THE LANSCAPEING AND THE
FENCE BLEND IN WELL WITH THE AREA. THE BACKGROUND OF THE STEEP
' SLOPES FROM THE HOMES UP ABOVE. AS WELL AS THE SEVERE SLOPE THAT
~
p45F:
IT COMES DOWN
XDIRECTLY
TTOATHE YARD AND NEXT TO THE FENCE.OVERALL
^�L__p_,NEEC=LLEm, xE/nemr OF A DIFFICULT AREA IT PPEARS
� WELL PLANNED IRRIGATED" IS GROWING VERY
NIVEnY AND
OBVIOUSLYS ELL MAINTAINED. ' �
` IFTHE FENCE IS MOVED BACK AROSS THE FLAT AREA OF THE �ACk YARD
FOR'
ORSEVERAL
.`E�,=R��r�E/.�rNILL REQUIRE SEPARATE WATERING SYSTMES IN
- .~ PREVENT OV
ER vERWATERING OF THE SLOPE OR
� UNDER WATERING OF
THE FLAT AREA. IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO GROW CLIMBING PLANTS
� ALONG THE EXTERIOR OF THE FENCE AT THAT POINTWITH
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLAT AREA BEING SO MUCH GRATE.
WATER
. ADDITIONALLY. WITH THE FLAT AREA NO LONGER BEING ^
CLIMBING PLANTS OF THE SLOPE. YOU WILL HAVED A CLECOVERED BY THE
� BETWEEN THE FLAT AREA AND THE FENCE THAT WILL BAN BREAk
� CONCEAL AND WILL NOT BLEND IN AS WELL AS IT DOEE DIFFICULT TO
� LOCATION. S AT ITS PRESENT
/ . . MAITHOPE I HAVE BEEN OF SOME ASSISTANCE TO YOU IN REVIEWING'THESE
�
` .
� SINCERELY
�
� STEPHEN TARZl*N
� TARZ{AN CONSTRUCTION
�
�
._ CITY 0822.88
` .
! .
\
�
. .
. .
`
�
. `
!
/
To: City Clerk
City of Carlsbad.�:'���°t"`':
Regarding: Administrative Variance .�tT
for lot 189 of Carlsbad Tract 8435, Unit 2/BF
�na Fat111 00
Date: August 20,1988
C1T'1
Mr. Nachand, Attorney, in his representation of the Bermans has informed
us that the Bermans had made a good faith effort to ascertain the legal
placement of the fence and that both the developer and the City had made
representations to them in regard to set -back restrictions on their lot
which led to their planning, purchasing and beginning construction of the
fence in Its present location. Because the Bermans have made a
conscientious effort to address the visual impact of the fence, and
assuming the City initially made representations that the fence was
legally positioned, we would withdraw our objection to the variance on the
condition that legal assurances and remedy would be provided the City and
neighbors that the fence shall be maintained in a like -new or nearly -new
condition and that current landscaping shall be maintained and flourishing.
Not conditional to withdrawal of our objection, the City might wish to
consider that the variance extend only to such time as the property is sold
or transferred.
Sincerely,
/ G�
� illia�unme er
W y
4382 Stanford St.
Carlsbad, California 92008
c.c. Berman
Q•�
Jane A. Dunmeyer
0-�O-oo
C1,17 i aq"A✓cr C.
e r'j �r 4` s6w
Gd/leOW i lPe( Cp,+/ collj
As
i (5f>
�- *65 A,2 >,,i/S fW
MINUTES
Meetin; of: PLANNING COMMISSION
Time of meeting: 6:00 p.m.
D:ta of Meeting: july 20, uns
Place of Meeting: City Council Chambers
COMMISSIONERS
CALL To ORDER:
Chairman McFadden called the Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIA.NCE was led by Chairman McFadden.
ROLL CALL:
Present - Chairman McFadden, Commissioners Erwin, Hall,
Holmes, Schlehuber, and Schramm
Absent - Commissioner Marcus
Staff Members Present:
Michael Holzmiller. Planning Director
Charles Grimm, Assistant Planning Director
Mike Howes, Senior Planner
Gary Wayne. Senior Planner
Bobbie Hoder. Senior Management Analyst
Ron Ball. Assistant City Attorney
David Hauser. Assistant City Engineer
PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES:
Chairman McFadden reviewed the Planning Commission procedures
on the overhead for the benefit of the audience.
