Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-12-05; City Council; 10400; Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Upholding a Planning Director Decision Denying an Administrative Variance AV 89-07 Reddingw ro a v U 0 co ca i G e U O ro 4 3 v;4 o p' ,J 4J w 441 N cUy a v v U � v b `d 0o -� u u U Cbo ON 00 Ln I- N H CIT"OF CARLSBAD -- AGENDA"SILL AB# �O- y= TITLE: APPEAL, OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DEPT. HD.- MTG. ! 2 / 5 / 89 DECISION UPHOLDING A PLANNING DIRECTOR CITY ATTY� DEPT. PLN DECISION DENYING AN ADMINISTRATIVE -� CITY MGW RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council A'P___ R4_VE City Council Resolution No. - ,UPHOLDING a Planning Commission decision to UPHOLD a Planning Director denial of Administrative Variance 89-7. ITEM EXPLANATION On November 1, 1989 the Planning Commission upheld a Planning Director decision denying an Administrative Variance to maintain a 6 foot wall located in the required 20' - 0" front yard setback of a single family residence. The property is located on the north side of Janis Way directly across the street from the Ellery Reservoir in the R- 1 zone. The applicants had a six foot high wall constructed along their front property line in order to screen the reservoir site from view of their living room window and front yard. The six foot high wall exceeds the 42 inch height requirement for walls in the front yard setback, encroaches from 6 to 18 inches into the public right-of-way, and obstructs the line -of -sight distance for vehicles backing out of the driveway. The Planning Commission voted 6-1 upholding the Planning Director's decision to deny AV 89-7. Denial of the Administrative Variance request requires that the applicant reduce the wall height to forty-two inches for those portions of the wall located in the front yard setback. The applicants must also apply for an Encroachment Permit to maintain a portion of the wall in the public right-of-way. If an Encroachment Permit is denied the applicants must relocate the wall entirely on the subject property. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning, Director has determined that this project is categorically exempt from environmental review. (Class 5, Section 15305 CEQA Guidelines). On August 17,1989 a Notice of Exemption was filed with the County Clerk and documentation is on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. FISCAL IMPACT None. EXHIBITS 1.yCity Council Resolution No. i Lc a-- 2.,' Planning Commission Resolution No. 2932 3.,'Excerpts from Planning Commission Minutes 4.-Staff Report dated July 28, 1989 5., Letter of Appeal dated November 1, 1989 f S 7 16 16 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14j 15 16 17 .181 19) 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 8 9 - 4 22 A RESOLUTIO OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CAL ORNIA, UPHOLDING A PLANNING COMMISSION DEC ION TO UPHOLD A PLANNING DIRECTOR DENIAL F AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIX FO T HIGH WALL IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF A INGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, ON PROPERTY LOCATED A 2246 JANIS WAY, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. AV 89-7 - REDDING (APPE WHEREAS, on November 1, 989, the Carlsbad lanning Com issior adopted Resolution No. 2932 upholdir,- Plannin Direct r decision d nying Administrative Variance 89-7; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carls ad, on ece er 5, 1989 considered an appe I of the Planning mission ecision uphold ng the Planning Director decision d ying AV 89-7; d WHEREAS, upon considerin he requ st, the ity Council considered all facto relating to the Administrative riance a peal. W, THER ORE, BE IT H REB RESOLV by the City Council of the City of arlsbad, lifornia, as follows: 1. That t above recitations are true and correct. 2. That the fi ings of the Planning Commission in Resolut n No. 2932 on file with the City Clerk an 'n orporated herein by reference constitut the findings of the City Council in this matt . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, on the 2 day of 3 1989 by the following vote, to wit: 4 AYES: 5 NOES: 6 ABSENT: 7 8 CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor 10 ATTEST: 11 12 13 ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ City Clerk 14 15 (SEAL) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 28 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19j 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2932 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING A PLANNING UIRECTOR'S DECISION DENYING AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN OVERHEIGHT FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 2246 JANIS WAY, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA. APPLICANT: REDDING CASE NO.: AV 89-7 APPEAL WHEREAS, an appeal for certain property, to wit: Lot 26 of Carlsbad Tract No. 81-19 Unit No. 2, Mar Y Montanas in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 11594 filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County August 20, 1986. has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said appeal constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 1st day of November, 1989, 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 the appeal of AV 89-7. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the above recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission UPHOLDS the Planning Director's decision based on the following findings: Findings• �. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property that do not apply to other property in the same vicinity since several other properties on the north side of Janis Way are visually impacted by the Ellery Reservoir and do not have overheight fences in the front yard setback. 