COMMS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED IN THE AGENDA:
There were no comments from the audience.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1) AV 88-2 BERMAN - Appeal of Planning Director's denial
to allow a six foot high fence within the required front
yard setback on property located at 4375 Stanford Street
in the R-1-7500 Zone, in Local Facilities Management
Zone 2.
Mike Howes, Senior Planner, reviewed the background of the
request and stated that the applicant is appealing the
Planning Director's denial of a request for an Administrative
Variance to allow a six foot high fence within the required
front yard setback on property located at 4375 Stanford
Street.
The applicant's house is oriented with its front door facing
the side yard. The applicant informed staff that when he
bought the house the developer informed him that the front
yard setback ran along the property line adjacent to the
street frontage. When the applicant cams to the Planning
Department. staff informed his that his proposed fence
exceeded the 42 inch height maximum in the required front
yard setback along Stanford Street and would require an
Administrative Variance. During the construction of the
fence, the applicant applied for the variance. It was felt
that there were no unusual or extraordinary circumstances.
Although the lot is an odd shape, the applicant has a back
yard that is equal in size to the adjacent lots within this
vicinity. Staff felt this variance was unnecessary for the
preservation of substantial property rights enjoyed by other
lots in the vicinity. The erection of A 6 ft. fence in this
area would give this particular lot substantially more
privacy than any of the surrounding lots. It was also felt
that the approval of this variance would set an undesirable
9
MINUTES
July 20, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 2 COMMISSIONERS
precedent for additional 6 ft. high fences in front yard
setbacks. The required findings could not be made and the
`
variance request was denied. The applicant is now appealing
i
the Planning Director's denial of the Administrative
Variance.
Chairman McFadden inquired about the reference to the sewer
I
cleanout and would like to know where it is located. Mika
Howes replied that he believes it is behind the fence which
was erected.
Chairman McFadden inquired about the Utilities and
I
Maintenance Department saying that the cleanout should not be
fenced in. Mike Howes replied that the Utilities and
Maintenance tapartmont needs to have the ability to clean out
the line if it becomes clogged with roots. In the newer
subdivisions the eleanouts are supposed to be in front of the
property line so that if a problem occurs it is not necessary
to trespass. It appears that an error was made on this
property and the cleanout was placed behind the property
line.
Chairman McFadden opened the public testimony and issued the
invitation to speak.
Shel Barman, 4375 Stanford Street, Carlsbad. applicant,
addressed the Commission and stated that in late September
1987 he visited the Planning Department on a work -related
matter and inquired of two staff members what would be
considered the front, side, and rear yards of the house he
wanted to buy located at 4375 Stanford Street. He was told
that because the side elevation was facing the street, that
would be considered the side yard and the front yard would be
that area facing north of Stanford, which is the front
elevation of the house, and that a 6 ft. fence could be
constructed along the side yard adjacent to Stanford.
Because the property had a lengthy strip of land for a lap
pool, cabala, and jacussi. as wall as room for four dogs, and
since he was told that a 6 ft. fence could be built along
Stanford, he and his wife decided to buy the house. He draw
up plans for the yard improvements and ordered fence
materials. He submitted the plans to plan check on
February 9. 1988. At that time, another member of the staff
contradicted what he was originally told, that just because a
house was turned to utilise the lot did not necessarily mean
that it was different than any other house facing the street.
He than inquired about what to do next, since materials had
been ordered, and was told that he should apply for an
Administrative Variance but that he (the staff member) did
not foresee any problems based on the uniqueness of the lot.
He did not suggest that we go ahead and build the fence;
however. because the staff member made it sound as though
there would be no problem. and since he only had two weeks of
vacation to build the fence as well as make the move from
Orange County, he proceeded with the project. Mr. Berman
feels that special consideration should be given due to
1) the uniqueness of the let; 2) the fact that his lot is no
larger than any other; 3) the fence is not detrimental to
the neighborhood ana several of the neighbors have stated
that it is an asset to the neighborhood. Mr. Berman stated
that to relocate the fence vould 1) create a savers financial
hardship; 2) jeopardise the animals which need the 6 ft.
height of the fence; 3) limit the privacy they desire and
feel entitled to; and 4) disallow the use of 1.700 sq. ft.
of useable back and side yard space which the developer
indicated could be fenced.
MINUTES
July 20. 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3 COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired about the distance from the
present fence to the side of the house. Mr. Berman replied
that it is 20 ft. from the fence to the house. The fence is
5 ft. 8 inches from the sidewalk. Regarding the cleanout, it
Ix located behind the property line and inside the fence. In
his experience in other cities, he has never known the City
to come out and perform emergency work on the line; he
assumed it would be at his own expense.