2 3 4 5 6 7 .911 10�11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2' 24 2; 2E W 21 2. The Variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity, but which is denied to the property in question since there are alternarequiretavvarimethods ancand t llof iprovidethe vanwof the reservoir that adequate useable privateld yard. t yard 3. The granting of this Variance could be materially detrimental to other property in the vicinity in which the property is located because the wall obstructs line -of -sight driveway visibility to vehicles backing out into the public right-of-way. 4. The granting of this Variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because accessory structures such as walls are compatible with residential uses in the R-1 Zone. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of November, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairman Hall, Commissioners: Schlehuber, Schramm, Erwin, Holmes & Marcus. NOES: Commissioner McFadden. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. MATTH W HALL, Chairman CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATT EST : �_ MICHAEL J. �ILLE�R,�� PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 2932 -2- -- MINUTOS November 1, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 4 COMMISSIONERS #13 to read that installation requirements will be in substance as provided in Policy 80-6. 2) AV 89-7 REDDING - An appeal of the Planning Director's Decision to deny an Administrative Variance to allow and overheight wall located in the required 2010" front yard setback of a single family residence. The property is located at 2246 Janis Way in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, reviewed the background of the request and stated that AV 89-7 is an appeal by Mr. and Mrs. Redding of the Planning Director's decision to deny an Administrative Variance to allow an over -height wall within the front yard setback of their home located at 2246 Janis Way in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The property is zoned R-1 which requires a 20' front yard setback. Codes allow only for fencing up to 42" within the front yard setback. The subject wall is constructed at a height of 61. The property is located directly across from the Ellery Reservoir which is surrounded by a chain link fence on top of a retaining wall. Pumping equipment is visible through the chain link fence. Photo slides of the Redding's property and the adjacent area were shown to Commissioners and the gallery. Staff recommendation is to uphold the Planning Director's decision. Commissioner McFadden inquired about the reference in paragraph 2, page 3, of the staff report which refers to two letters and one phone call in opposition to the wall and nine signatures on a petition in favor of the wall. She would like additional information. Staff responded by submitting copies of the subject petition and letters to the Commission. Chairman Ball opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Virginia Redding, 2246 Janis Way, Carlsbad, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that they are the only home directly across from the reservoir which gives them a view of barbed wire. In addition, the reservoir is so well lit at night that it is a distraction which inhibits their right to peaceful enjoymcnt of their home. They had many problems with the contractor who assured them the fence was being built to code and about half -way through the job he skipped. To her knowledge, the only person who is opposing the variance is her next door neighbor and this opposition is a recent development. Since staff advised her that the wall would impede visibility for pedestrians and motorists, she is willing to install mirrors on both pillars to mitigate the problem because the turning radius is not sufficient to permit them to exit the driveway forward. She submitted six more letters from neighbors and two petitions containing 20 signatures in favor of the call, which are included with these minutes. She requested consideration'of the variance. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired if they planned to install a gate. Mrs. Redding replied that they would like to have a wrought iron gate but if it is objectionable, they can live without it. Commissioner Schlehuber inquired how the fence ended up on the public right-of-way? Mrs. Redding replied that it was a blunder of the contractor. I~< MiNUTFS O �► November 1, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION Page 5 rAYY�cc�nueoe 0�9�� 7iyOe� Carbmiysioner 5chlehuber inquired about a letter from their neighbor which states that they did not want the fence to extend past the front of their garage. Mrs. Redding replied that this neighbor was shown plans, walked the yard. and voiced no objections. They even paid half of the cost for the wall. Commissioner Erwin inquired if any of the contractors being interview had mentioned that the wall was higher that what was allowable? Mrs. Redding replied that each contractor submitted designs but no mention was made that the height was too tall. The wall is actually situated on the property line but the pillasters extend out 4 inches into the right-of-way. Commissioner Holmes inquired if they had considered changing the glass in their living room windows to something obscure such as opaque, beveled, or stained glass. Mrs. Redding replied that they had not considered this possibility. Commissioner McFadden inquired about the landscaping which was supposedly promised by the developer. Mrs. Redding replied that Ezan had told the buyers that the reservoir would be heavily landscaped with shrubbery and that they i would not be able to see the tank or equipment. Commissioner McFadden noted that there appeared to be some new plantings along the chain link fence and inquired how long they had been there? Mrs. Redding replied that a few shrubs were planted in June or July but the gardener told them they would take 5-6 years to mature. She believes the City planted the shrubs but is not sure. Chairman Hall inquired when the home was built. Mrs. Redding replied that completion was November 1988 and they are the first owner of the home. Dale Kubaeky, 2236 Janis Way, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is the next door neighbor to the Reddings and does share the common wall between them. Irrespective of the fact that he feels they have been victimized by the developer and the fence contractor, he does not like the height of the wall because it presents a blind spot for his wife and is a safety hazard. He acknowledged that he looked at the plans but did not realize the wall would extend past his garage. Patricia Faille, 2160 Janis Way, Carlsbad. addressed the Commission and stated that she has lived in the area since 1976. long before the Egan development was built. There was a beautiful forest there and most people didn't even know the water tower existed. The residents were told by Ezan that trees would be replanted and she has sympathy for the Redding's problem because the water tank is very unsightly. She feels that trees should be planted to hide the water tank. Jenny O'Brien. residing at the corner of Janis and Bedford Circle. Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that the Redding's wall is handsome and is an asset to the neighborhood. She has no objection to it. Marian McCord. 2226 Janis Way. Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he lives two houses down from the Reddings on the same side of the street. He has no objection to the wall. MINUTES 3, 9� Nov"Wv 1, 11.989 PLANNING CL`MISSICK Page d Ct3iufMiggif3Nti'i.S In rebuttal. Virginia Redding stated that never at any time before, after, or during the construction of the wall did the Kubacky's ever voice any objection to the wall. About two months ago he asked whether he would be required to pay additional funds with a new contractor. However, just yesterday he mentioned that his wife objects to the wall because she is blind in one eye. Mrs. Redding is sympathetic to the problem but feels that Mrs. Kubaeky's eyesight must not be too bad since she drives to San Diego at night to attend school. She noted that Mr. Kubacky has some problem with the City about the location of his driveway and she hopes that it will not also become their problem. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Hall declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Sehlehuber asked the City Attorney if both neighbors sharing the wall have to petition for the variance. { Mr. Ball replied that one property owner can request a variance but they must have permission of this other property owner if both properties are involved. In this case the variants request applies to the Redding's front yard and therefore the application without additional permission is proper and can be acted upon by the Commission. In addition to a variance, ar. encroachment permit must be issued. Chairman Hall asked the City Attorney to explain the encroachment permit. Mr. Ball replied that an encroachment permit is issued by the City under Title 11 and basically states that the encroachment may remain on the City property but must be removed when ordered to do so, at the permittee's total expense. Chairman Hall inquired about whether the encroachment is 4 inches or 18 inches. Mr. Wayne replied that staff determined in a field visit that the pillasters encroach approximately 18 inches on the City right-of-way. It may not be entirely accurate, however. because it was not surveyed. Chairman Hall inquired if staff had tested the driveway turning radius. Mr. Wayne replied that they did not test the turning radius. Chairman Bail asked staff to elaborate on the line of sight problem wMaz backing out of the driveway. Mr. Wayne replied that the sight distance does not meet the standard. Staff attempts to maintain those standards throughout the City. Although there is a small volume of traffic. it could still pose a safety hazard. Chairman Hall inquired if there has been any discussion regarding the landscaping around the water tower across the street. Mr. Wayne replied that the present -landscaping is immature. The pine trees and bouganvilla will eventually hide such of the area. Commissioner McFadden inquired if mirrors mounted on the pillastars would be of any value. Bob Wojcik replied that they would be of some value but the site of the oncoming object is greatly reduced. A pedestrian, bicyclist, or child on a skateboard might not be seen adequately. Commissioner McFadden inquired when the height of a fence is measured, what base point is used when there are different November 1. 1989 MiNUTFS PLANNING COMMISSION Page 7 L'Q.MMISSIONEAS grades. Mr. Wayne replied that the fence is measured from the lowest grade. Commissioner Holmes commented that there are 12 houses in that immediate area which are impacted by the water tank; he doesn't feel that this is the only one which has a problem. He spoke with Kurt Musser who is in charge of landscaping at the Water District. Mr. Musser fools that the landscaping problem can be remedied if the Raddings will go and talk to him. He thinks that landscaping is a better answer. He cannot support the variance because it will sat a precedent. Commissioner Schramm is very sympathetic. She walked and drove the area and noted that there is very poor visibility. She would like to sea this returned to staff to work out some mitigating measures. Commissioner McFadden agrees with Commissioners Holmes and Schramm. She could accept an encroachment permit for 18 inches if the Raddings would lower the wall to 42 inches. She would like staff to sand a latter to the Water District to encourage a correction to the landscaping. Commissioner Erwin is impressed by the petitions but the fence is permanent and residents are transitory. He cannot support it because it would sat a precedence. Commissioner Marcus has sympathy with the applicant because she visited the site and noted a lot of service vehicles in the area. She could accept the encroachment if the fence were lowered to 42 inches. Otherwise she must support the staff recommendation. Commissioner Schlehuber has not heard enough testimony to accept the oncroachatnt. He can support Commissioners Holmes and Schram. Motion was duly made, seconded, and carried to adopt Resolution No. 2932 upholding the Planning Director's decision to deny Administrative Variance No. 