Commissioner Schlehuber stated that the City does not
normally service a lire unless it is a potential City problem
caused by the City. The City would have to take action to
protect their own liability. Commissioner Schlehuber cited a
recent City backup problem on the street where he personally
resides. If the City cannot correct the problem, it would
result in the need to pay damages to the property owners who
were harmed.
Chairman McFadden requested clarification on the location of
the property line. Mike Howes replied that the property line
is S ft. behind the sidewalk, or 10 ft. from the curb.
Mr. Berman's fence is behind the property line.
Commissioner Hall inquired about the difference in grade from
the sidewalk to the top of the retaining wall. Mr. Barman
replied the footing at one end of the wall is 17 inches and
30 inches at the other and. With the 6 ft. wall and the
footing combined, the actual height is between 7 ft. and
9 ft. He did a lot of regrading in the process.
Commissioner Hall inquired how the yard drains now.
Mr. Berman indicated that the property drains towards the
street. Thera are three drain lines penetrating the wall
plus weep joints which enables the water to reach the street.
Commissioner Holmes inquired about the applicant's work.
Mr. Berman replied that he is a Project Superintendent for
Koll Construction. He has been licensed for 13 years.
Commissioner Holmes inquired about the type of dogs which the
applicant has. Mr. 9erman replied that the dogs are Siberian
Husky.
Commissioner Holmes could not imagine how the applicant
received such erroneous information from staff since it is
well known that the front yard is normally determined by the
position of the street in relation to the lot. He is also
concerned about the drainage of the rear yard.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if staff was aware of the
erroneous information which Mr. Berman received. Hike Howes
replied that it is probably correct that Mr. Berman received
wrong information early on. However. this information was
corrected before the variance application was made. He
cannot verify for sure that misinformation was given but he
believes the applicant is correct.
Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if staff records were noted.
Mike Howes replied that no notation was made.
George Smith, 4378 Stanford Street. Carlsbad. addressed the
Commission and stated that he and his wife live immediately
across the street from the Berman's and are very impressed
with the wall. Although it is a high fence, it is more than
offset by the construction and appearance as well as the new
landscaping. He feels the wall is very attractive and by far
July 20, 1988
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 COMMISSIONERS
more impressive than any other fence in the neighborhood. He
feels the Berman's have a very small back yard bezause much
of the space is taken up by slope --the only flat area is just
inside the wall --and this fact should be taken into
consideration. Most of the neighbors he has talked to are
impressed with the uali and have no objection to it. He and
his wife support the granting of a variance to the Berman's.
William Schools, 4374 Stanford Street, Carlsbad, addressed
the Commission and stated that he wrote a letter to the
Commission giving his opinion of the wall. He has no
argument about the view being blocked. He and his wife were
considering an elevation similar to the one which the
Barman's purchased and specifically questioned the developer
about fencing. They received the same answer which the
Berman's received, that a fence could be constructed around
the side yard adjacent to tho street. He does not feel the
wall creates a larger yard for the Berman's. When
considering a property purchase, it is normally considered
that the property will be usable. He would like to see the
variance granted.
Ann Sehobe, 4363 Stanford Street, Carlsbad, addressed the
Commission and stated that shortly after moving into their
home, a young lady from the City of Carlsbad, presumably the
Planning Department, visited her and asked to look at her
back yard. She explained that the Berman's had requested a
variance to build a fence along their property line. There
were no fences in at that time which enabled her to view the
entire length of the rear properties on either side. She
remarked that she could see no reason why the variance should
not be granted. Ms. Schobe also wrote a letter to the
Commission. She feels the fence is beautiful and that the
Berman's have a right to privacy since their kitchen window
and door face on Stanford Street. She would like to see the
variance granted.
Terri Schools. 4374 Stanford Street, Carlsbadt addressed the
Commission and stated that she lives directly across the
street from the Berman's. She stated that the developer had
told her and her husband that on a property facing the
street, similar to the Berman's. the front yard would be near
the front entrance. If a potential purchaser relies on
information from the developer, it is unfair that they should
be unable to use the property after the purchase is made.
She would prefer to look at the Berman's wall than some of
the other fences in the neighborhood. She would like to see
the variance granted.
Chairman McFadden inquired where the similar property is
located in the development. Teri Schools replied that it is
also on Stanford but in the next phase.