89-7. Chairman Hall asked the City Attorney how the Planning Corission can notify the Water District on the landscape problem. Mr. Ball replied that since the Water District is a separate legal entity, we have no control. Once the Water District become a subsidiary district of the City than the City Council could order the landscaping dona. Ho thnth that staff contact the Water District and resuggested their consideration. The Planning ission recessed at 7:47 p.m. and reconvened at 7:58 3) ZCA 89-2 CITY OF C - An Aaandn"t to the Satellite Television Ant Section of the Zoning Ordinance tot (1) stato the ant of the Satellite Television Mtsnna Section, reco iot the presraption of the federal o aatsllite antennas to d,rtth gCodmunicatio..tii1• 11) renumber Section 21.53.130 to ba Section 21.1i y409— u Erwin Hall Holmes Marcus McFadden Schlehuber Schram M 1PPLICATION COMPLETE DATE: MY 28, 1989 O : STAFF REPORT DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1989 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: REDOING AV 89-7 - An appeal to the Planning Commission of a Planning Director's decision denying an Administrative Variance to maintain an overheight wall located in the required 20'-0" front yard setback of a single family residence. The property is located at 2246 Janis Way in Local Facilities Management Zone No. 1. That the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 2932 UPHOLDING the Planning Director's decision to deny Administrative Variance No. 89-7. The parcel is located on the north side of Janis Way, in the R-1 Zone. The lot is approximately 10,056 square feet in size, rectangular, and contains a two- story single-family residence. Located on the south side of Janis Way directly across the street from the subject property is the Ellery Reservoir site. The reservoir :ite contains a large circular, brown water tank, pumping equipment, and a chain link fence with barb wire, that sits on top of a retaining wall that runs along the front property line on Janis Way. To screen the water tank and associated structures from view of their living room window and front yard, the Redding's had a six foot high wall constructed along their front property line. The wall exceeds the R-1 Zone's, 42 inch, height requirement for walls in the front yard setback, encroaches from 6 to 18 inches into the public right-of-way, and obstructs the line -of -sight distance for vehicles backing out of the driveway. The wall is partially constructed and the City of Carlsbad currently has an open code enforcement investigation on this property relating to the overheight wall. III. ANALYSIS Planning Issues: 1. Can the four mandatory findings for approval of a variance be found in this case? They are as follows: AV 89-7 REDOING November 1, 1989 Page 2 a. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property that do not apply 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 properties in the sam9 vicinity and tone? C. Will this Variance be detrimental vicinity? to other properties in the d. Will this Variance adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan? as DISCUSSION Yy% _ The applicants are requesting that the Planning Commission overturn a Planning Director's decision denying Administrative Variance 89-7. The Variance would allow the applicant to maintain an overheight wall in the required front yard setback along Janis Way. There are no exceptional circumstances applicable to this property that do not apply to other properties along the north side of Janis Way. Three other lots also have a direct view of the reservoir site from the front yard. The subject parcel has the most direct view from a living room window and front yard. The residential subdivision in question was built around the reservoir site. Many other lots in the area have partial front yard views of the water tank. The Ellery Reservoir existed prior to the construction of this residential subdivision. Denial of the requested Variance will not deprive the owner of a substantial property right. The parcel has level, useable yards located behind the front yard setback that can be screened from the reservoir site with six foot high walls or landscaping. Alignment of the existing driveway makes it difficult to place a wall directly at the twenty foot front yard building setback. However, a wall or landscaping could be located o'n the north side of the driveway. This option brings the screening closer to the front entry way of the house. The granting of this Variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property in the vicinity because the subject wall reduces line -of -sight driveway visibility for vehicles backing out into the public tight -of -way. The wall also reduces the openness of the front yard setback that runs along the block and provides visual relief from structures. Adjoining properties to the east and west do not have overheight structures that intrude into the front yard setback. The granting of this Variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because accessory structures such as walls are compatible with residential uses in the R-I tone. This particular Variance case has circumstances that could be interpreted as supporting findings for approval or for denial. In other words, the findings are borderline and could go either way. The Redding's property is impacted the AV 89-7 REDDING November 1, 1989 Page 3 most by the reservoir site. This can be construed as a unique circumstance even though other properties are impacted but to a lesser degree. Also, the subject lot is located near the end of a cul-de-sac street so the open space front yard setback providing relief from structures as you look down the block becomes less of a concern. Also, vehicle and pedestrian traffic is lighter on a cul-de-sac thus reducing the potential for an accident due to the reduced driveway sight visibility. The houses along the north side of Janis Way have side loading garages in the front portion of the lot and their twenty -foot front yard setback functions more like a side yard than a typical front yard. Staff