Chairman McFadden inquired if the house has been sold and
whether a fence has been constructed. Teri Schools replied
that the purchaser has recently occupied the home but no
fence has yet been erected.
Commissioner Erwin inquired if the persons making the
representations were sales personnel or officials of the
City. Teri Schools replied that they were representatives of
the developer and not the City.
Chairman McFadden advised the applicant that he could respond
to the comments, if desired. Mr. Berman stated that the
three lots to the south, whose homes will be located on
cm
-I
July 20, i988
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 5
COMMISSIONERS
Touiumne Street, have back vards that come down the hill and
abut his property where his fence ends. They will be
permitted to construct a fence of their choosing, be it chat
link, wood, or block.
Commissioner Hail inquired about the three lots which would
have homes on Toulumne; Mr. Berman pointed them out on the
map and stated that he has verified this information.
There being no other persons desiring to address the
Commission on this topic, Chairman McFadden declared the
public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion
among the Commissioner members.
Ron Ball, Assistant City Attorney, requested permission to
advise Commissioners the legalities of this case. He stated
that the City is estopped to apply the law. Estoppel is a
legal term. When there is existing law that a person can't
apply it for fairness and equitable reasons. It does apply
to the City if it does not defeat an important public policy.
The cases have generally held that enforcement of a building
permit or zoning ordinance is an important public policy so
principles of estoppel, though they apply, do not stop the
City in many situations where there are building and planning
laws. It can be enforced by what has been stated by a staff
person or a public employee. To be invoked, principles of
estoppel require a false promise made by a person, knowing at
the time that they made it that it was false, and knowing
that the person who heard it would rely on it to their
detriment.
Chairman McFadden inquired if Mr. Ball was, in essence,
saying that since there was no intent to harm, the City
Permits and zoning could be enforced. Mr. Ball replied that
this is correct.
Chairman McFadden commented that she drove around the area
many times and that the Berman's fence is attractive. She
stated that the Commission has received eight letters in
favor of the wall and one letter halfway opposed stating that
the writer would accept the fence if it were moved back 5 ft.
She concurs with the one neighbor that the fence should be
moved back 5 ft. and would like to see a little curve of the
wall at the south end for aesthetic purposes. She is
confused about the City's responsibilities regarding the
sewer eleanout.
Mike Howes replied that a representative from the Utilities
Department has informed him that if roots entered the sewer
system between the trunk line and the lateral going to the
house, they need the ability to access the cleanout to remove
the obstruction.
Commissioner Schlehuber commented that although the fence
looks nice now with this particular owner, he is concerned
about how the fence would be maintained with a new owner 5-10
Years from now. It is a very long fence and is in violation
of the ordinance. He is opposed to granting the variance but
is concerned about a possible estoppel problem because of the
erroneous information received from staff, which may have
been the basis for the applicant purchasing the property.
Chairman McFadden commented that she is also concerned about
the erroneous information and thinks that the zoning
ordinance should be very clear to obviate future occurrences.
qI
July 20. 1988
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 6
COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Holmes commented that homes situated in a
hillside area always have different problems than those home
located on flat land. He feels the lot is large and the
fence seems very long. He feels that since the applicant is
in the construction business, it should be no problem to
relocate the fence. He feels the applicant should have
questioned the original information which was given to him.
Commissioner Schramm commented that she has visited the site
and, although the landscaping is very attractive, the fence
is extremely long. She would like to see it moved back 5 ft.
with the edges curved. She realizes that the fence height is
needed to keep the animals confined. Other than moving the
fence hack, she sees no way to give the needed access to the
sewer cleanout. She would like to see developments with
unusual situations conditioned so there is no question which
is the front yard and which is the side yard. Mike Howes
replied that this development was built under a tract map and
not a FUD, so the lots were approved without the units
Plotted on them. She could approve the variance with the
condition that the wall be moved back at least 5 ft.
Commissioner Hall is concerned about the wall height. With
the footings, he sees it as an 8 ft. fence at one end.
Despite the landscape, he feels be softened. it is too „tgh and needs to
He feels the wail will be well -maintained under
this owner but is concerned about future owners. He doesn't
feel the legalities enter into his decision. He understands
that the cost will double if the applicant is required to
move the wail. He feels the wall was built more for the
animals than for privacy.
Commissioner Erwin has mixed feelings about the erroneous
information. He feels the wall is attractive but is also
concerned about what it will look like 5-10 years from now.