took a conservative interpretation of the required findings and denied the Administrative Variance based on the safety issue created by the existing configuration of the wall and some neighborhood opposition to the wall. The Planning Department received from neighbors, two letters and one phone call in opposition to the wall and nine signatures on a petition in favor of the wall. Several of the neighbors were concerned with the massive appearance of the wall, sight distance when backing out of their driveways, and the fact that the wall is located partially in the public right-of-way. In summary, and based on a conservative interpretation of the four findings reces;ary to justify granting of this Variance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision to deny Administrative Variance 89-7. If the applicants are willing to redesign the wall to mitigate the driveway visibility issue and effectively address the concerns of the neighborhood, the Planning Department would be willing to recommend approval of the Variance. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL_ REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that this project is categorically exempt from environmental review based on the fact that it is a Zoning Variance not resulting in the creation of any new parcels, (Class 5 Section 15305 CEQA Guidelines). On August 17, 1989 a Notice of Exemption was filed with the County Clerk and documentation is on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. ATTACHMENTS I. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2932 2. Location Map 3. Background Data Sheet 4. Disclosure Form 5. Environmental Document 6. Variance Justification Form 7. Letter of Denial from Planning Director, AV 8. Exhibit "A" - "C", dated October 18, 1989 JG:lh September 27, 1989 89-7, dated August 16, 1989 f i REDDING Glty of WOO AV 89-7 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: AV 89-7 APPLICANT: MR. & MRS REDDING REQUEST AND LOCATION: MAINTAIN OVERHEIGHT WALL IN REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 2246 JANIS WAY. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 26 OF CARLSBAD TRACT 81-19 MAR Y MONTANAS t MAP NO. 11594. APN: 167-540-44 Acres .23 . Proposed No. of Lots/Units N/A GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation RLM Density Allowed N/A Density Proposed N/A _ Existing Zone RA-10-0 Proposed Zone �N/A Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: Zoning Land Use Site RA-10-0 _RESIDENTIAL x North RA-•10-0 RESIDENTIAL t South RA-10-0 PUBLIC UTILITY r s East RA-10-0 RESIDENTIAL s West RA-10-0 RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES School District CARLSBAD Water CARLSBAD Sewer CARLSBAD EDU's N/A Public Facilities Fee Agreement, Date N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative declaration, issued E.I.R. Certified, dated Other, EXEMPTION - CEOA - SECTION 15305 CLAS,E 5(a) DISCLOSURE FORM APPLICANT: i�brris and Virginia Redding - INDIVIDUAL HOME ONLY Name (individual, partnership, joint venture, corporation, syndication) N A Business Address Telephone Number AGENT: N/A Name Telephone Number MEMBERS: N/A 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 Zone, 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 b relied upon as being true and correct until amended. APP C ARr v APPLICANT BY N/A Agent, Owner, Partner Ciiy of Carls NOTICE OF EXEMPTION August 17, 1989 County Clerk County of San Diego 220 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Proiect Title Redding Administrative Variance 89-1 Proiect Location --Specific 2246 Janis Way - APN: 167-540-44 P ad rolect Location --City Carlsbad Protect Location --County San Diego maintain an overheight wallin- theurequiredlfront yard rsetbackVariance to Name of Public Aaency Ao-roving Proiect Carlsbad Planning Department Name of Person or Agency Car•rying Out Proiect M. & V. Redding Exempt Status (Check One) Ministerial (Sec. 15073) Declared Emergency (Sec. 15071 (a)) Emergency Project (Sec. 15071 (b) and (c)) Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Section 15305 Class 5(a) Reason Why Proiect Is Exempt: Setback Variance for wall Contact Person Jeff Gibson (619) 438-1161 If filed by applicant: 1) Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2) Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes _, No _ J � MICHAEL J. HOL LLE Planning Director JG:lh 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 • (619) 438-1161 JUSTIFICATION FOR VARI CE By law a Variance may be approved only if certain facts are found to exist. Please read 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: Subject oronerty is the ONLY property in the subdivision facing and looking directly into the P nPing station and entrance driveway of the Ellery Reservoir (See Exhitit A) t s 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: Granting the variance would preserve our right to enjoyment of our property by a ing n nioy�tle view for the eve to stop upon, rather than -a direct I' view ints -at-= o n chain 1 i nk fence barbed wire and driveway into the rPGPrvoi r with daily Sri ai+ c 1,. garvlCe tL'l1C,kS T e hot3se t0 the West of st�h ler o =rty faces anA vic��e th West and the ocean The _ f subiert n onerty faces to and views the valley. (SPP F.xh'hit Al 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: (See attached sheet) 0 4) Explain why the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive plan: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the citizens of Carlsbad or the environment of the inmediate or adjacent hares or subdivisions. e ; for 11ariar:ce - � U$ tli ica4t�i.on 3) The wall will not change any intended use of the property. It will. be stucco and colored the same as the house. The design blends with the architecture and enhances the neighborhood. The wall does not create any negative or dangerous effect on line of sight of passing vehicles or pedestrians. We have permission fran all neighbors within view of the wall. Granting the variance will not hinder any neighbor's view nor infringe on their property rights. The wall does not create any detriment to public welfare. Our street, Janis Way is a cul-de-sac with no through traffic. There are other hones in the area with front walls of six feet in required front yard set back. Also, a similar variance was granted recently for ► A �/� N a house cif Morena. ,A A 1 AG,SQ MAR June 2, 1989 Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA. 92009 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: When we finally realized our dream of purchasing our retirement home in Carlsbad, we made certain to set aside enough money to beautifully landscape our home in a manner that we, our neighbors, and the City of Carlsbad would be proud of. We contacted a licensed landscape architect and con- tractor for the job. Since ours is the only house look- ing directly into the most unsightly pumping station in front of Ellery Reservoir - he designed and began con- struction on a beautiful Mediterranean wall which would stop the eye at a lovely sight, rather than look directly to the pumping station which is fronted by a 6' block wall on top of which is an 8' chain link fence topped with barbed wire. Halfway through construction of the wall the contractor abandoned the job and left with $13,000.00 we paid him. We learned that he lied about obtaining permits, the license was not his 4nd to this point neither the Police or State Department of Consummer Affairs have been able to help us. (See Attached) We are in a desperate situation. We ask for the variance because of the unique and solitary circumstance of our home being the only one to directly face the pumps and associated chain link and barbed wire and our living room. window is the only one facing directly to this view. The home to the West of us looks to the ocean. The home to the East of us looks to the valley. If we are now forced to have the wall removed our home would suffer severe loss of value and the costs would prevent us from completing the remaining landscaping. We feel the F Page 2 r^iain Ing uepar tritettt variance is necessary to preserve our right to enjoy our property just as our neighbors do. Sincerely, Morris g �— :Redd c V gini �� dding .-. lr"'`' 'i PlarinIii �De arti•tierif' �. August 16, 1989 M. & V. Redding 2246 Janis Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE NO. 89-07�- Request to maintain an over height wall located in the 20'-0" required front yard setback of a single family residence. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Redding: The Planning Director has completed a review of your application for an Administrative Variance at 2246 Janis Way. After careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding this request, the Planning Director has determined that the four findings required for granting an Administrative Variance cannot be made and, therefore, DENIES this request based on the following findings and conditions. 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. Three other singl:,-family residences on the north site of Janis Way have front yard views of the water tank and associated retaining wall and combination chain link and barb wire fencing. The existing water tank is at such a height that no amount of fencing can screen it entirely from the surrounding properties. The Ellery Reservoir and pumping station was in place prior to the construction and occupancy of the Janis residence. The Planning Department feels that the subject over -height wall could be placed at the 20'-0" front setback line and still provide adequate screening of the reservoir from the living room window and driveway area. Placement of the wall at the setback would allow the wall to extend to 6'-0" in height without the need for an Administrative Variance. 2. Denial of the requested variance will not deprive the owner of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. The subject parcel has 2,660 square feet of level, useable, front yard and west side yard all located behind the required 20'-0" front yard setback that can be screened from the reservoir with 6'-J" high walls and still function as a useable private yard. 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad. California 92009-4859 (61 -IC, I Page 2 3. The granting of this variance will 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 because the subject wall encroaches 0'-6" into the public right-of-way on Janis Way, reduces driveway visibility when backing vehicles into the street, and creates a visual intrusion into the open space front yard setback that runs along the block and provides visual relief of structures from the public right-of-way. 4. The grant:ag of this variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because accessory structures such as walls are compatible with residential uses in the R-I zones. You have the right to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission within ten days of receipt of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to call this V ice. CITY OF CARLSBAD MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:JG:Ih t ►f , CA!'ENO.��i.9', f�ap�el •.........,.......................I...............J.... N...ry/. ��kruyfT 11q. ..r,AT: v`'t r 0 S 3 T NRV 8 D p� CAR��BA c,rvices J' M'rris & Virginia Redding 2246 Janis Way Carlsbad, CA. 92008. '�ErAirYi��� ?- focT 64 cA�tseAoo ory�-�lyar sE,��,yr_ Erg1N gEE Epp rA� R SNE, WALE' WIA A �08 3oo IVA 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the City Clerk DATE: November 6, 1989 1, , r, TO: Bobbie Hoder - Planning Dept. FROM: Karen Kundtz - City Clerk's Office RE: Planning Commission Denial of AV 89-7 - Redding THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. TELEPHONE (619) 434.2808 According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by All parties.) Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call. The appe Meeting ure the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council 0. 