He questioned how the 5 £t. was arrived at.
Chairman McFadden replied that aesthetically she feels it
would look better but, primarily, it would enable the City to
have access to the sewer cleanout.
Commissioner Schramm feels they should be permitted some use
of the yard and 5 ft. would not be too severe,
Commissioner Erwin can support moving the fence back 5 ft.
Commissioner Schlehuber would like to know if the
is interested in a compromise. applicant
Chairman McFadden asked the applicant compromise. Mr. Bermanf he would consider a
ms replied that, although he is in
construction, the cost to relocate the fence would be the
same. He feels moving the fence would be a financial
hardship and does not feel he can compromise fence would be necessary. if moving the
:ommissioner Schlehuber asked the applicant if he understands
:hat without a compromise he will probably receive a denial.
Ir. Berman doesn't want a denial but reiterated that it would
m a financial hardship to relocate the fence. Mr. Berman
'epeated that he could not compromise if moving the fence
'ould be necessary.
lW .
MINUTES
July 20, 1988
PLANNING COMMISSION
� 9
d'
Page 7
COMMISSIONERS
0
Motion was d4,.
decision of the
made, seconded, and carried to uphold the
Planning Director
No. 2760 denying
therein.
and adopt Resolution
AV 88-2 based on the findings contained
Erwln
Hall
x
Holmes
x
McFadden
x
Schlehuber
x
x x
Schramm
x
113
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 920M
i Of/Ice Of the City Clerk
`.---,TELEPHONE
19) 434.2808
I (We) appeal the following decision of the .12 ;;;? -1.. I /,?,U
to the City Council:
Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): /' ��,Vc,G
Date of Decision:
Reason for Appeal:
1
t .,
Date '`�---
Sig ature
Name (Please Print)
_._ /-5 .Sii,�FGk'�� 5i
Ac' Iress
Telephone Number
4 .!
-Carlsbad
Decreed A Legal Newspaper by the Superior Court of San Diego County
Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to
North Coast Publishers, Inc. corporate offices: P O. Box 878, Encinitas, CA 92024
(619) 753-6543
Proof of publication
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid;
I am over the a e of eighteen ighteen years, and not a party to or interested to the above entitled matter.
I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper of general circulate
Published twice weekly to the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California
newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligence of a general character, and
which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a bona fide subscri tion li and which
subscribers, and which newsnrtinor I— t_-_ _ d
dished p st of paying
printed and published at regular intervals in
to of California, for a period exceeding one year next
preceding the date of publication of the notice
hereinafter referred to; and that the notice of
which the annexed is a printed copy, has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof can
the following dates, to -wit:
............ Augus.t 12 ...... 1988. .
................. 19....
................................. 19....
.................... 19....
.......... 19....
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California on
day of __ - The—in-h
�9tr-' 1s 1--}988 --- -
Clerk of the Printer
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL
AV 88-2
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 6:00 P.M.
on Tuesday, August 23, 1988, to consider an appeal of the Planning Director's denial
to allow a six foot high fence within the required front yard setback on property
generally located at 4375 Stanford Street in the R-1-7500 Zone, in Local Facilities
Management Zone 2, and more particularly described as:
Lot 189 of Carlsbad Tract 84-35, Unit 2, according to Map
11672 on file with the San Diego County Recorder.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Planning Department
at 438-1161.
If you challenge the appeal of the Administrative Variance in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described
in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City
Clerk's Office at or prior to the public hearing.
APPELLANT: BERMAN ,
PUBLISH: August 12, 1988 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL
q
To Charlie
From Karen
Re: Appeal — AV 88-2
V. RITE IT - DON'T SAY f!
Date 7/29 19 88
❑Reply Wanted
ONo Reply Necessary
Since Bobbie is on vacation, I am sending this copy of the appeal to
you. The appeal was filed and the fee paid. Now I need to know if
this matter will need to be a public hearing. If so, we need to
get the agenda bill done and up here with the notice material, so
that I can take care of it.
Thanks, and if you have any questions, etc., give me a call.
- r4a$--�
AIGNER FORM NO.55-032
I-.„....,.. -"
VRINTCO IN USA
1200 ELM AVENUE
-CARLSBAD, CA 92008.1989
Office o/ the City Clerk
TO:
FROM:
Charlie Grimm
Karen Kundtz
DATE: 7/29/88
RE: Appeal - AV 88-2
,tea, To�J j r
U�' �Q
TELEPHONE
(619) 438.5535
The above item has been appealed to the city Council. Please determine
when the item will go to Council and complete the form below and return
it to the City Clerk's Office. According to the Municipal Code,
appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date
that the appeal was filed. Please consider this when setting the
date for the hearing.