15. /yFy Date 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the City Clerk APPEAL FORM P1:CEIVEU CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TELEPHONE 89 i10v — S AH 1 j : 4 6(619) 434.2808 CITY OF CAR! SSAO I (We) appeal the following decision of the —������� �I/� �'C�����•S, �'i /�� V�` to the City Council: Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal) : - L/'J9-j F "SJbExC of Amis 'iy1gG/NIp Sf'Jl?//UG tYF<r/ ill r 1-1reA/7- l�i9eP,�_tG% f4 .-11—z'AV -S?7-- 7 Date V Sin Name (Please Print) Address / Telephone Number �'— A t City of Carlsbad We, the undersigned neighbors of Morris and Virginia Redding, residing at 2246 Janis Way, Carlsbad, California, find that the front wall that has been erected on their property, totally acceptable to us and an asset to the neighborhood. Date Address Eholle s Vf'Z' C% !�F ' oc1 ZZt�` �bli Z2 %Zy'—o670 6J.6,A) ffi'b�� LJ Lv c�N�'` ai�t,nti�r�. z3 S. n,�c 3 I L;L( gx �, 4 6 `'J �v -? Z.?5 /5' � 3lv Rro}s G/ft y a 2z -19 �3 JAVIS Don )P 13 T c Jack Antonissen .2266 Janis Way Carlsbad, Ca 92008 (619) 434-2580 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, Ca 92009 I reside at 2266 Janis Way, two doors east of the Redding residence. I have received your notice of the public hearing regarding the front yard wall at 2246 Janis Way. Unfortunately, my schedule does not permit me to attend the meeting on November 1, 1989. However, I wish to voice my opinion in this letter and go on record as if i were there. Homeowners should be entitled to enjoy their home and enhance their property to the highest possible level. None of us, and I'm sure none of you, could enjoy our homes with the undesirable view the Reddings have from inside their home. Their solution of a Spanish wail to eliminate that condition was brilliant The construct' on of the wall is identical to the city's wall directly across the street in height and in distance from the curb. It balances the street. The permit for that house was issued to the developer, by the City of Carlsbad. Was any thought given as to how the potential owner of that house could deal -,with the direct view of the pumps? The developer should have been made to enhance that area of the reservoir through screens, plants, trees, or whatever. Instead, the Reddings had to take on that burden at their expense. Considering the extenuating circumstances surrounding the situation, I feel any additional hardships, emotionally or financially would be unnecessary. I therefore urge the planning commission to approve the appeal for the administrative variance. Sincerely, Jack Antonissen NA, October?,0,1989 4 Carlsbad Planning Commission Carlsbad, CA Dear Planning Commission, This letter is in support of my neighbors Morris and Virginia Redding at 2246 Janis Way, Carlsbad, CA. They have begun construction of a wall to screen an unpleasant view of the Carlsbad City water holding tank directly across the street from their home. This wall In no way offends, causes damage or discomfort to me. I support the completion of the wall as planned. I believe this will be an asset to our neighborhood. ! I can be reached during the day at (619) 259-7240 if there are questions or comments on my t position. Sincerely, x Virgin a Sandstrom O'Brien 3501 Bedford Circle Carlsbad; CA 92008 t 4 e ' t 31 October 1989 From: Marion McCord, 2226 Janis Way, Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 To: City of Carlsbad Plannning Commission Subj: CASE FILE AV 89-7, REDDING APPLICANT I have no objections to the overheight fence in the front yard set back on the property located at 2246 Janis Way. When finished, I believe that the fence will not be unsightly. Marion McCord SUdbud ,PAU ih 2276 3W4 IWOV Carlsbad, Ca 92" City of Cartdod Vanning Comndssion a Ihm at the end of the wt-ode-sao on Canis OWay, and J am in support of the 2adir4s in them' appeal f r the wall. Ot does not hinder my view or daract f tom the boo d of the neighborhood. at is =U designed aid J haute 1w ohje Ahm to the wail mnabdng wham it is. 2idat+d P'.etwA 10/219/89 t i i h' e Ken Swift 2256 Janis Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 City of Carlsbad Planning Commission 2075 Las Palmas Drive -Carlsbad, CA 92009 ' Dear Sirs: I live directly -east of the Reddings on Janis Way, and I have no objeotion to their wall. Sincerely, 'Ken Swift 4 A = rc�a.-r fwn 7w::-w7e •t ?'i >..a — - •�: �,,_ : .�q` _ /,; �c� .w•y. _ sc.- �f ' +,� i•,.t y. �j. '.+'_.� . � �. 'i, :•➢�t.+"^?�vc�i�•,i�'� �. '1,' . ru - e1i ,��,� �� :: ' "r; P 'i:' ~'xt. . r'{ • �, 16 Ir 'tr ,... .�� "`"� .. ':tip .<; �s•..: .. i.r,�.. .,�t _ � , ' " �( � I '� .. ^tea F .> � _•'•�, n ��,,����LL ' i• r► ear ^ � � � . . 1 , r it .. . •.•+•r'� q i ='� May '.. ., '' 4 � • t s� Carlsbad a Decreed A Legal Newspaper by urnal the Superior Court of San Diego County Mail all correspondence regarding public notice adverlising 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 age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above entitled I am principal clerk of the printer of the Carlsbad Journal a newspaper published twice weekly in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of C matter. newspaper is published for the dissemination of local news and intelligen a of ar of general circulation, which newspaper at all times herein mentioned had and still has a boric fide subscription and which subscribers, and which newspaper has been established, printed and published ae iptio character, and the said City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, fora period exceeding crtegul list to paying t regular intervals in preceding the date of publyear next tatioofthe 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 newspaperand not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to -wit; I202.2M•12/87 November 24........ 19. 89, 19, .. . ................................ 19.... ......... 19.... ..................... 