Thank you.
The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City
Council Meeting of
Signature Date
lj
1200
ELM AVENUE ;�'j ;Y�t
f�fi';' (l�i ;:TELEPHONE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 19) 434-2808 �CDV L
CAR
fi i2 1
- Office of the City Clerk
0tv of (garlsbab 11TY OF CARLSBAD
I (We) appeal the
following decision of the
&W"11y6/
�OOW
to the
City Council:
Project Name and Number
(or subject of appeal) :
Date of Decision: _
/�dd�Bjj
Reason for Appeal: WU
7 _ i"Fl.9T THC- �;/T��
�-/vie /N
6 Uri /S
^b 7W,47 77-C- C'0 eorvir
v5l%C
D Y TNT
g
222iVitl/Af rto V6I 10A)
TU MOy - 7Ai5 425�VC
89elll— 51 LA0 1) 3E A-
On)
LOUD ;0,1
A ��' TIC
DU�.� A'�STfI"E%1C�i
LoU,� O,c �l� /t1�/fH&�21;a0f�
.
Cate
Sig ature
Name (Please Print)
Address
6v�s1514.6 92 o
Telephone Number
1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p,m, on Wednesday, July
20, 1988, to consider an appeal of Planning Director's denial to
allow a six foot high fence within the required front yard setback
on property generally located at 4375 Stanford Street in the R-1-
7500 Zone, in Local Facilities Management Zone 2, and more
particularly described as:
Lot 189 of Carlsbad Tract 84-35 Unit 2 according to Map
11672 on file with County Recorder of San Diego.
Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially
invited to attend the public hearing. If you have any questions,
please call the Planning Department at 438-1161.
If you challenge the appeal of the Administrative Variance in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice
or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at
or prior to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: AV 88-2
APPLICANT: SHEL AND KAREN BERMAN
PUBLISH: JULY 8, 1988
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISS.IO
-CITY OF,-CAALSBAD
1200-.ELM'AVENUE CARLSBAD,.CALlFORNIA 92008
438.5621
Y
�,RECWFROM __ DATE ?l- TL
w
ACCOUNT N0.
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
I1( ,i j �j i
c '"TOu
: f 303?
,"fn tS
1
x� q
=RECEIPT NO. 8,5 9-2 4 TOTAL
�''} ►� � ; (� x
Gaylene S Steven Pringle
4394 Stanford
Street
Carlsbad, CA
92008
Vacant
4390 Stanford
Street
Carlsbad, CA
92008
i
i
Charles Geer
4386 Stanford
Street
Carlsbad, CA
92008
i
William S Jane
Dunmeyer
14382 Stanford
Street
I Carlsbad, CA
92008
Vacant
4378 Stanford Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
r. Vacant
4374 Stantord St.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92006
1•'rank & Jaccluel.i.ne liohler,
4370 Stanford St..
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Vacant
4366 Stanford St.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Vacant
4362 Stanford St. -
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Vacant
4358 Stanford St.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Vacant
4363 Tuolumne Place
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Vacant
4367 Tuolumne Place
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Vacant
4371 Tuolumne Plac::
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Vacant
4375 Tuolumne Place
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Vacant
4377 Tuolumne Place
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Vacant
4378 Tu lu�jne ppll
Carlsbad, La.
Vacant
4374 Tuolumne Place
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Vacant
4370 Tuolumne'Place
Carlsbad,.Ca. 92008
Vacant
4366 Tuolumne Place
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Vacant
4362 Tuolumne Place
Carlsbad; Ca. 92008
Vacant
4358 Tuolumne Place
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Vacant
4354 Tuolumne Place
Carlsbad, Ca.92008
Jorgen & Beute Nielsen
4344 Stanford St.
Carlsbad,Ca. 92008
Ted & Trayce Hansen .
4355 Stanford St.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Don & Lisa Thomas
4359 Stanford St.
Carlsbad,Ca. 92008.
'James & Anne Shope,
4363 Stanford St.
,Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Vacant
4367 Stanford St.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 �J
(Form A)
TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST
Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice _AM U-L _
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE
for a public hearing before the City Council.
Please notice the item for the council meeting of R/7R/RR
Thank you.
Assistant City Man
8/9/88
Date