19.... I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Carlsbad, County Californiaon of San Diego, State of day of U Clerk of the Printer it I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL AV 89_7 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hol a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, d California, at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, December 5 of the Planning Commission denial of an Administrative,Varianceitoralan lowpanal overheight fence in the front yard setback of a single family residence on property generally located at 2246 Janis Wayand more particularly described as: Lot 26 of Carlsbad Tract No. 81-19, Unit No. 2 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, Mar Y Montanas California, according to Mao. g State of Office of the County Recorder tOfrSan DiegolCount594, f, in the August 20, 1986. y, on If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call the Planning Department at 438-1161. If you challenge the Administrative Variance in court ou may be raising only those issues you or someone else raised atythe publiclimited 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: Redding PUBLISH: November 24, 1989 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 0 q �CAW AV 8 ,(v NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING''` NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public bearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 1, 1989, to consider an appeal of a Planning Director's denial of an Administrative Variance to allow an overheight fence in the front yard setback of a single family residence on property generally located at 2246 Janis Way and more particularly described as: Lot 26 of Carlsbad Tract No. 81-19 Unit No. 2, Mar Y Montanas in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 11594 filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County August 20, 1986. i 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 Administrative Variance in court, you may be limited to raising only those It issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written i correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. i r i } CASE FILE: AV 89-7 APPLICANT: Redding PUBLISH: October 20, 1989 i CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 4 w, (Form A) TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice _ AV 89-7 - REDDING (APPEAL) for a public hearing before the City Council. Please notice the item for the council meeting of DEC. 5, 1989 Thank you. Assistant City Man 11/16/89 Date 41 t G.W. & C.K. Bryan W.I. & H.J. Gullett Occupant Po Box 748 2520 Ridgecrest Dr 3561 Celinda Dr Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 J.D. & D.S. White Occupant Occupant 3531 Ridgecrest Dr 3500 Bedford Cr 2220 Sara Wy Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad Ca 92008 L.J. & P.A. Bonagura Elleiy Reservoir Occupant 3521 Ridgecrest Dr 2220 Sara Wy Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 .` MacMurray, D. &Wagner, J.K. Occupant Occupant 3511 Ridgecrest Dr 3481 Celinda Dr 2210 Sara Way Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 William V. Daly Occupant Occupant 3570 Ridgecrest Dr. 3501 Celinda Dr 3451 Celinda Dr Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 x ;:. Roberta R. Whitlock Occupant Occupant 3560 Ridgecrest Dr 3511 Celinda Dr 3461 Celinda Dr i Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 I 1� M.P. & R.M. Taloue Occupant Occupant 3550 Ridgecrest Dr 3531 Celinda Dr 3471 Celinda Dr Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 D.H. & O.H. Gellhorn Occupant Occupant 3540 Ridgecrest Dr 3541 Celinda Dr 2160 Janis Wy Carlsbad CA 92008. Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 P.J. & L, Langlols Occupant Occupant 3530 Ridgecrest Dr 2551 Celinda Dr 2216 Janis Wy Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 92008 Y t W mm Frances McCord 2226 Janis Wy Carlsbad CA 92008 Dale Rubacki 2236 Janis Wy Carlsbad CA 92008 Morris Redding 2246 Janis Wy Carlsbad CA 92008 Ken & Pat Swift 2256 Janis Wy Carlsbad CA 92008 Occupant 2276 Janis-Wy Carlsbad CA 92008 Geoff & Chris Armour 2286 Janis Wy Carlsbad, CA 92008 Janet Nakaws 2235 Janis Wy Carlsbad CA 92008 Occupant 2225 Janis Wy Carlsbad CA 92008 Occupant 2215 Janis Wy Carlsbad CA 92008 q- " y 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Of/Ice of the City Clerk DATE: November 6, 1989 TO: Bobbie Hoder - Planning Dept. FROM: _Kasen Kundtz - Cit Clerk's Office RE: Plannin Commission Denial of AV 89-7 TELEPHONE (619) 434.2808 THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed, (REMINDER: The item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off b all parties.) y Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call. The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the C;.ty Council Meeting of Signature . Date tJ. 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 O111ee of the City Clerk CITY CLEWS OFFICE TELEPHONE 89 Pdov _6 Ali 11 S 40'(619) 434.2808 CITY OF CARLSBAD I (We) appeal the following decision of the ���� < ALA to the City Council: Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): 4 i A 7,x- 1 F Ci Aa&I's i V1R(ttNIA Date Sin Name (Please Print) n2 z y.�/iti�. Address Telephone Number q-S r k ¢ f CITY OF t ARLSBAD 1200 ELM ,.,iENUE CA'ALSBAD, CALIFO.AIA 92008 438.6621 t REC'D DATE- 0 { In ',99 VI6 9 199,090 TL', ACCO!!NT NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT OF I Mom I i I i I t RECEIPT NO. 94822 TOTAL I 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the City Clerk DATE: TO: FROM: RE: November 6, 1989 Bobbie Hoder - Planning Dept. Karen Kundtz - Cit Clerk's Office Plannin Commission Denial of AV 89-7 - Reddin THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. TELEPHONE (619) 434.2808 According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by all parties.) Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call. The appear the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council Meeting o x y r� Sftta ure Date - 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office o/ the City Clerk APPEAL FORM RECEIVC%o CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TELEPHONE 89 NOV - 6 Ali l (: 4 6(619) 434.2808 CITY OF CAR! SCAO /I (We) appeal the following decision of the �� � to the City Council: Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): flllC' F ot Oate Si�n //t'�=/�r/i Name (Please Print) Address ell Telephone Number